If Queerty ReBUTTal had a theme song, what do you think it would be? For some reason we always hum The Price is Right ditty. Probably because it's the most catchy of all game show tunes. And, of course, because Jeopardy's hardly appropriate.

Anyway, it's Friday, which means we've compiled a few comments on a few of your comments on our comments on some of the comment-worthy events of the week that was...

Read our fabulous remarks, after the jump...

• First up: Alan Chambers' cringe-inducing appearance on the Montel Williams Show. In case you don't remember the post (Montel Reams Ex-Gay Leader Chambers), Williams invited Chambers on the show to discuss Exodus International's controversial approach to homosexuality. Believe us when we say Chambers left a changed man - and by that, we mean, good old Montel made him change his pants.

Not surprisingly, you kids ate it with a spoon. And how could you not? It may have been one of the best television clips in television clip history. We were quite taken, however, with Christopher Trottier's post. Trottier's one of our favorite on-line celebrities (we're particularly fond of his recently revived blog, quixoticals, and we must say we're in love with his comment:

You know, I don't understand this whole process of marrying straight if you don't want to be gay. There's nothing wrong with singledom. Lot's of gay people are "bachelors" for the rest of their lives. Just think of numerous Roman Catholic priests.

Marrying straight produces a dissatisfaction with reality. Dissatisfaction produces marriages like this:

In case you can't tell, that's a picture of man with a feminized cardboard cut out of himself - a cardboard cut out with which he entered holy matrimony. Trottier explains all here.

Trottier's got a point: why do these fools feel the need to get married? Is it an extra cover, like people will be more inclined to think them straight if they have a spouse? Right. People will just think they're total fucking liars and, what's more, desperate. Which, we suppose, they are...

• One of our favorite posts from this past week came in to form of Queer Castration Raises Questions of Sexual Policing in which we chatted about a trio of North Carolinians who got their kicks castrating some willing "victims". They were found guilty and got some jail time, but we couldn't help wondering whether they should have, in fact, been found guilty. At which point should the law step aside and let people get their rocks off?

You guys were quite vocal on this one. One reader, "Loki" wrote:

It's most definitely totally fucked up, but I'd say legal. Who's to say what we can or cannot do to our own bodies? If you want your balls cut off, you're probably not going to or going to be able to do it yourself(unless you're a total psycho, which is very possible if you want your junk sliced up).
I wonder if the guys who ran it are totally nuts.

Oh, Loki, you're just like your namesake: a jokester. What's most intriguing about this post is that Loki, like so many of you, passed judgment on these dubious sex acts. Reader nystudman echoes:

If someone wants you to beat him over the head with a baseball bat, you don't do it. If someone wants you to run over his dog, you don't do it. There are reasons why there are some legal restricctions on harmful activities. These guys knew what they were doing was wrong.

Many of you also wondered if these people were mentally deranged. Quite honestly, we can't say. It's hard to determine what's wrong and right when it comes to sexuality. Certainly these men could have fantasized about being castrated and finally found some willing "doctors" - is that so wrong? It just goes to show you how many sexual hang-ups people still have, even gay people who have been told that sticking it in the butts wrong. Are we mentally deranged? Well, maybe, but not because we get it up the poop chute. As Nathan says:

There are spiritual aspects involved here that not everyone can understand. This is also very different from the idea of pain as pleasure, as it is centered around the removal of a body part, as opposed to the "mutilation" of it. This may also have more to do with expressing literal physical control over one's body in an extreme and overt gesture. In any case, I am tired of people being so very concerned with telling other people what they CANNOT do with their lives and/or bodies.

If the law starts regulating one set of sex acts, what's to stop them from policing other "deviant" practices? But, we agree with the readers who point out the boys didn't have proper license for the not-so-surgical procedure. Very naughty.

• Tuesday brought us another morally ambiguous case (Aussie Accused of Infecting Men with HIV) in which Michael John Neal has been put on trial for allegedly, knowingly infecting at least two men with HIV. Now, we taken a stand against this sort of behavior before - that is, people who lie or are dishonest about their HIV status. While we can't say that Neal's guilty, we can say that we appreciate reader Rob's comment:

Making it a criminal offense for someone who is HIV positive knowingly to have consensual unprotected sex with another is foolish and counter-productive. I strongly believe in individual responsibility. When someone ignores the signs that state one should not ride a bicycle on a freeway, do we arrest the driver who hits the cyclist? It might be a civil matter, but hardly criminal.

True - it's your job to protect yourself, readers. As we said in a follow-up post, we always assume the other person's positive. Better safe than sorry. But, of course, it's very rare we have to deal with as we're total hermits and haven't fucked in so long that we've forgotten how to spell sxe.

• Now, some frivolous fun. On Wednesday, in a post called "Straight" Actor Blind Item Madness, we echoed Ben Widdicombe's queer-minded query:

Which gay movie actor is going to be "caught" by this week's tabloids dating a TV actress whose show was canceled? Strangely, neither has any upcoming projects listed on their IMDb.com pages. Hope it works out for you, kids!

The majority of you guessed Hayden Christensen and Rachel Bilson. We agree that the finger points to them, but reader sandalus correctly points out the two actors currently have a film together and, what's more, wonders if it's all a publicity stunt. Reader John goes on to suggest that the blind item itself provided a little publicity. A gossip column working for a movie studio? Preposterous!

• Alright, Does Garrison Keillor Have a Gay Secret? posting wasn't the most exciting in history, but a reader sent a comment in and we told him we'd post it, but then we forgot, so we're doing it now:

Regarding Garrison Keillor, I had sex with him about 12 years ago at the Fitzgerald Theater in St. Paul, MN, where he performs "Prairie Home Companion." Yep. We met in an AOL chat room. I can't remember his screenname, but it didn't seem he made a big attempt to hide his identity. I think it was RadioDJ or something like that. While online, I guessed it was him. I don't know if the fact that I found out it was him somehow impressed him, but he invited me to the theater where we did all kinds of things in his locked dressing room. He's as strange as you might think, but sweet. He was obviously into the encounter, too.

Does this make him gay? It's all a matter of semantics, I guess.

It sure is. And all our semantics scream, "Ew!" But we still love you, Todd.

• Ug, speaking of "ew", check out this comment left by a reader on that Michael Savage post (Sniff, Sniff...What's That Putrid Odor?). For a little context, conservacunt Savage referred to the recently murdered transwoman as a freak and suggested that she should have been in a psych ward. Reader "the voice of reason" (ha!) writes:

I see by your inane screed that the truth seems to outrage you. Dr. Savage has more knowledge than your high school education can relate to.

Go Mike...keep calling them as they are, one less freak to deal with.

Our high school education? Indeed! We are not thousands of dollars in debt for high school, mister! Clearly this man (or woman) has a screw loose. To help them along their way, we'll reprint reader Ben's insightful comment:

Gender transformation isn't considered freakish "in every society."

It's clear Dr. Savage doesn't use scholarly research to form his conclusions, which makes his credibility suspect.

In Thailand, they are known as the kathoey and considered a "third sex." Tradition treats them as a normal variation of the norm, and as important spiritually.

It wasn't until colonialism that Thai culture stopped developing on it's own and incorporated intolerant prescriptions of the West.

See, "voice of reason", you're just a colonizer. And we know what happens to colonizers - they get overthrown. Better start packing now, homie.

Speaking of packing - we have to start packing up for the weekend. Yes, we know, it's hard for us, too. But, we'll be back Monday with tons of fun things for you, our loyal and dashing readers. Thank to all who comments. For those of you who didn't comment - well, we love you, too, but we'd love you more if you wrote us a little somethin' somethin.

xoxo,
Queerty