According to Tom Coburn's Chief of Staff, Mike Schwartz, all pornography is gay pornography:
all pornography is homosexual pornography because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards. Now think about that. And if you, if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to go out and get a copy of Playboy? I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest. That’s the last thing he wants.” You know, that’s a, that’s a good comment. It’s a good point and it’s a good thing to teach young people.
A couple of questions. Does anyone "read" Playboy anymore? (I mean other than for the articles -- and it's true, what could be gayer than that?)
And does he really think labeling something as "gay" is going to stop heterosexual teenage boys (or boys of any age) into not wanting to look at, say, the nude Vanessa Hudgens photos (just a for instance -- get your minds out of the gutter -- all of my research is in the interest of science).
My observation as the father of a 16-year old boy (who appears to be heterosexual) is that there is not in fact an inherent revulsion towards gay people or gay "things" at that age -- it is pretty much the product of whatever environment you are raised in. My son goes to a school in which the principal and several other teachers are openly gay -- and some of the students are already out -- and it just isn't a big deal to anyone. The environment is completely different than when I was his age. And although my son's school is not completely representative, I think it captures a generational change that is overwhelming.
Schwartz and his ilk are fighting a losing (and ridiculous) battle.
h/t (I think) to oddjob.