I was pointed to this via Andrew Sullivan:
So let’s see. You’re a sex-hating english professor who lives with a bunch of other men and is into corporal mortification, aesthetics, fashion, consumer culture, and the writings of Oscar Wilde.
Yeah, that really demolishes those stereotypes. For varying definitions of “demolishes”.
For some, particularly large, values of “demolishes.” It does sound like he’s more into the ascetic rejection of all thing fleshly, but wants to point out that he it doesn’t consume him completely, thus he writes about Oscar Wilde. If you’re looking for a way to make fun of him, though, it sounds pretty bad. And you should be looking for a way to make fun of anyone in Opes Dei.
I’m not going to sign up with NYT just to read this article (I’m lazy today), but based on the snippet you presented, how do we know he’s A) sex-hating or B) fashion-conscious?
Also, my stereotype of an Opus Dei numerary would tend towards prim and conservative – this professor sounds rather liberal, based on the scanty evidence in the OP. So where’s the beef, so to speak?
Lemur writes crappy Pit thread, Wolfian’s mind boggles.
Just what the heck are you getting at? No, seriously. What was your point in this?
Look, chaps, I can’t quote the entire article for you. But this guy has a few psychosexual issues to come to terms with.
Fashion:
Sex-hating, lives with other men:
Wears Daisy Dukes:
Topping from the bottom:
Sex-hating? Psycho-sexual issues? Dude, it’s called self-discipline. He sounds pretty solid to me. I was celibate and lived with other men from the time I went to college until I married at 31 and I assure you, I do not hate sex.
Did you strap metal spikes to your thigh every day to mortify your flesh?
Having read here and elsewhere that Dan Brown’s depiction of Opus Dei was ridiculously out of joint with reality - which I have no problem accepting, as it obviously diverges from the truth in a lot of ways - I was very surprised to read that they actually DO use the “discipline” and the cilice.
What is “boggling” Lemur866 is the fact that this guy, in his effort to write a piece to the effect that Opus Dei isn’t the screwed up, conspiratorial, psychotic organization we’ve all read about, has said some things that are pretty funny and self-incriminating.
Around here we have a word for celebate men who live in same sex communities, practice corporal mortification and reject consumerism. We call them “monks”.
I’m joining in on not fully understanding what you’re pitting here. Are you saying that the guy seems like he’s gay to you, is that it?
Captain, he’s as gay as 8 guys fucking 5 guys.
No, but I respect it. How is it different from, say, fasting? Same idea. In fact, maybe I’ll look into getting one of those for next Lent.
And I also meant to say that accusing him of wearing “Daisy Dukes” when he says he’s worn shorts is sort of grasping at straws.
So he’s .63 gay? (8 into 5, ya know 
)
And even if he were gay (which is pure speculation)… so what? If he’s celibate, what the hell difference would it make?
Fasting is a mild form of corporal mortification. For reasons that, I guess, escape the both of us driving a bracelet of metal spikes into your leg for several hours is considered a little more extreme. C’est la vie.
The guy very obviously does have some very complex “psychosexual” issues which he chooses to deal with in a way that would not work for me. According to my lights, this guy has some serious issues of repression and denial. According to his lights, however, everything’s peachy.
Well, that is pretty gay. But honestly, you don’t know that. All you know is that he lives a celebate life in an all male community, and studies Oscar Wilde’s attitudes about Victorian consumerism. While it’s true that Wilde was bisexual (and sentenced to prison for sodomy), that doesn’t mean that everyone who studies him is also gay. And while he lives in an all male environment, they’re all celebate, so presumably, no one is doing anything sexually to anyone. And, as I mentioned before, single-sex religious orders aren’t uncommon, and they’re part of Catholicism, ever since the first convents and monastic communities.
As for the corporal mortification, I’ve never heard any specific association between gayness and masochism. That stereotype is new to me. And physical self-punishment also has a long tradition in Catholicism, from extended fasts to the penitential groups that flog themselves in processions. Even Thomas More (who was executed by Henry VIII over the divorce of Katherine of Aragon and because of his refusal to abandon Catholicism) wore a hair shirt.
I’m sorry, I’m getting lost here. Is this “I’m being very literal to make Lemur866 look like an idiot,” or “I’m being very literal because I’m the sort of person who takes things very literally?”
If this guy ain’t gay, then no one is gay. And I’m gay, so there you go. The Catholic priesthood is traditionally a refuge for highly religious gay men, who must find a way to live a celibate life because their church won’t let them live a sexual life. This guy has checked off all those boxes except the one marked “priest.”
And of course it’s speculation. All gaydar readings are speculation. But like any other kind of speculation, there are varying degrees of certainty. This guy, if he ain’t as gay as a priest in drag, then I’ll eat YOUR hat.
Sounds pretty clear to me that this guy thinks he has something to prove to his father, and this is how he’s doing it. On the plus side, he’s put so much effort into proving to his dad that he’s not gay, that he has some slack to work with: enough to be a scholar of both fashion AND Oscar Wilde, and still keep his dad shrouded in wool.
This is mostly, “I’m being very literal because I’m gay myself, and I’m tired of assholes making accusing insinuations about people being gay (like being gay is a bad thing or something to laugh about) based on tired old stereotypes.”
Sorry, Lissener, I didn’t realize you were qualified to conduct psychological evaluations over long distances via newspaper op-ed pieces. Apparently you know his father, too, so I stand corrected.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that this guy couldn’t be any gayer on the gayest day of his life if he had an electified gaying machine. So what? Does that somehow invalidate his asceticism, as opposed to someone who was heterosexual? Can he not be gay and devout without being a nutcase?