Camille Says What? The Demographics Prove Ms. Paglia hit the mark in "No Law In The Arena."

For a primer let me start by saying that Camille Paglia is in her own words a "amazonian, drag queen and dissident Pro-Sex and Pro men Feminist." She is also an openly LGBT person whom has identified both as bisexual or a lesbian from the time around Stonewall. Recently she has even said she is a Trans being. She is not an anti-gay bigot or a member of the Theocratic Moral Majority cause. However she said something which could be seen as antithetical to my description of the woman, in her book "Vamps and Tramps," in 1994.

Homosexuality is not “normal.” On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm; therein resides its eternally revolutionary character. Note I do not call it a challenge to the idea of a norm. Queer theorists — that wizened crew of flimflamming free-loaders — have tried to take the poststructuralist tack of claiming that there is no norm, since everything is relative and contingent. This is the kind of silly bind that word-obsessed people get into when they are deaf, dumb and blind to the outside world. Nature exists, whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. Penis fits vagina: no fancy linguistic game-playing can change that biologic fact.

The above statement was quite controversial at the time and continues to be today. However, if you sit back and think through what she is saying it is not hateful at all. Nor should it be considered controversial. Obviously heterosexuality in some form must be the norm for our species or it would have gone extinct long ago from lack of procreation. This is all she is saying and that because it is the norm to procreate it is not the norm for a member of our species to be same sex oriented as a primary identity. She never said anywhere in this passage that those whom are not normal a homosexual needs to change or that not being normal is worthy of any moral or character judgments.

In fact, she is correct in the numbers. I have crunched the numbers based on two figures; the amount of the so-called LGBT are actually B VS L or G. If you remove the vast majority of LGBT people you narrow it down to under even 1% of the average human population with a total of 00.12% of the species that is as far from normal in numbers and demographics as you can get. It is thus not "normal" as in the average or the mean or the norm or odds of you falling into that category. Admitting what is normal does not provide one with a means of a moral or character evaluation in anyway nor does it say anything about the rights of actual gay or lesbian people.

In fact, her views as expressed of the background of gay and lesbian people in the same book is also very apt with what the American Psychological Association says in their addressed hypothesis for the causation of orientations other than heterosexual.

No one is “born gay.” The idea is ridiculous, but it is symptomatic of our overpoliticized climate that such assertions are given instant credence by gay activists and their media partisans. I think what gay men are remembering is that they were born different.

Exactly, what LGBT people are recalling is the difference in temperament and interests not the orientation that eventually gets Fetishized as a homosexual or bisexual orientation. This is what the evidence definitely points to and she was correct on this score. She has been lambasting the ideas of the gay gene and gay brain since the mid 90's. In the most recent studies from June 2017 homosexual and heterosexual male brains were shown to be basically indistinguishable from each other. Far from the sex reversed ideas some have of a non-male man's brain. Camille was correct back then and she continues to be on this score despite pseudo-scientists arguing against the point.

This is not a case of me trying to defend her by putting words into her mouth or head about being unashamed of being whom she is. I give you the official explanation of her continued norm comments bellow right from the horses mouth herself.

Homosexual promiscuity is not in nature's best interest. Certainly not anal sex. Nature wants us to procreate. [From Playboy interview, May 1995]

Well, this one was sure to enflame. But who am I to mince words when I have valuable cultural commentary to offer the world? People are ready to jump on me for this comment, accusing me of being homophobic—but that just is not true. I am not making a moral judgment—I am a lesbian and some of my best friends are gay men.

What I am talking about here is plain and simple nature—an entity of force that cannot be fought. Nature wants what it wants and has its own drives and motivations. So I think it's pretty obvious that nature meant for men and women to be together and didn't intend or plan for the development of homosexuality. Don't make me get all graphic and give you an anatomy lesson. Look: we are supposed to procreate, have babies, perpetuate the species—that's doesn't mean we have to, but that's why our bodies are the way they are.    

So, you see it is all about that reproduction and passing on genes stuff. So, she is not being anti-gay in stating a fact that procreation is why a penis and vagina evolved to work like they do. She is 100% correct and I agree with her here as well. Nature did not "plan" for the development of homosexuality as that is not how nature works. I have gay, lesbian and bi friends I have no hate for these people. However, heterosexual procreation and straightness is the norm for the species and Camille is correct. Sorry, but, facts do not care about your feelings they are what they are and reality trumps your narratives.