OK, here's one of my biggest pet peeves, the 'let's bug the straights with (icky) homo stuff' brand of politics. Whether it's sodomized Harper statuary, or queer boy columnists ruminating on how much they'd love to bend over, suck or blow this that or the other (resolutely, representationally) straight guy the impact is the same. The shock value only works if you agree with/reinforce the notion that sucking and fucking is ultimately icky in a queer context.

Of course, those who commit this particular kind of verbal stealth attack (and incidentally, it's usually a boy thing, I don't believe I've seen many grrls try this one, though correct me if I'm wrong) argue that they're shaking up people's expectations, challenging their assumptions and forcing them to reconsider their own biases.

Bullshit.

All they're doing is reinforcing their notion that queer sex is twisted by using it as a weapon. The intention is to shock, not to draw the person into a consideration of the potential pleasure of the activity in question.
And honestly, the schock loses it's value pretty quickly, and just becomes a tired, one-note, attention-grabbing game.

Suggesting that Harper's associate or other confidante is enjoying a little queer encountering, preferably with facts, would be a good way to confront complacency and an us/them mentality which excludes/marginalises us. The sodomy-as-punishment sounds more like rape to me.