Now, in the early days of my lecture, when I used to talk about risk, that is all I would say.
在我早先的演讲中，当我谈到风险的时候，我就只讲上面这些就够了。
But people would sometimes try to ask me a question during the Q&A period.
不过有人会在后面的问答环节里试图向我提问。
And I say "try to ask my a question" because it would often come out in a kind of garbled and uncomfortable way, and it took me a while to figure out what was going on.
我用了"试图"二字是因为他们总是用吞吞吐吐不自然的语调，让我好一会儿才明白他们想要问什么。
It would go something like this, they'd say, "Yeah, but isn't it risky because, you know, um, uh, when two men um, you know it's risky because uh the parts don't fit and um uh and the parts don't fit because uh when two men um and the parts..."
他们一般会说："但是，确实很有风险啊，因为...你懂的，额...当两个男人...额...这很有风险，因为身体构造不匹配，所以当身体构造不匹配的时候，额...两个男人...额..."
And they'd go on and on doing this for a while.
他们吞吞吐吐半天说不出来。
And finally, I would interrupt them and say, "Excuse me, are you trying to ask me about anal sex?"
最后我只好打断他们："抱歉，你是不是想说肛交这个词？"
"Oh my God, he said 'anal sex' in Texas! Arrest him!"
"哦上帝啊，他居然在德克萨斯州说了'肛交'这个词。快逮捕他！"
I mean, it was a bad scene.
我想说的是，局面很尴尬。
But, in fact, they were trying to ask my about anal sex, and I recognized that there was an interesting phenomenon going on.
不过他们确实是想要向我咨询关于肛交的问题。我进而意识到一种很有趣的现象。
When people think about homosexuality, they think about male homosexuality.
当人们想到同性恋的时候，他们脑海里出现的是男同性恋。
When they would think about male homosexuality, they would think about anal sex.
而当他们想到男同性恋的时候，他们脑海里出现的是肛门性交。
When they would think about anal sex, they had this argument in their minds that the "parts don't fit," and I realized that if I was going to address people's actual concerns, I would have to address this argument.
当他们想到肛门性交的时候，他们脑海里出现的是这样的论调：身体构造不匹配。随后我意识到，如果我想要关注人们内心里真正在想什么，我必须关注这种论调。
So, I actually have two responses to this argument.
所以对这种说法，我有两个回答。
First response: yes, they do.
第一个回答是：不，身体构造是匹配的！
How do I know? Well, because if they didn't, people would try it, it wouldn't work, and then they'd go do something else.
我怎么知道？很简单，如果他不匹配，人们就会开始尝试，尝试不成功的话就换一种方式呗。
I mean what's that scenario going to look like?
会有下面这种情况出现吗：
"Oh my God, the parts don't fit! What are we going to do? I don't know! Do you want to go bowling? Sure, this isn't working!"
"哦上帝啊，他们不匹配，怎么办啊？""我也不知道！你想改打保龄球吗？""好啊，谁让它不匹配呢！"
I would actually have people during the Q&A portion of my program, I'm not making this up, there it is, "Well of course it's wrong because...
想必安排人在问答环节表演这个小品小段儿是个不错的主意。这是真事不是我编的，他们会这样问："哦，当然不匹配啊，这就是错的，原因是..."
And, I want to say that if you're doing it this way, you're doing it wrong.
我要回答的是："如果你要是用这种姿势，明显你就错了嘛！
What do you want me to tell you?
你这让我忧什么可说的！"
Gay people aren't stupid.
同性恋们又不傻。
We don't sit there saying, "Oh my God, the parts don't fit! What are we going to do?"
他们不会坐在那里干着急："上帝啊，身体构造不匹配，我们该怎么办啊？"
I began to understand why people always focus on male homosexuality, right?
于是我可说有点懂了，为什么人们总是只关注男性同性恋者。
What's lesbianism going to look like?
那么拉拉们的做法呢？
At this point, we don't have an argument anymore.
那么说到这，我们面对的已经不是一个反同论点了。
We have a panic, right?
而是一场灾难。
This brings me to the second, somewhat more serious response to the "parts don't fit" argument.
由此我引出第二个回应，对于"身体构造不匹配"的论调，我稍微严肃一点地回应：假设你对某种特定的性行为方式。
Which is this, suppose you have an argument against a particular sexual practice, say anal sex.
比如肛交，提出反对的论点，那么这种观点实际上是你对特定的行为的反对。
What do you have?
你要怎么反驳。
You've got an argument against that practice-which is not tantamount to an argument against homosexuality.
而这种反对论点绝不等同于对同性性取向的反对，因为并不是所有的同性恋者全都进行肛交这种行为。
Because not all homosexual people engage in anal sex, as I've mentioned, there are many different experiences, not only homosexual people engage in anal sex.
正如我之前提到的，有很多别的方式，而且并不是只有同性恋者会去进行肛交这种行为。
This point also surprises some of my audiences.
这也是一个让我的听众们很吃惊的答案。
This is a great story about Strom Thurmond.
有个关于斯特罗姆·舍尔蒙德的有趣故事。
