FRANK BRUNI of The New York Times writes:

“Pete and Chasten Buttigieg celebrated their first wedding anniversary on Sunday. You know this if you’re among Pete’s roughly 1.1 million Twitter followers or Chasten’s 340,000, because they traded sweetly effusive missives, as they frequently do.

Pete gushed: “One year ago I married the love of my life. I’m so thankful I found you, Chasten, and can’t wait to spend the rest of our life together.” Chasten posted pictures of the two of them with their arms around each other, which he introduced by writing that he was on his way “to find this cute guy on the trail. Can’t believe it’s been one year.”

The Anti-New York Times responds (indelicate language warning!):

Bruni goes on to talk about how Pete and Chasten’s “love story” is so touching that it is causing “even the most resistant Americans” to become accepting of them. Well, you don’t speak for me, Fecal Frank. This resistant American here will always see them for what they are — namely, mentally ill and morally degenerate reprobates who need to either seek God’s help, or at least crawl back into the proverbial closet so that children won’t be exposed to their lurid “lifestyle.”

Now, here comes the comedy part. Though Fecal Frank is smitten with what he clearly hopes will one day be America’s ‘First Couple,” he does see an ideological dilemma here. Chasten, evidently the traditional type, quit his job last year so that he could devote himself to keeping the Mayor’s home and tending to their two dogs. Karl Marx ridiculed such “traditional” stay-at-home arrangements with a contempt that most feminists and libtards hold for housewives to this day. Bruni explains the problem:

“But lately I’ve found myself wondering: What if Chasten were a 29-year-old straight woman instead of a 29-year-old gay man? What would that say about gender and double standards?

Chasten left his teaching job to support Pete, 37, full-time, alternately keeping him company on the road and tending the home fires, which includes caring for their two dogs, while he’s away.

Although he went by his original surname, Glezman, when they were wed and immediately thereafter, he’s Chasten Buttigieg on Twitter, where much of what he does is cheerlead for his husband.

But if Chasten were a woman of his generation in a heterosexual marriage, how would this behavior play? Mightn’t it be picked apart as strangely retro?” 

You see, a spouse (albeit in this case, a fake one) “tending to the home fires” in devoted support of the husband’s political career is “strange.” But poop-stain Pete demoniacally rogering the living daylights out of the young squealing Chasten from behind — well, that’s perfectly normal (palm to face, sighing, shaking head).

— Comment —

Dan R. writes:

Who was of age in 1992 and watched one of the Clinton events where a female fan asked the nominee, “All America wants to know–is it boxers or briefs?”

And now Anti-New York Times has pre-empted what might yet be a question for Mayor Pete: “Is it top or bottom?”

The language is, as you note, “indelicate;” the thought of the hypothetical question nauseating; but what is one to do to get to the heart of “the act homosexuals commit” (Gertrude Stein)?  “The love that dare not speak it’s name” seems inadequate to the task.

Laura writes:

How is it possible to take “pride” in something so obviously unsanitary?

Sometimes it’s important to note the basics.

Please follow and like us: