January 6, 2015

"My Husband's Not Gay" - Mormon wives of openly gay men, now on reality TV

"These Mormon women married men who like men — and they’re all OK with it"

So reads the clickbait headline for an NY Post article on the subjects of a new reality show ("My Husband's Not Gay") about Mormon women who were duped into marriage and children by queers, who were only selfishly concerned with finding the ultimate beard defense against social ostracism.

"Who lookth tho fabulouthly not-gay? Thith guyyy!"

Just imagine the poor children whose family portraits will be disfigured by their Peter Pan daddy flashing his flaming drama queen gayface in every picture. And imagine when your friends come over, having to explain why your dad looks like a creepy pedophile.

Or whose minds will be forever scarred by being told at age 6 that, "Daddy has these feelings, but he chose to be with Mommy." No joke, one of the couples actually revealed daddy's buttsex yearnings to a SIX YEAR-OLD CHILD. The poor kid isn't old enough to understand anything about sex, romance, marriage, etc. It would be awkward enough for a normal couple to talk about their sexual urges with a child that young. It's a downright abomination of the parental role to do so when daddy digs dicks.

Imagine growing up knowing that mommy and daddy do not, and cannot love each other as husband and wife, but that daddy was looking for a baby-maker to satisfy his ego, and thus had to settle for marriage to a woman.

Another couple is also telling their kids what's up at early ages:

And, depending on their ages, our kids [ages 9 through 16] know about the SSA [obscuring euphemism for homosexuality, i.e. "same sex attraction" - ed.] to varying degrees. They love and support their dad, and realize that people don’t have to be perfect to be loved by God.

Imagine growing up having to cope with the burden of your dad being mentally crippled and warped — and not in a garden variety way where he just wails on the kids every now and then, but is subject to all the myriad symptoms of gay Peter Pan syndrome. Children should not have to grow up supporting their stunted father, the father is supposed to be the support for the fledgling children.

The rationalization about being loved by God is a shameful red herring. It's not their gay yearnings per se that will get them tossed into the fiery pits of Hell, but their duping of naive women who could have had a halfway normal marriage and family life, and assuming a parental role when they are still stuck in the immature "yucky, girls have cooties" stage of development themselves.

Not to mention the endless adulteration of the marriage because gay men can't actually control their urges nowadays, despite all the propaganda we hear from both secular and religious ideologues on the matter. One of the couples has been married for 20 years, and for the first 15 years the husband had been whoring himself around with other men. Yup, no big deal to overcome, just being told that your husband of 15 years has been licking the shit out of other dudes' buttholes.

Anyone who thinks these women haven't already contracted something from their gay husbands is dangerously naive. AIDS is only the tip of iceberg, and there are surely hundreds or thousands of pathogens that are primarily passed around among gays that we don't even know about (forbidden science because think of the homophobic implications). That's why AIDS is much higher among black women than white women: black men who sleep with (black) women are way more likely to be "on the down-low," i.e. not sharing that part of their identity that prefers getting blasted up the ass with viral loads.

In fact, one of the couples had a child that died shortly after birth. I wonder how much daddy's toxic sperm contributed to that ending. Women are already engaged in an evolutionary arm's race against men regarding intercourse and pregnancy (sperm evolving to out-maneuver the female reproductive tract, which in turn evolves greater defenses and rejection strategies in case it becomes compromised). It's no stretch to imagine their reproductive system becoming corrupted by all the germs that the gay husband has been carrying around, both inside and outside.

Who would even consider staying in such a relationship once they found out about being duped, adulterated, and still in for a lifetime of shame? Women with no self-esteem, AKA fat chicks (look at the pictures). Who else would sit through a dinner date where their husband is constantly ogling the waiter, with whom he also makes childish handjob jokes?

Episodes like that reveal the phoniness of their philosophy of "It's OK to look but not touch." It's disrespectful and trust-destroying for the husband to have such a roving eye and flirtatious speech, especially when his wife is right there the whole time.

It's obvious that the two are not equals or compatible, and that the wife is serving as a babysitter for the broken kiddie husband. Although not sexually attracted to each other, they at least claim an emotional fondness. But that makes the relationship more like that of an impulsive kid brother and his protective big sister. This quasi-incestuous nature of their marriage and family formation adds a whole 'nother layer of freakishness onto their abomination of a relationship.

But they're not just any old bunch of broken fat chicks — they're Mormon fat chicks, whose religion emphasizes marriage and large nuclear families as a step toward salvation.

Here we see a critical weakness in natalist approaches to preserve tradition and enhance cohesion. If it's all about family size, then O come all ye Mexicans living 20 people to a house. Blessed are the fag-wedders: for theirs is the future of America.

American traditions won't survive in a world where natives are being out-bred by immigrants. And if natalists don't care about preserving the sanctity of marriage and of the parent-child relationship, then their influence is toward greater corruption — more and more marriages of the broken kind. There may be a logical independence between natalism and purity-mindedness, so that you could be both natalist and against all of the corrupting trends under way.

But psychologically, natalism trumps purity-mindedness. Or at least here and now it does. It's the same mindset that views all growth as good, no matter in what direction growth is headed toward or how fast and uncontrollably it's moving. It's a mindset that worships an abstraction and treats real physical beings and things as homogeneous fungible units.

Even more disturbingly, it's not a mindset that recognizes a trade-off between quantity and quality, while choosing more quantity of lower quality. They are simply blind, deaf, and numb to matters of quality, and see only in quantities. People who accumulate stuff, and economists who rejoice at how much stuff is consumed nowadays, don't mention that most of it is cheap Chinese crud, but hey at least we've got a lot of it. It's just, "Wow, look at all this stuff!"

In the same way, "Wow, look at all these new Utahns!" Salt Lake City is now around 65% white and 25% Mexican.

Reminder: Salt Lake City is also the gayest city in the country, by objective measures of gay lifestyle signals per capita. And those statistics were compiled before a Salt Lake City judge ruled in favor of gay marriage.

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by the permissive attitudes toward cultural stewardship in a population that traces its roots back to a polygamous cult founded in the 19th century, that was driven out of every town east of the Mississippi that they tried to settle into. But hey, economic growth and big nuclear families, so no big deal I guess.

Add on top of that the pussy behavior of the largely Saxon-Scandinavian make-up of the white population in Utah, and it's no wonder to find such weak effective policing of gay deviance in the Minnesota of the West.


  1. aren't the Mormon "elders" superrich? that would imply that the status-striving tendency is strong within Mormonism, which would explain why they are more tolerant of abnormal behavior.

  2. polygamy in general seems like it would go along with status-striving - women would rather be in a polygamous marriage with a bigshot, than settle for an average schlub.

    through history, it seems that polygamy and homosexuality have gone hand in hand. i'm recalling all those ancient empires with harems and eunuchs. plus, it seems that, in times of inequality, elites would encourage homosexuality since it meant more women for them.

    I remember reading somewhere that Saudi Arabia, which still has legal polygamy, has a massive homosexual subculture.

  3. "Fancy Mormon Churches point to how Rich the Mormon Church is"

    "Mormon temples are often built near highways to impress passing drivers with their splendor.

    These magnificent structures may be one of many recruitment techniques that helped the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints gain nearly 2 million new followers in the U.S. in a decade — more than any other religion — for a total of 6.14 million, according to the 2010 U.S. Religion Census.

    Globally, Mormon temples and meetinghouses are worth an estimated $35 billion, reported Reuters in 2012. They represent the most outward show of wealth for an organization whose finances are secret but thought to be extensive."

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/fancy-mormon-temples-2014-8?op=1#ixzz3O4N0mSKw

    ornate buildings and architecture seems more like a status-striving thing, so the status-striving trend is very strong in Mormonism. in turn, homosexuality is linked to status-striving and inequality.

  4. Curtis, I think that all denominations are going to be more decadent and corrupt in a high inequality period. The latest pope is basically a self parody of muticult/liberal guilt/one worldism taken to a nauseating extreme.

    At this stage of the game the Catholic church is overtly and aggressively more concerned about growing it's brand/consumer base rather than sincerely promoting faith.

    What element of our society right now is more concerned with the well being of others as opposed to shamelessly in it for maximum money and status?

  5. I believe the Mormons have a more egalitarian income or wealth distribution, owing to their Scandinavian leanings.

    The main form that Mormon inequality took during their Gilded Age founding, and in the neo-Gilded Age today, is reproductive inequality. Back then the elite men had many wives, and today the elite men have more children by their monogamous wives (one of the few places in the modern world where greater wealth leads to *greater* reproduction).

  6. some random guy1/6/15, 8:05 PM

    Looks like typical Mormons to me. I always thought that fag face was just the natural look for LDS guys. I always thought it was some kind of zombie religious effect. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

  7. "At this stage of the game the Catholic church is overtly and aggressively more concerned about growing it's brand/consumer base rather than sincerely promoting faith."

    Actually, it's even worse than that, Feryl.Not only does Bergoglio view the Church as a glorified NGO, but he has repeatedly mocked and belittled sincere and traditionally minded Catholics, who do indeed want to convert people. He has accused people of "proselytizing," which is an interesting choice of words when you consider it in the context of cocooning. I particularly like that his handlers had the audacity to release a book called "The Little Flowers of Pope Francis." It seems more like something a communist dictator would release, compared to what the Vicar of Christ is supposed to be like. Actually, a whole article could be written about how Bergoglio is representative of our degenerate age, including his callous permissiveness, and his false humility (status-striving, much). The Church might be expanding in Africa (when it's not competing with Protestant sects), but the idea that the Church is expanding its "consumer base" in western countries is risible.

    More on topic, Glenn Beck is a Mormon and he heavily supports sodomy. Last year he said he would "stand with GLAAD" against that big meanie in Russia, Putin. I have no doubt Beck is thrilled about this show.



    Also, Beck's site, The Blaze promoted a book called "Conservative Insurgency," about Conservatives saving America by being super nice and reasonable. One of the characters is a gay, Chinese, Evangelical Christian talk show host. It's like the author read your website, and took away the exact wrong message, Agnostic.


    "In 2041, America’s number-one conservative satellite/web talk show host is David Chang. Chang, a gay conservative evangelical Christian who often spars with his conservative atheist cohost Timmy Tyler, is often called “the Rush Limbaugh of our generation.” He recalls how the elite liberal mindset was simply intolerable and how he fought back. Chang is a 2015 Harvard Law School graduate who first made a name for himself when he forced the school to readmit him after expelling him for “hate speech” for wondering aloud in class, “How can any gay American be part of the fraud that is progressivism? You know that it was the progressive’s brothers the Nazis who pinned pink triangles to us and put us in camps, right?”

  8. The Vermifuge1/7/15, 9:38 AM

    I never know how much of these types of shows are real. Some of it is a troll-job by the producers; some of it is a propaganda spiel; some of it is so the viewers can laugh at the inept lives; and some of it, in our status-striving times, is the family whoring itself out to the cameras, since being on television is the pinnacle of visibility. The sentiment, of course, is real.

  9. Stone all false prophets including Glenn Beck.

  10. "Progressives are the REAL racists and homophobes!"

    Rule #1 for those being persecuted in a witch hunt -- do not confess that witches are an epidemic problem.

    Rule #2 -- especially do not try to paint the witch-hunters as the REAL witches.

    Unless you want to lose.

  11. Let's look at some of the superficial details that Beck got wrong. By themselves they aren't damning, but they support the bigger picture of him being tone-deaf and out-of-touch.

    Chinese guy named "David"? Don't think I've ever met one. Chinese parents aim for WASP-y, nerdy, or inconspicuous names, not bolder ones like David. Albert, Troy, Andy, yes, but not Abrahamic ones like David.

    Second, he should be Korean not Chinese, if he's an evangelical nutball -- or any kind of committed Christian.

    Third, he wouldn't have gone to Harvard Law School, or probably any law school. Asians are not verbal / logical geniuses. Harvard Medical School, MIT Engineering, OK.

    Related to that, he would not be a talk show host. Notice the total lack of Asians in verbal performance fields -- acting, stand-up comedy, pop music, daytime or late night talk show hosts, or presenters / interviewers on the evening news (whoever tries to answer with "Connie Chung" scores an own-goal).

    For those fields, you need both verbal skills plus an extraverted personality, in other words the polar opposite of Asians. Back on planet Earth, those fields are more dominated by Celts and Jews.

    Fourth, Asians aren't politically active and outspoken about anything, whether conservative, liberal, moderate, or whatever. Don't make waves.

    Really the only matching detail he got right was making the Chinese a queer. According to the General Social Survey, around 4% of American males overall are gay, whereas 12% or three times as many Asian-American males are gay (based on their sex partners of the past 5 years).

    "Timmy Tyler" is also a ridiculous name, I don't know where he got that. Timmy used to be a stock / generic name for a boy, among the generation that grew up watching Lassie. But it was never a stock name for an adult. If he wanted a generic alliterative name, why not John Jones? At least it sounds grown-up.

    Again, all of these tin-earred details that he got horribly wrong are not merely superficial flaws, but are the surface hints of the confused and moronic substance that lies at the core.

  12. "Rule #1 for those being persecuted in a witch hunt -- do not confess that witches are an epidemic problem.

    Rule #2 -- especially do not try to paint the witch-hunters as the REAL witches."

    To simplify, use heartiste's old axiom of "agree and amplify."

  13. Beck was not the author of that piece of speculative fiction -- he just hosted the piece. I'm assuming "David Chang" is sort of modeled after Francis Chan:


    Francis is not gay, but is indeed a very charismatic preacher and speaker. And there are plenty of Chinese Christians -- the church is growing by leaps and bounds in China and here in the U.S. among Chinese communities it is healthy (but you are right that the Koreans are more intense church-goers).

  14. Beck (b. Feb 10 1964, another I got mine Boomer blowhard) is more proof of how dorky, soulless, thoughtless, and perverse the post 1992 culture is.

    I know we talk about some F'd in the head Gen X-ers/Millennials being in the spotlight these days but it seems like most of the dominant figures feeding on America's carcass are Boomers.

    Those born after the Boomers have been disgusted by the growing stench of that carcass most (or all if born later) of their lives, shaking their heads at the smug Boomers who'll never set their BS aside so we can finally began a long overdue correction of the culture.

    "but the idea that the Church is expanding its "consumer base" in western countries is risible."

    Yeah, the Catholic church is so dead in the West that they have to resort to tapping the turd world. Religious reverence in general is so dead right now in the West that there are expanding efforts in all denominations (well, at least the least non hill billy ones) to "modernize" or liberalize. In effect this renders so called religious culture indistinguishable from perved out modern secular culture. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em I guess.

    It's the height of pride and greed for a putz like Beck to masquerade as some sort of Christian avenger. Would ya just shup up already?

    It's tough to read Beck, is he that delusional or an opportunist/troll? Assuming the David Chang thing is a ruse I gotta think he's laughing his way to the bank. His Wiki page basically ignores his political opinions/activities pre 90's, odd given much of his life that is.

    After he evidently kicked booze in the early 90's he must've sensed how wacky things were getting and how easy it would be to exploit our growing desire for total BS. Thus he became this all inclusive cosmopolitan Messiah. God loves us all, don't worry about those silly gays sticking appendages where they don't belong. It's not for us to judge and don't forget to go to my website or buy my cynically churned out books.

  15. Hosting the piece would still be promotion, especially if he wasn't being ironic, "Can you believe how stupid this thing is?"

    The Boomers, especially the late Boomers, are the best entertainers. They're the ones who made all that great music in the '80s.

    But we should see the flipside of that strength, which is their tendency to treat politics and debate as performance art that's meant to boost their brand recognition among the consumer base, rather than actually figure out what the hell's going on and what can be done about it.

  16. Admittedly there is a similar strain among Gen X and especially Millennials, with their vapid, sensationalized "news" sites that are 100% clickbait bullshit. But in the big scheme of things, they're small potatoes compared to Howard Stern, Bill Maher, Jon Liebowitz, and all the rest of the Boomers.

  17. This is why your site is interesting. I intuitively understood all those things were wrong with that article, but wouldn't have been able to articulate those.

    Interesting that you'd peg Beck as a boomer, Feryl. I would have thought of him as an early Gen Xer, myself.

    "Yeah, the Catholic church is so dead in the West that they have to resort to tapping the turd world. Religious reverence in general is so dead right now in the West that there are expanding efforts in all denominations (well, at least the least non hill billy ones) to "modernize" or liberalize. In effect this renders so called religious culture indistinguishable from perved out modern secular culture. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em I guess."

    "15"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?" - Matthew 7: 15-16

    I was going to write a long paragraph about how if your Church leaders don't believe in the dogma, no one else is going to. But this woman does it in a much better way than I ever could:


    It should be immediately obvious that she's a Gen Xer from her rhetorical style. She's nuts, but she's also the only "conservative" that has criticized status striving and cocooning, if only by accident.

    "But we should see the flipside of that strength, which is their tendency to treat politics and debate as performance art that's meant to boost their brand recognition among the consumer base, rather than actually figure out what the hell's going on and what can be done about it."

    And yet they're surprised whenever the Republicans they vote for betray them...

  18. "Interesting that you'd peg Beck as a boomer, Feryl. I would have thought of him as an early Gen Xer, myself."

    I think the 1st true blue Gen X-ers were born in 1966. '64/'65ers are fairly close to Gen X-ers but they strike me as being a bit too outgoing, optimistic and having the "aren't we special" sort of conceit that Boomers have. Especially the 1964 ones. Just look at how many of the big media clowns we've been talking about were born before 1966. Real Gen X-ers don't wanna be front and center smirking as the West smolders.

  19. Late wave Boomers(1955-1965), are a separate generation. You can call them "the Disco Generation".

  20. "Late wave Boomers(1955-1965), are a separate generation. You can call them "the Disco Generation".

    Maybe it's the birth rate thing, maybe it's Strauss & Howe (who consider Gen-Xers to be from '61-'81. Whatever the reason early 60's types are rather erronereously lumped in with Gen X-ers by many. From a personality/values standpoint that doesn't always add up.

    Just look at the New Wave/Metal bands created by early 60's born Boomers in the 80's and compare them with the born in the later 60's Gen X bands that came about in the very late 80's/90's.

    Sure the '60-'65 cohort is more cynical and less smug than the early Boomers. But those very late Boomers still are a bit too high spirited and loquacious to fit comfortably in with phlegmatic, reflective Gen X-ers.

    I think it's sensible to treat certain periods as tweener periods. So early 60's types are a cross between (or a bridge between) Boomers and X-ers. Likewise, early 40's types aren't quite Silent Gen or Boomers. And those born from about 1981-1986 will be a mix of Gen X and Millennial.

    None of this is really concrete or definitive, there's a reason we see such conflicting conceptions of each generation and maybe I'm full of it too. Who knows?

  21. In Strauss and Howe's model, there is a "wild" generation born around the time the crime rate rapidly rises, as it did from about 1955-'70. This seems to fit the Disco Generation.

  22. There is a generation in the middle, between Boomers and Xers, that is more cynical and opportunistic than the early Boomers, yet also more wild than Gen X. This is the generation depicted in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High", for example.

  23. Boomers: 1941-1952
    Disco: 1953-1964
    Gen X: 1965-1984
    Millenials: 1985-?

    I correlated it with presidential terms for convenience.

  24. "There is a generation in the middle, between Boomers and X-ers, that is more cynical and opportunistic than the early Boomers, yet also more wild than Gen X."

    Indeed, Glen Beck (born early '64) was a nomadic drunk before the 90's. It also makes sense that so many wacky, sex crazed teen movies (with tons of nudity) were made in the late 70's-mid 80's which were produced by early Boomers and featured mid-late Boomer actors.

    This sort of thing became less feasible and appealing with stolid, inhibited Gen X-ers. "Take my top off for some sleazy director who's out to make a buck? No way, I'm not gonna be another cog in the machine".

    I guess I see what Curtis (i think it was him) was saying when he talked about X-ers being idealistic. Idealistic in the sense of wanting to avoid tempation and keep their self respect rather than be like the fun but easily corrupted/exploited Boomers.

    This kind of strident integrity had the regrettable side effect of making X-ers rather preachy compared to rambunctious enjoy the moment Boomers. This sense of responsibility alas got easily warped into brain dead PC liberalism after the fall of communism which also coincided with people beginning to withdraw from each other.

    It got so overdone so fast that already by 1994 a movie called PCU came out that spoofed the knee jerk PC haunting 90's campuses. There were enough modest, irreverent Gen X-ers that the young people of the time thought the movie was pretty funny.

    Nowadays I doubt conformist, shallow, and histrionic Millennials would be able to laugh at themselves and their foibles. Everything is so Epic, You Only Live Once so don't mock us too hard. Wouldn't want to be insensitive to our precious kids as they continue their wondrous journey.

    Speaking of which, we saw plenty of culture in the 70's, 80's, 90's that threw a lot of jabs at Boomers and X-ers probably because they were fairly good sports. Since about 2000 has there been much in the way of media irreverence toward Millennials? Actually there hasn't been much non liberal pointed satire of anyone since then which I think is a sign of how neurotic and uptight we've gotten. About the only one you're allowed to bash anymore are Christians, racists/rednicks and pedophiles.

    Note that the biggest post 2000 satirists are largely crass, glib, charlatans who are too fickle and trendy to really belong to any group. Maybe that's why we don't see much recognition let alone satire of generations and their strengths and weaknesses

    In an online forum (South Park Studios Chat, 10 May 2001),[4] Parker and Stone responded to a participant's question:

    Q: Are you two guys liberal or conservative? Me and my friends have had debates about this.
    Parker: We avoid extremes but we hate liberals more than conservatives and we hate them [conservatives].
    Stone: I hate conservatives but I really fucking hate liberals.

    I admit that South Park can be funny but obviously Stone and Parker would be stronger and more likable if they would develop a well grounded set of values from which to make judgements. Ultimately their shallow and selfish current values blind them to the heart of the modern Western Cesspool. The enemy is the corrosive nihilism within way too many of us. It ain't God, it's not goverment, it's not CEOs.

  25. Listen up, bigots, I suggest you educate yourself on the topic of "gay man, straight woman" couples by reading Alison Bechdel's "Fun home". Or do you dare suggest that any of the following was somehow bad for the children?

    1) The father, a high-school English teacher, fucks his male students.
    2) The father fucks the childrens' (male) babysitter.
    3) The father takes the mother on a trip to Europe to meet one of his old "lovers".
    3) The father refuses to refer to the mother by anything other than "you".

  26. advancedatheist1/11/15, 2:51 PM

    Mormons' dorky white wholesomeness always rubbed me the wrong way. But then I come from Southern white trash, which has different sensibilities about how white people should behave. That might account for why Mormonism never made major inroads into the South.

    I have to wonder if white Mormon behavior preserves how New England Puritans behaved 200 years ago. It does seem to combine the religious high-mindedness and emphasis on worldly financial success that characterized the Puritans of that era.

  27. Ag,

    I agree that dad has gayface, but most importantly, it looks as if his smile and the rest of his facial expression is natural to him. I have to believe that there IS something phenotypically different in the face between gay men and straight men and think they need to research it more fully.

  28. Mormons did originate in Puritanical New England / New York, then moved westward and westward until they found a place where there was no settled group to kick them out of. Luckily the frontier was pretty open back then, although not yet pacified against the Indians.

    Add in waves of converts from Scandinavia and Saxon converts, and that's why Utah stands out as a Minnesota in the middle of the Wild West.

  29. You state the opinion that these men are using their wives as beards. Maybe they're trying to become straight and overcome their condition. Most people say it's a choice, not biological. If it is caused by a virus, can the virus be identified? If so, perhaps an anti-virus can be designed. Given the advances in medical technology, one would think they would seek a cure. Whoever did would make a fortune.

  30. The women get at least a halfway normal family life - they get kids, a house, all that. Just not a lot of sees from hubby. I'll bet there are more women who would be ok with no sex with hubby (once they've had their three kids) than there are gay men to marry them. Especially in a sexually conservative environment where a low libido can combine with "sex is icky" messaging they aim at kids, to create the perfect beards.

  31. It looks like Troy Aikman fathered two children even though he was clearly gay and filling poop chutes since college:


    I guess I get the beard thing, since you want your fans to love you and you want to keep your endorsement deals. But why have two kids and pretend to be straight??

  32. Per Wiki on Troy Aikman:

    - once named the most eligible bachelor in Dallas by Texas Monthly (hhhmmm)

    - dated country singer Lorrie Morgan,[14] and there were rumors of him dating Sandra Bullock and Janine Turner. (opportunistic relations and would-be relations w/ female celebs including yup, Bullock. Move along, nothing to see here).

    - In Skip Bayless' 1996 book Hell-Bent: The Crazy Truth About the “Win or Else” Dallas Cowboys, Bayless states that Aikman is gay. (Public figure outs him, Aikman doesn't aggressively and persuasively commence a campaign to restore his identity and good name. Compare with Tom Cruise suing a desperate dumbass guy and the magazine that paid said dumbass to claim he slept with Cruise)

    - Aikman responded, "It is ridiculous, and, yeah, it bothers me. If that is a lifestyle people choose, so be it. It doesn't affect me one way or another. But it is not my lifestyle. (weak ass denial. The best denials are short as possible e.g. I'm not gay. Aikman's gayness and his discomfort about revealing it are made obvious by the circuitous way he deals with the issue instead of emphatically facing the issue.

    Read statementanalysis.com for good tips on how to spot a liar.

    Q. "Is Tom Brady a cheater?"

    "I don't believe so. I mean I feel like I've always played within the rules. I would never do anything to break the rules."

    Brady was asked if he was a cheater. The best denial is to say, "No." Instead, Brady said, "I don't believe so." This means he is uncertain if he is a cheater.

    "He then states that he "would never do anything to break the rules." The word "would" means Brady is talking about the future. In the future, he would never break the rules. The word "never" when used in a denial is a weaker denial. Saying, "I didn't do anything to break the rules" is a much better denial."

    If a lawyer asks you if you saw a red car yesterday, you'd answer with yes or no if you were being truthful. If you said, "uhh, maybe but it could've been orange" you'd look like you were full of BS.

  33. "I guess I get the beard thing, since you want your fans to love you and you want to keep your endorsement deals. But why have two kids and pretend to be straight??"

    There certainly are at least a few gays who go through phases of confusion, guilt, and depression ("questioning", not just of being hetero but insecurity about any kind of identity). Maybe he figured that having a couple kids would anchor him down to a normal life, but after a few years, he starts getting those urges again and eventually acts on them. His wife get tired of his coldness (and probably more and more brazen flings with boys). They grow apart, the woman in particular losing any sense that he'll ever be a loving Husband and initiating the break up.

    It's not out of the question that a guy like Aikman might get physical pleasure from doing a chick. His main problem, the quintessential gay problem, is being a toddler in a grown up's body so he'll never be fully emotionally committed to anyone, much less a woman.

    The moment any dude chooses to put a body part into another dude is the point of no return. Anybody who reaches that point has already experienced a serious disturbance in their development of a healthy self concept and an ability to form positive relationships with others.

    Come to think of it, the increasingly deranged sexuality of post 1990 America is pretty good proof that we're all in an autistic stupor, though gays as always we'll be the most ferocious bringers of misery.

  34. Yeah, I figured out it was Troy Aikman before all the answers poured in -- not that it was hard. Just googled "retired pro athlete gay rumors" or something, and it was him. Search Google Images for pics of him and Joe Buck, his sportscasting bud who looks like a real flamer. There are too many of Buck staring intensely and creepily at Aikman.

    Even their names sound like over-the-top caricatures of gay porno actors -- Troy Aikman and Joe Buck star in the 2015 reboot of... The Longest Yard.

  35. And of course I LOLed when I read about his supposed relationship with Sandra Bullock -- she works so well as a beard (see also Ryan Reynolds) because she's a flaming tranny herself, and gets it. (The one case where I use "she" for trannies, just out of habit in her case.)

    Aikman married a publicist for the Dallas Cowboys, the perfect beard who had every reason to keep it a secret. I doubt she was expecting him to actually do her in order to get pregnant. Probably went the in vitro route.

    Why have kids, beyond a sham marriage? It's even more ammunition against everyone who outs you as gay. "Oh yeah, would a homo get a chick pregnant?"

    But we all know they can fertilize in vitro. Meanwhile you have zero chemistry with your sham-wife, and look repulsed by getting touchy-feely with her. If a closeted queer really wanted to prove he wasn't gay, he'd have to show how comfortable he was with her physically. They don't bother because all female sexuality is so grossing-out to them. Not even the possibility of silencing all those gay rumors is motive enough to get physically passionate with a girl. The cootie factor would make them barf and pass out.


  36. him and Joe Buck, his sportscasting bud who looks like a real flamer. There are too many of Buck staring intensely and creepily at Aikman.

    Buck has been heavily lambasted by fans for his apparent lack of enthusiasm, especially in his early days. Being gay, he loves acting so he eventually "learned the part" and he puts more energy into the gig these days.

    An unconscious source of hostility for Buck is the way he's got the "dead eyes" and flat affect thing going on. Hetero fans are picking up on this but aren't fully aware of just why they're creeped out. Back in the 80's a normal dude would've been like, "A creepy sicko like Joe Buck is why John Walsh wants you to pay attention to milk carton photos"

    Joe's father was a very successful announcer which is why he's gotten anywhere.

    I think most sports fans are so ardently masculine that they tend to sense a homo when they see/hear one so most fans wouldn't tolerate a homo polluting the broadcast booth, particularly the hometown booth. Local announcers in particular are often either folksy/amiable or irascible/gruff, two things that gays rarely pull off. Gays obviously aren't consistently personable and when they emote it is just obnoxious and childish rather than endearing.

    I grew up listening to the gentle, Virginia fried pipes of MN Twins announcer Herb Carneal (how well liked was he? He had the job from 1962-2006). Baseball announcers especially need to have some sincere charm since the season is so damn long. Needless to say, those who established their careers before the weirdness of the 90's are much less suspect.

    I think TV is more aware of fashion and pleasing the female demo, so the probability of a homo in national TV broadcasts is a lot more common. We've already discussed Micheal Strahan, among other fags, before. The big media companies are also morel likely to have fags that a gay wannabe celeb can screw for a promotion.

    No wonder Buck and Aikman have a "thing" for Aaron Rodgers. God knows how many times they've exchanged knowing glances, I do doubt that they'd be indiscreet enough to actually go all the way with the league's most popular player.

    Last but not least, Aikman and Buck are aging very poorly, a dead giveaway of indulging in the worst vices. Constant partying, drugs, unnatural and way too much sex, bad diets, and bad sleep habits.

  37. Steve Johnson2/3/15, 3:48 PM

    In a totally unrelated conversation I've heard someone ask "why does Buck always stare at Aikman's crotch?".

    It's noticeable.


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."