Dennis Prager: Alrighty, everybody. Welcome to the Dennis Prager show where we talk about everything in life. And you will find that to be true today, certainly. I want to get immediately to my guest at McGill University in Montreal. Anna Montrose whose article I spoke about. She wrote a piece for the McGill Daily. First of all, hello to you Anna.
Anna Montrose: Hi. How are you?
DP: I’m well. Are you a little nervous?
AM: Oh, no. Not at all.
DP: Oh, good. ‘cause I know you were a little hesitant about coming on the show.
AM: That’s fine. That’s fine.
DP: It is fine. I just wanted to relax you. I am not here in any way to embarrass you or even win an argument with you. I am considerably older than you and I’m not going to take somebody out of college to berate them. So please know that.
AM: Well, that’s good. I appreciate that.
DP: Okay. Anna wrote an article for the McGill University. Anna, as I said when I noted this, I think it’s fair to say McGill is the most prestigious university in Canada. Is that fair to say?
AM: Um.. you can have that opinion. Sure. There are a lot of universities in Canada. I think McGill is very well respected.
DP: It’s like if Harvard is the most respected in the U.S., that doesn’t mean it’s the best. I’m just saying most respected. I think it’s true about McGill. Maybe University of Toronto is a close second. By the way, where are you from? Are you from Montreal?
AM: I grew up in Winnipeg. I’ve been going to school here for four years.
DP: Oh, I’ve been to Winnipeg many times. I’ve been on the CBC in Winnipeg and I even know that Portage in Main is regarded as perhaps the windiest or coldest corner in Winnipeg if not in Canada.
AM: That could be true.
DP: I have a deep affection for Winnipeg. Anna wrote this piece for the McGill paper and it began this way: “It’s hard to go through four years of a Humanities B.A. reading Fukoh and Butler…” I know who Fukoh is. Who’s Butler?
AM: Judith Butler is a theorist who is I think currently at Berkeley. She’s probably most famous for her arguments about the performance of gender. Her main point is that gender roles and aspects of gender (like women wearing dresses and men wearing pants) are sort of aspects that are socially constructed and that our day-to-day actions (the way that we sit or walk or talk) all of these things are sort of a performance of gender that is culturally based.
DP: Right, okay. So again, this is how Anna opens her article: “It’s hard to go through four years of a Humanities B.A. reading Fukoh (the French thinker) and Butler (this is Judith Butler of Berkeley) and watching the ‘L’ Word (‘L’ for lesbian, it’s the well known television show that I’m sure many of my listeners are aware of) and keep your rigid heterosexuality intact. I don’t know when it happened exactly, but it seems I no longer have the easy certainty of pinning my sexual desire to one gender and never the other.” Okay. Now, it’s a fairly clear… you write well, by the way…
AM: Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that.
DP: You’re welcome. And it seems clear to me that it means that, prior to attending university, you did have your rigid heterosexuality intact. Is that correct?
AM: I think that that’s pretty fair to say. But I think the way you’re reading that opening is a bit different than how I intended it. Because I think that I started university at the age of 18 having had very few experiences, in general. And now that I’m 22, the past four years have been a time have just been a time for development, in general. I can see how you would make the argument that going to university, reading these theorists, watching these television shows has forced me into something…
DP: No, not forced you. Oh, no, no, no. You didn’t write ‘forced’ and I don’t assume ‘forced’. But unless you didn’t write clearly (in which case, I have to take back my compliment), then it is clear that until university you had intact rigid heterosexuality which you no longer have. That’s pretty self-evident. Is it fair cause I just…
AM: Yeah, I think that I’ve been changing and…
DP: …based on your readings, your experiences, television shows and all the things that come with it. That’s fair. Oddly enough, I read your email correspondence with my producer Allen and you would be shocked to know that you and I largely agree.
AM: Okay.
DP: I also believe that the way in which people act out gender roles, if you will, and sexuality is very much induced by society.
AM: Well, that’s good to know.
DP: Oh, yes. Well, I don’t know if it’s good to know because we… I’ll tell you where we differ in a moment. You must understand though because I want to go step-by-step here. That means that you and I both believe that how people behave sexually, including which sex they will engage with sexually, is largely determined by society and not by nature.
AM: Yeah, I completely agree.
DP: Okay. That is exactly what I have been trying to explain in writing and in my radio show for about 15 years because you realize there’s a really interesting thing here because gay activists say the opposite. They say that whether you act homosexually or not is fixed and I don’t believe it’s fixed necessarily at all and neither do you.
AM: But I think that argument has a political purpose which is to counter the argument that heterosexuality is fixed.
DP: Yes, yes. Fair enough. I agree with you. But we both think that they’re not telling the truth for the sake of making a political argument.
AM: But I think it can be effective, though because by saying it’s fixed or not fixed, I think that’s much more complicated than whether or not society terms it. Because take the example of language. You can say that speaking English is culturally determined, but it doesn’t mean that I can start speaking Mandarin if I just decide to do it. I don’t think that saying something is…
DP: No, but if you were dropped in a Mandarin speaking society, whether you wanted to or not, you would end up speaking Mandarin. So society would very much determine what you spoke. Indeed there’s nothing else that does determine what language we speak. So if you think of sexuality as a language (and that’s a fair and a good metaphor or analogy), that’s exactly what happens in many cases sexually.
AM: Fair enough.
DP: Alright. So now you’re wondering, “where do this guy and I differ?” And I’ll tell you where. Since we both agree that largely whom we have sex with and sexual behavior is culturally determined, the only question is would we like culture to determine it one way or the other or not. I think ‘yes’ and you think ‘not’. That’s where I think we differ because I do have a heterosexual preference not because I’m heterosexual, but because my values tell me that male/female love is the ideal. You don’t think it’s the ideal. Is that fair?
AM: No, I think that it’s one of many options.
DP: Exactly. So all I want to point out to my many listeners is that what you are being taught in that regard is largely true. That sexually behavior isn’t fixed like Gay Liberation and it’s heterosexual sympathizers argue. But that society will indeed very much affect whether I make love to the same sex or the opposite sex.
AM: But when they’re saying it’s fixed, I think that their main point is to say that “I can’t change this. I can’t just start speaking Mandarin. I need you to accept me for who I am because…”
DP: That’s a separate…
AM: No, it’s the same example because that’s what gay rights are all about. It’s about accepting people who speak Mandarin. I mean, the analogy’s getting ridiculous…
DP: You’re right, you’re right, you’re right. Wait, wait, wait. That’s part of what it’s about. I’m not argu…
AM: You’re saying, “No one should speak Mandarin, ever. I want everyone to speak English and that’s it.”
DP: When did I say that? Oh, yes. I would like that.
AM: You said you would like that.
DP: Yes, I would like that. That is correct.
AM: I think that’s unfortunate.
DP: I know you do. You see, you don’t know my show. But the motto of my show is that I prefer clarity over agreement. I don’t mind that we disagree. It is critical for everybody listening to understand (and I think for you and me, as individuals) to know where we differ. So, we’ll continue in a moment and I will also take calls. 1-8-PRAGER-776. I’m speaking to Anna Montrose, 22 year old student at McGill University who notes that prior to university, she was a rigid heterosexual but now realizes that that was, I assume, a mistake in position. And there are many ways to lead one’s sexual life. We will return on the Dennis Prager show. 1-8-PRAGER-776.
**Commercial Break**
DP: Alrighty, you’re listening to the Dennis Prager Show. And Sean, if you’ll put up our guest here… great ok terrific because I don’t see it here… Alrighty my guest is Anna Montrose, and Anna is a 22 year-old student at McGill University in Montreal. We’re discussing her article where she spoke about being a rigid heterosexual prior to going to university and studying what she studied and seeing programs like “L Word” and so on. Ah, let me review we both agree that society plays a crucial role in determining our sexual behavior and whether we’ll have sex with the same sex or the opposite sex, is that fair?
AM: Oh definitely.
DP: OK, so we both agree on that, so again, where we differ is whether society should have to teach its members, especially its young people forming their sexual identities, any preferred behavior or role.
AM: But I think even that question is based on the assumption that you could teach it, I mean, you could also teach everyone to walk backwards all the time –
DP: Yes you could, exactly.
AM: And if you thought that it was an important value for everyone to have and that … you could teach everyone to walk backwards –
DP: That’s correct. You could, exactly.
AM: But that wouldn’t be necessarily a good thing –
DP: We both agree – again we both agree. So the question is, Are there any good things to be taught with regard to sexual behavior?
AM: Are there any good things…?
DP: Yes, you said that’s not necessarily a good thing, to teach heterosexual behavior as the ideal, correct?
AM: Yeah.
DP: OK, are there any things, for example, should we teach people not to have sex with their siblings?
AM: Well, I think that the incest taboo is pretty universal across –
DP: Well, so what? So what?
AM: So what?
DP: Yeah. Slavery was universal.
AM: Slavery was universal.
DP: Right. So the fact that something is universal does’t mke it right.
AM: That’s’ true, that’s true. Should we teach people not to have sex with their siblings? I think that’ spretty wise, in general.
DP: Why?
AM: It makes sense.
DP: Why?
AM: Um… why does that make sense? I guess it’s just a value that I have, I mean, I admit I do have values.
DP: So why is your value that people who love their siblings and want to have sex with them shouldn’t, but my value that people should make love to the opposite sex, that’s a bad value? On what grounds do you make such value distinctions?
AM: Well, um… I don’t know, I mean… I think there’s a very small minority of people who would consider having sex with their sibling.
DP: That, that actually historically was not true. It was extremely common in the ancient world. In Ancient Egypt, for example, it was considered the thing to do in the noble – in noble families.
AM: Right, well, you know, maybe that’s ok then.
DP: OK.
AM: I mean, who am I to say that someone shouldn’t have sex with their sibling?
DP: Well, you’re consistent.
AM: They’re both consenting adults. Frankly, you know, as long as they’re not hurting anyone or hurting each other…
DP: Right, ok…
AM: You’ve made me agree that incest is ok across consenting adults.
DP: OK, well I grant you – and this is compliment – that you, unlike almost every gay spokesman I have debated on this, they have not acknowledged that to be logically consistent, one would have to have the position that you are now taking. You are logically consistent. They like their taboos but they don’t like my taboos. But you say, if they are consenting there are no taboos.
AM: I really don’t, I don’t think the parallel is quite as strong as you would like it to be, I mean, I guess if you can guarantee that incest is not hurting anyone and it’s not hurting the family or upsetting anyone or whatever –
DP: Well you can’t guarantee that about any sex. Sex – so there’s no guarantee –
AM: If your mother-in-law is annoying, what can you do about that?
DP: Well I’m talking just sex; you can never guarantee that sexual relations won’t hurt somebody.
AM: That’s true.
DP: Even heterosexual strangers… I mean, you know, so that’s not a factor. So let’s go to polygamy – do you think that if a man loves two women or a woman loves two men, they ought to be allowed to marry if it’s entirely consensual and they’re adults.
AM: I think if everything’s consensual then that’s fine. But I think that you’re obscuring this larger issue by throwing out these extreme examples –
DP: Extreme? Polygamy was the human norm; in fact, it was in the United States of America. Utah was banned from being a state until it banned polygamy, it was that common.
AM: Yeah that’s true, it was common. But I think that… um… I’m just not sure that… I think your tactic here is just to try to, you know, show that if we open the gates of acceptability to gay people and lesbians and queer people –
DP: No no no no – you’re not being fair; you yourself are acknowledging the issue is not whether or not we accept the homosexual. The issue is whether or not we teach that there is a preferred sexual behavior.
AM: But I think teaching a preferred sexual behavior is the same as oppressing one that you don’t like.
DP: Do you think that teaching –
AM: I also don’t think that just because, um, you know if someone was to have the value that homosexual is fine and heterosexuality is fine but incest and polygamy aren’t fine. I think that’s a value they can have as well.
DP: Fine, but then why can’t I have mine? I’m a homophobe, but you’re not a sibling-phobe, you’re not a polygamy-phobe. That’s not fair. Why don’t you get called names for your bans – well you don’t have them anymore, but until this phone call you did – I don’t understand why my preference is disgusting and bigoted but your preference is noble.
AM: [Laughs.] I do think your preference is disgusting and bigoted.
DP: I know that. But right – but why? The fact that I think men and women ought to make love and not men and men and women and women, why is that disgusting but your preference for non-sibling love, that’s beautiful. Why are your values beautiful and mine ugly? I don’t get it. Why aren’t you the bigot?
AM: Well I think that’s a huge question that neither of can answer, I mean, why do people have different values?
DP: Oh I can, I can. I know I have a value system, and I have a value system.
AM: How do you know that your value system is right?
DP: It is a leap of faith, and based on the historical record –
AM: Well maybe every value system is a leap of faith.
DP: Yes – every value system is a leap of faith. That is exactly right, so again I am just clarifying there has been a value system intact in Canada, in the United States, in the Western world, which is either Christian or Judeo-Christian which has held that the ideal – if one can’t meet the ideal one can’t meet the ideal – but the ideal is that we make a family and with the basic unit of the society as a family composed of a man and a women who marry.
AM: That’s your value system.
DP: That’s correct. That’s right. OK. But why is your value system better than mine?
AM: Why is yours better than mine?
DP: OK, fair enough – but I don’t call you ‘bigot’ and ‘homophobe’ [coughs], excuse me, and all sorts of bad names, but you call me one for my value system?
AM: Well, I think the difference is that some value systems seek to oppress people and, you know –
DP: Oh, OK – all right, we’ll deal with that in a moment, whether this is oppressive. Fair enough. We return in a moment, Dennis Prager and Anna Montrose, you are listening to the Dennis Prager Show.
**Commercial Break**
Dennis: All right everybody welcome back, my guest is Anna Montrose, she’s a 22 year old student in Montreal at Mcgill University. Who’s article in the Mcgill University paper has prompted the dialogue, where she wrote that until university and a whole host of cultural factors she was a heterosexual, - her rigid heterosexuality was intact; but that is not the case any longer. And we’re in agreement on a great many things especially the biggest one: that society very much shapes how we will act sexually, including whom we will have sex with and which sex. Which is the opposite of what most people are told by the gay rights activists and heterosexual sympathizers that in fact sexuality is fixed. So you and I agree it’s not fixed, and that society helps shape it tremendously. So you have a value system and I have a value system, my value system is that society ought to do what it can without oppressing anybody, remember without oppressing anybody, in saying that the preferred sexual bonding is a male-female - you think that that is wrong, correct?
Anna: I do and I think it’s oppressive actually. So I don’t really understand how you say that you think that that should be done without oppressing anyone, and when you said before that I said that I didn’t think it was fixed, I mean lets just be clear, I think that it’s, though it is influenced by society, the argument that it’s fixed is to make the argument that someone who has already you know, reached their adult years can’t just, or even at any time in their life, they can’t just, you know, decide…
Dennis: But you did.
Anna: I think that, I think that my experiences you know growing up from 18 – 22, I think those are key formative years in terms of someone’s sexuality, and I think that, I feel very privileged that the experiences I have - have enabled me to accept what I believe to be an orientation that is already there and that had I not…
Dennis: So you didn’t - so you didn’t know you were sexually attracted to women until you went to university, you had lived 18 years and thought you were only sexually attracted to males.
Anna: That’s true but I mean I also had never had a boyfriend either I mean I… I didn’t date…
Dennis: I, well, that’s very separate. No no no, whether one has a boyfriend or girlfriend is very different from what one wants to have and where one’s sexual fantasies lie.
Anna: Yeah that’s completely true.
Dennis: Ok so fine. So you see, I don’t want you to try to square a circle here, we both do agree, and you can’t have it both ways, you can’t say it’s fixed and society determines gender preferences.
Anna: I think you can have it both ways, definitely!
Dennis: Ok so, well, society determines or helps determine…
Anna: What about my language example? I mean…
Dennis : You’re right! So fine! But we both agree that whether or not you’ll speak English or Mandarin is determined by society. Once you speak it of course it’s a fixed speech, of course!
Anna: Exactly! So you have…
Dennis: All right, all right, so we both agree, you and I speak English because our societies told us to.
Anna: Yes.
Dennis: Ok, that’s fine, that’s all I’m saying about sexual choices. Society has that, has a deep impact, on the sexual choices including whether it’s same sex or opposite sex. So my whole position is: that thousands of years of western civilization preferring male-female bonding leading to marriage and family is a good thing, and Anna feels that it’s a bad thing. Am I? Is that totally fair? Or am I putting?
Anna: I’m not saying that its wrong, for a man and woman to have a family I mean I’m not saying that…
Dennis: No, no I said preferred, I said preferred. That’s the value system…
Anna: I don’t think it’s necessarily preferred I think that people should be able to make their own choices.
Dennis: All right, okay, so one is as good as the other.
Anna: Yeah.
Dennis: Okay, so you’re saying that western society has been wrong for preferring for thousands of years, male-female marital bonding.
Anna: So wait, what’s wrong with that?
Dennis: No, I’ll say it again.
Anna: Is that your question?
Dennis: No not at all, I’m just trying to make it clear for you, me, and my listeners. You are saying that the western-civilizational preference for male-female bonding, that preference was wrong.
Anna: I only think it’s wrong in that it limits other possibilities, which are equally good.
Dennis: Alright, they’re all equally good, so it is wrong to tell people, it’s wrong to tell little girls, to suggest in any way, that, subtley, non-subtley, that they should grow up and marry a boy.
Anna: Yeah, I don’t think that you should force anyone into…
Dennis: Well Wait, wait, wait, you’re putting in verbs that I’m not using, you said forced, I just said suggest even, teach.
Anna: But I mean how would you just gently tell someone?
Dennis: Oh, say, well are you going to marry Jerry or Tony or Billy? Instead of are you going to marry Jerry or Barbara?
Anna: But I think that, I mean, when you say that you’re not forcing someone, I think that the coercion is on sort of a deeper level.
Dennis: Ok fine, so you feel that, ok so you feel it’s forced to suggest to a girl, only male options for marriage?
Anna: Right.
Dennis: Ok, we’ll be back in a moment.
**Commercial Break**
Hi everybody, Dennis Prager here, and Anna Montrose is a 22 year old student at McGill University and wrote an article for which reason we are having this dialogue. She was a rigid heterosexual prior to the University. And has, I guess, had her eyes opened, and is no longer.
DP: Have you acted upon your new revelation of not being a rigid heterosexual?
AM: What do you mean acted on?
DP: Well, had sexual contact with females.
AM: Have I had sexual contact with females? I guess I have, yea!
DP: Have you had with a male?
AM: I had, I had a boyfriend for a year.
DP: Is there any difference or are they both equally meaningful to you?
AM: Well, there is definitely a difference, but they are also both meaningful.
DP: Okay. I was just curious if you acted on it, and how you reacted. I get my preference for, and believe society ought to raise kids (since we both agree society does shape our sexuality), I get my value that it ought to shape it in the direction of male female bonding and marriage from the Bible. I know that may sound very quaint to you, but I am being open with you. Where do you get your value that we shouldn’t teach any preference?
AM: Where do I get that value from? I think that it’s something I’ve arrived at over time by observing the world, learning about things, forming my own opinions. And I do agree that I think everyone’s values is of course influenced by where they grow up, the family they came from, their environment, their culture, everything. And I understand that your values come from sort of a Judeo-Christian framework, and you know, I don’t regret you for having those values.
DP: Well, you do, you do. Now lets be honest, of course you do because you think that value in particular is oppressive.
AM: Well, okay, here’s the distinction I want to draw. I don’t think it’s a problem for anyone to have values such as heterosexuality is the only way to live. I think the only problem arises when anyone tries to impose their values on other people. I mean, my values, I’m not trying to impose them on anyone. If you want to be heterosexual, you know, go do it, have fun, enjoy! That’s totally fine. I am not going to tell anyone they can’t be heterosexual.
DP: No, you would like to impose a new definition of marriage.
AM: A new definition of marriage?
DP: Yes. I am sure you are for same sex marriage.
AM: Well of course.
DP: Okay, so you are imposing your value.
AM: Well, I mean, just because gay marriage is allowed doesn’t mean that heterosexuality isn’t allowed.
DP: I understand, but…
AM: My value doesn’t prevent anyone from doing
DP: Well, I’ll tell you what it does prevent, among other things, it does prevent, two things. One, a fair number of people, we would both acknowledge, who would otherwise make love and bond with the opposite sex will not. We both acknowledge that, because that’s a preference we shouldn’t teach any longer. And it prevents a lot of children from having a mother and father.
AM: Well, what about the fifty percent divorce rate that exists?
DP: What about it? Why does the fifty percent divorce rate prevent a child from having a mother and father? I was divorced and my child continued to have his mother and father. He’s now your age and he is fine.
AM: Alright, well, I mean, do you want to say that
DP: Wait. What does the divorce rate have to do, my question was: Why would you want to make a system that prevents a child from having a mother and father from the outset? And then you said we have a large divorce rate, but it’s a non sequitur.
AM: You’re right it’s a non sequitur. I was drawing a comparison that, you know, just because we have heterosexual marriage doesn’t mean that every child has an ideal upbringing
DP: I never said ideal. Your right, it’s irrelevant though. Your system prevents a child from the outset from having either a mother or a father
AM: There is also the possibility of having two mothers or two fathers though.
DP: Yes, and that is just as good?
AM: Yes.
DP: Okay, now you don’t think-you say that you get your values from your experience, your life, your reading and so on-nothing in your reading has suggested to you that the millennia-old preference for a child having a mother and father is a good one. It is an oppressive bigoted preference because
AM: It’s not clear to me that it’s necessarily better than any other system.
DP: I see. It’s not clear to you. Let me ask you this, because this is what I think the whole thing comes down to in some ways. Do you believe that men and women-forget now sexual orientation and behavior-are basically different, or is that also entirely culturally constructed?
AM: Are they essentially different? I think that the differences are greatly exaggerated
DP: So they are not significant?
AM: Well, I think culturally there are huge differences that people have internalized but I think that
DP: But there are no fixed significant differences?
AM: I would say not, other than biological
DP: So you don’t feel that a mother has something truly distinctive to give to a child that a father can not, and that a father has something truly distinctive to give that a mother can not?
AM: No I don’t. I mean I think that people can get their role models from whomever
DP: Well, I didn’t say role model. You brought in the word role model. I just said that there is a unique contribution that a mother makes, that father’s can’t, and that father’s make that mother’s can’t.
AP: No, I do not think that is the case.
DP: Okay, good. You’re consistent.
AP: I think it is much more important that both parents love and support the child and that is completely sufficient.
DP: Right, completely sufficient. So, now we are coming near the end and I do want to pose this challenge to you: Do you ever think that at twenty-two, you’re chucking the entire Western Civilizational preference for a mother and father might be a little arrogant? And this is not meant insulting at all.
AM: No, I don’t think it is because I think the idea of the entire civilizational preference is really something that is a bit of a myth. I mean we have our histories and we have written histories, but I don’t think that we really know for sure that even that was the case. And I
DP: Wait. You don’t know that our civilization has preferred that men and women marry? That is the only definition of marriage we’ve had.
AM: No. It has preferred, but you don’t know it was necessarily, you know, the best system.
DP: That’s right. So you feel that this preference may in fact be an error and you don’t feel any way humbled by the fact that at twenty-two you’re prepared to chuck all of Western
AM: Are you saying because I’m young I can’t have values?!
DP: Of course a twenty-two year old can have values. In fact my life is devoted to try and pass on certain values to twenty-two year olds. And for that matter: thirty-two, forty-two, fifty-two, etcetera. My only question was: might humility suggest that at twenty-two, before chucking the basic social institution and preference of Western Civilization, you think well maybe they were right. The fact that I feel otherwise, I might be wrong. That’s all I was suggesting.
AM: No, I don’t think that’s fair because I think that part of civilization is change and part of it is progress. I think that the strength of civilization is being able to look at our past and our history and our present and think: What are we doing that’s good? What are we doing that’s bad? How can we change it? How can we make it better?
DP: At this point, do you hope to marry one day?
AM: Um, I haven’t really decided on that.
DP: So you don’t even have that hope? You haven’t decided on the hope? I asked if you hoped, not if you decided.
AM: Do I hope to marry? I mean, I don’t know if I’m going to marry or not.
DP: I didn’t ask if you knew, I asking if you’re hoping.
AM: I’m not sure what the difference is?
DP: Well, I hope to win the lottery, but I don’t expect to. There is a very big difference. So I’m asking if you hoped to.
AM: Um, well hope would imply that that would be ideal. But I’m not going to say that getting married would be ideal. But I’m also not against marriage; I mean you get insurance benefits by getting married so I can definitely see a case where I would get married.
DP: For insurance benefits?
AM: Yea.
DP: That’s why you would
AM: And tax benefits as well. It’s very convenient.
DP: Tax benefits, I see. Okay, two quick things. First, I know you mentioned to my producer that you might want me on a show, or something, and I would be more than happy to reciprocate. Please know that. The other is do I have your permission to publish this interview?
AM: Publish it where?
DP: Anywhere. I do a syndicated column and I might use the interview. I would never change your words, needless to say.
AM: Well, um, you can publish it but I hope you won’t take anything out of context.
DP: No.
AM: I know we talked about a number of different things such as sexuality being fixed and things like that that I think you sort of misinterpreted me on.
DP: You do?
AM: Yea, I mean you
DP: Wasn’t that as clear as a bell that we both do agree that society is primary in determining whom we’ll have sex with?
AM: Right, no, we do agree on that.
DP: Okay.
AM: But you said before that, you were sort of disagreeing with gay rights activists who would say that
DP: Yea, they say that it’s fixed from the beginning. You feel that it’s fixed once society determines it.
AM: I guess so. It’s fixed once you are experience is in it.
DP: Okay, fair enough. Listen, has this been painful?
AM: Oh, only slightly.
DP: Okay, well thats very honest. Thank you for your time.
AM: Alright.
DP: Bye-bye.
AM: Bye.
DP: Okay. That was Anna Montrose. I am Dennis Prager, and this was an hour for the ages.