An Irregular Column
by Mykel Board
When we discover why there are six and only six planets, we
will have discovered the secret of the universe.
--Johannes Kepler, 1610
If you don't like the answers you're getting, maybe you're
asking the wrong questions.
--Mykel Board, 1994
I was more frustrated than a kiddie pornographer in an old
"You sound just like Rush Limbaugh." she said. "He says
exactly the same thing."
"I don't give a shit if Adolf Hitler says it." I answered,
Whenever I find myself agreeing with people I hate, it takes
me back. I have to stop, look at my position, and rethink it,
before I can continue to hold it. Usually, I find that the
agreement is superficial. If you look deeper, it's not agreement
at all, but rather convergence at a point. In other words, the
form of the question makes it look like agreement. But it's the
question that's wrong-- not the answer.
For example, in New York City Schools, public policy has
changed. Up until this month, any student wanting condoms could
get them freely from a student health center. No questions, no
permission needed. Due to pressure from various evil folks--
like the Catholic Church-- the school board changed this policy.
Now, parents have the right to 'opt out' of the program.
They can sign a paper saying that the schools must deny condoms
to their children. The school board sends every parent a notice
of this policy, with a little check-off box to opt their children
The main thrust (yeah, I know) of the Catholic argument is,
that by giving kids condoms, the schools encourage sex. Since
condoms occasionally fail, and sometimes people won't use them,
more sex means more AIDS and other diseases. If the schools
stress abstinence rather than condoms, there will be less sex.
The Catholics are right. By giving condoms, school
officials are saying "There's a right way and a wrong way to
fuck. Here's the right way. Do it."
An analogy might be those new hollow point bullets that
street gangs have been using. If schools were to distribute
regular pointy bullets, as a safer alternative, they'd be saying,
"Go shoot. Just make sure you use these."
I wish my high school would've distributed condoms. What a
great seduction tool! "Listen Mary (or Sammy), it's ok. I got a
rubber. They wouldn't give 'em to us if they didn't expect us to
So, the evil Christians are right. Condoms lead to more
sex. More sex leads to more AIDS. Therefore condoms lead to
Logical and true-- so what do we do about it? The rule: If
you don't like the answers to your questions, try asking
Sure, the Christians are right. So what? More sex, less
sex. That's not the issue. The issue is the right of students
to choose their own actions.
For years, New York City leftists talked about how schools
need community involvement. They talked about how parents-- not
an anonymous state-- should decide their children's education.
Teachers and bureaucrats said no. The State or The City should
decide. They are best equipped to choose. Government vs.
parents-- aren't we forgetting someone?
Neither parents nor schools own the kids who go to them. At
most, they're caretakers. Their job is to provide and protect in
those areas that kids can't provide and protect themselves. Kids
don't know where Myanmar is? Schools teach 'em. Kids need money
to stay out of the labor market while getting educated. Parents
give 'em money.
That's it. Kids are human beings. They've got sex urges,
hopes, anger and all the other stuff teachers and parents have.
These feelings are no less valid because they belong to someone
who isn't old enough to drink.
The question whether or not condoms encourage sex is
irrelevant. What matters is that students deserve the right to
choose-- free from coercion by parents or schools. The correct
question is Do condoms allow the students more freedom and
responsibility than no condoms? The answer is, of course they
do. Since I believe that freedom and responsibility are values
that schools should encourage, I can easily oppose the condom
opt-out program, even though at first it seems that I agree with
the Christians. See, their answer was right, but they asked the
Asking one question and not another implies certain things.
Looking at something a different way-- asking a different
question-- has other implications.
Right now, there is obvious glee among homos. They have
found a gay gene. Not a gene, exactly, but a certain gene
binding that appears more in homos than in hets. Plenty of homos
don't have it. Some hets do. But there's "a tendency."
The Christians say homoitude is chosen, it's a preference.
The homos say no, their sexuality is genetically determined.
Thus, they find themselves in agreement with folks like the Nazis
and other master racers who say "biology is destiny." I seem to
agree with the Christians again, saying we CHOOSE (or at least
CAN choose) our sexuality.
I've got my doubts about the genetic research. First, they
only use "self-identified" homos, who are likely to be much
different from the homo-population at large. Second, not all
homos have the gene. The researchers don't keep track of what's
different in the homos with the homogene than in the homos
without it. (Could the gene produce effeminacy, for example? Oh
how about a willingness to volunteer for genetic experiments?)
The answers are far from conclusive, though you'll soon be
reading about the homogene in everything from The Advocate to The
If we look carefully, however, we'll find that the problem
isn't the answer to the question. It's the question itself. Why
are they looking for homogenes and not Republican genes? What is
it about the behavior we label homosexual that make folks want to
find a gene, where the behavior we label political is supposed to
be 'a choice.'
The implication is that homosexuality is a way of being--
and not an action. You are one or you're not. It is NOT
something you do, but an identity-- an identity that is
genetically transmitted. (They're gonna have a hard time showing
that homos come from long lines of homo moms and dads.)
Like alcoholics who also ceaselessly search for their gene--
homos are looking for a way to limit choice-- to limit
"See," they want to say. "It's not a preference-- it's a
So I find myself agreeing with the bad guys again. They're
right. You can fuck boys because you choose to. Your actions
are not your identity. They are not "who you are."
If the bad guys seem right, what do you do? Ask different
questions. Let's try: Who has something to gain if they
discover a homogene? Why do they look for genes to trigger
certain behaviors and not others? What does looking for a gene
The answers to these questions are a certain set of
assumptions. They include one that homosexual is an 'identity'
rather than an adjective to describe certain actions or desires.
There's also an assumption that it is a minority identity. They
never look for genes that cause heterosexuality-- or right-
handedness. Finally, there is an assumption that being homo is
permanent, built-in and unchanging. They don't look for genes
that cause people to wear Doc Martins or grunge clothes.
Having these assumptions, it's natural to look for a
biological basis to homosexuality-- just like you might look for
a biological basis of any other abnormality.
Many homos who share these assumptions want to find this
gene to prove their identity. It lets them say (like cripples
and Negroes) "You shouldn't discriminate against me. I can't
help being this way. I don't threaten you. It's genetic-- you
can't catch it." It's an easy way out of the charges that
they're corrupting or recruiting people. It's an easy way to
say, "Leave me alone-- I'm not responsible."
But whether or not homosexuality is genetic is a question
that shouldn't be asked. Like the question of whether
intelligence is genetically linked to race-- the answer doesn't
matter. In any case, we must act as if the answer were no.
[Note to idiots: When I say we shouldn't ask this question,
I'm not saying forbid or ban it. I'm not advocating censorship.
I am saying that, like Kepler's question about the six planets,
it is unproductive and will lead you down a false path.]
Homosexual activity, behavior and desires are not limited to
those who identify themselves as homosexuals. They are not part
of a minority, but part of general human experience-- shared by
most people and suppressed by many.
Tolerance of consensual sex of any kind should be a given.
Tolerance of any desire at all, should be a right. It doesn't
matter what the origin is. Humans can make choices, regardless
of their genes. The questions isn't whether a gene or a
domineering mother causes boys to fuck other boys. The question
is what causes people to find that strange or threatening? What's
wrong with YOU, that you have to scurry to the lab to investigate
The gene trap may provide an easy answer for homos convinced
of their identity-- but it's an easy answer to the wrong
question. When the genetic tests, the 'cures,' the "I don't want
to raise a faggot" abortions come, maybe the self-identified
homos will wish they'd asked some other questions, with more
--> The Cybertech Co. (PO Box 7810, Universal City CA 91608-7810)
offers the "Home Virtual Reality Simulator Systems." There's no
picture of it, just a still from some porno movie. But for
$71.95 including shipping they'll send you something that
promises Sexual experiences in virtual reality-- so detailed, so
true-to-life, it would be a perfect 'clone' of the real thing.
They say the system is ready to enjoy. No computer needed.
They also compare of REAL SEX with CYBERSEX:
Real sex: You may never have an experience with the "partner of
Cybersex: You can enjoy your "dream partner" anytime you want.
Real sex: Frequency often depends on mood and receptiveness of
Cybersex: Frequency depends entirely on you; The words "no" and
"headache" do not exist in virtual reality.
Real sex: Risk of pregnancy/disease can interfere and dampen
Cybersex: The safest and most satisfying sexual encounters known
to man-- always.
Real sex: Infrequent/not always available.
Cybersex: How often can you handle it?
Real sex: Finding and seducing partners can be very expensive.
Cybersex: For unlimited experiences, you incur a one time charge
that costs less than dinner and a movie.
Real sex: For your pursuit, you need a nice car, a nice pad,
nice clothes, and plenty of money.
Cybersex: You need only an electrical outlet.
If you want my guess, it's an electric vibrator and a porn
mag, but if there's some rich reader there-- please send away for
it. I'd love to know what it really is.
--> E-question of the month dept: From the punk list: Can
vegans eat their own boogers? Please send answers to me via e-
mail at email@example.com or snailmail (US Post Office) at PO Box
137, Prince St. Station, New York NY 10012.
-->Musical question of the month dept: Does the major label
signing of Green Day, Screeching Weasel and New Bomb Turks
explain the sudden change in MRR policy? Can you think of
another reason for releasing the Independent Dead album? I don't
know if Tim will leave this in here, but I'm spilling the beans.
That "bootleg" of Gratefull Dead indy stuff on "Minimum Truckin'"
records??? Yeah sure, Minimum Truckin'...
-->Speaking of sending me mail. I wrote recently how folks've
sent me some fine homemade hardcore videos. Please keep it up!
(So I can!) But I've also gotten a couple nudie shots taken at
public photo booths. You know those $2 booths at Woolworths!
That takes balls! So, this month's contest. A free ARTLESS
record to the boldest photograph taken in a public photobooth.
Send the pix to me at the address above.
--Speaking of videos, Aaron Probe & his friend MacLean Jameson
(PO Box 191544, San Francisco Ca 94119) sent me three great vids
from his catalog. (Send a buck and an ages statement & he'll send
you one). The tapes are girls talking to the cameraman as they
gradually undress and masturbate. The oriental girl, of course,
is my favorite-- but I also spilled my seed at the double dildo.
My favorite quote,"
CAMERA MAN: "Do you feel those tiny raised dots in there?"
GIRL: "Every little one!"
My only (minor!) complaint is there wasn't a penis in the
entire three tapes. Somehow a porno tape isn't quite there
without the sticky white stuff.
Still the plusses are WAY ahead of the minuses. The girls
are real people, really getting into it. AND, there's no fucking
--> Brandon Johnson gets ten punkpoints for his name-that-is-
also-a-sentence. That is for Alex Cox, director of Sid & Nancy
and others. (Pronounce it Alix Cox and then use it to answer the
question: What does Al like to do sexually?)
--> Speaking of Alex Cox, Liam Lunchtray writes from Providence
RI: "I wish I was gay, cause I'd blow you."
I reply: You don't have to be gay. Lots of folks who blow
me aren't. I won't check your genes.