Joseph Nicolosi heads an anti-gay group called the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuals. It is inspired by a theological condemnation of gay people more than a scientific one.
If you go to their website promising "therapeutic" cures of something that isn't a diseaseyou will find Nicolosi whining. The poor baby feels persecuted and misrepresented. Talk about pot calling kettle. He bitches that when TV shows deal with his version of "therapy" they don't "invite a therapist on their shows to explain it." Note that by "therapist" he means one of his anti-gay allies. Most therapists dismiss Nicolosi's "therapy" as a religiously motivate sham. Cry baby Nicolosi says:"If the mainstream media has any interest in accurately reporting on our therapy, they should invite real reparative therapists to tell their stories."
Gee, I would think that the stories that need telling are the victims of witch-doctors not the witch-doctors themselves. But that aside what happens when the media actually does what Nicolosi demands? Below is a video of one such attempt, when CNN tried to speak to Nicolosi himself. Now remember Nicolosi claims he conconcted this new "therapy" so when it comes to driving out the gay demon he ought to the top expert to interview.
When CNN approaches him to ask for an interview his immediate response is "I don't think so." He complains when the media doesn't interview him and his fellow Svegalis of "reparative therapy". Yet, his first response to a request for an interview is to reject it. Finally, after some persuasion he agrees to an interview. But the man walks into the interview with a chip on his shoulder and brimming over with attitude, anger and a host of his own issues. Nicolosi becomes unhinged and angry over the mildest of questions. Watch his mental meltdown yourself. This has to be one of the shortest interviews on record and it shows Nicolosi for what he is. And yet this man has the audacity to commit therapy and bring "psychological wholeness" to people! What a laugh.
It should be noted that while Nicolosi attacks the CNN reporter for mentioning artistic in this context that, in fact, Nicolosi does precisely that himself. In his book Nicolois describes the traits of boys doomed to homosexuality unless he is unleashed on them to cure them. And he says "A number of them had traits that could be considered gifts: bright, precocious, social and relational and artistically talented." Here are some other quotes from this maniac.
At this early stage, generally before the age of three, Ralph Greenson observed, the boy decides that he would like to grow up like his father. This is a choice. Implicit in that choice is the decision that he would not like to grow up to be like his mother. According to Robert Stoller, "The first order of business in being a man is, 'don't be a woman.'"
Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.
There has been another “baby step” for marriage equality. The New Hampshire House voted on a bill that would give same-sex couples the same rights as married heterosexuals. The vote in favor of marriage equality was rather impressive: 243 in support and 129 opposed.
The Right-wing Marriage Alliance rallied outside the legislature and then packed the gallaries. At one point when Republican Steve Vaillancourt rose to speak in favor of marriage equality they booed and shouted at him. Several Right-wing protestors had to be removed from the gallary for their actions.
Typical of the double-speak of the Religious Right a spokesman for the Cornerstone Policy Research Centers, Karen Testerman, said that granting marriage equality makes “the homosexual community a special class.” How downright Orwellian the logic. If the right to marry is defined to exclude gays that is equality but it it includes gays then it’s special rights.
The Republican Party, still acting as the lap-dog of the American Taliban, in Indiana had public fits because an anti-equality law they were attempting to push through the legislature failed.
Yesterday I argued that “Godless immorality” regarding sexuality has been the dominant paradigm in human history and that the brief reign of the Puritanical was an aberration. I think history supports that. The more controversial statement, I suspect, was when I said that the “Christian paradigm of sexuality is one that is at war with reality. It is contrary to the evolution of the human species and human sexuality itself.” That is important.
It is important because the hardwiring of sexuality is something that evolved. If you don’t accept the fact of evolution you can’t rationally deal with human sexuality. If you don’t believe in the facts of reality you can’t cope with them well. The net result is that fundamentalists, in particular, spend an inordinate amount of time hoping to change reality. They attribute everything to sin, weakness, Satan, demons and liberals (who in their mind are something akin to demons). What they can’t accept is that this is just how human beings are hardwired. It’s built into the species.
Knowing that makes it much easier to deal with. What the fundamentalist resorts to is attempting to terrify people about sex. God will punish you, you will get pregnant, you will contract an STD, you will die of AIDS, and oh, yes, God will punish you again. The US federal government now wastes massive amounts of cash in abstinence programs in state indoctrination centers (they call them schools) where they attempt to scare teens about sex.
Here is the bad news for them. Teens are terrified about sex. They always have been and always will be. Sex is something new, overpowering, frightening, compelling, shocking, painful, pleasurable. It’s damn scary. It’s scary for adults and even more so for teens. If fear were the only factor the world would be populated with billions of 40 year old virgins.
But sex is more complicated than that. Sexuality is hardwired into the species. Teens and adults may be terrified by sex but they have an incredible drive to engage in it. It certainly is hormonal but it is more than that. it is tied to every aspect of being human. It is not just physical it is also psychological. So it connects our physical body with our mental faculties. Yet sexuality evolved in humans long before the rational mind evolved. I would think that alone should clue us in. If sexuality evolved before the rational mind don’t expect sexual expression to always be rational.
There is a huge amount about sexuality we don’t understand. We certainly understand the physical nature of it. Millions of years of practice made that inevitable. What we don’t understand well are the more complex aspects. We don’t know what it is that causes individuals to see themselves as men or as women thus leading to some individuals who are transgendered. We don’t know why some individuals are attracted to only the opposite sex, some to only the same sex and some to both. In reality we are still only scratching the surface when it comes to understanding sex.
But we know sexuality is something that dominates large aspects of human existence. We see it in art so frequently because we see it in life so frequently. And in the church they keep learning that capping the volcano doesn’t stop the eruption. The regular and constant flow of sexual scandals within the church gives proof to that. But they can’t deal with the reality of sexuality if they can’t deal with the reality of human evolution. It is through the hows and whys of evolution that one begins to comprehend the complexity and inevitability of sexuality.
The Bush administration prefers to push abstinence. That is what their Evangelical base wants. Does it work? Well, if you look at the states with the highest percentage of fundamentalists in the population you find the highest teen pregnancy rates. Of the ten states with the highest teen pregnancy rate eight of them are in the Bible Belt: Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Arkansas, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee and Louisiana. Compare that to the “liberal” states. Where Texas has a teen pregnancy rate of 101 Massachusetts is almost half that: 60. North Carolina is 95 while Vermont is 44.
Fundamentalists have invented one program after another to mold human sexuality into what they believe to be the right kind of sexuality. None have worked but they do give them the false comfort that it “might” work. The latest venture they are trying has a very surreal quality to it.
They are called “Purity Balls”. Prepubescent girls dress up as if going to the prom. But instead of a prom they go to a dance with their fathers who are dressed up in tuxedos. It’s like a prom except the date is Daddy. Then the father and daughter exchange vows where the father promises to protect his daughter’s virginity and the girl promises not to have sex until she is married. Then Daddy slips a “purity ring” on the daughter’s finger as if they are going steady. One father told the press: “The ball is the culmination of the relationship we have with God and with each other.” Apparently no such “Purity Ball” is done with boys and their mothers. And the hope is to integrate these “Purity Balls” with other abstinence programs which receive over $200 million in federal funding.
The reality is that teens who pledge abstinence do delay sex slightly but not significantly. And they don’t tend to wait until marriage though they do wait a little longer. That’s the up side. The down side is that abstinence programs use fear as their motivation and so they don’t want to talk about condoms and birth control. Fundamentalists don’t like anything which removes the danger from sexuality. They want sex to be deadly or harmful in order to keep teens scared. So while this may delay sexual intercoursem when it does take place, and it usually does before marriage, it does so without the use of birth control or protection against STDs. The abstaining teens thus still end up having sex just riskier sex.
It strikes me that getting a 10-year-old to pledge abstinence is not particularly difficult. But how sincere can such a pledge be if the child is not flushed with hormones compelling them toward the very thing they are shunning? But is this for the child? Or is this for the parent to give them a false comfort that their child will remain virginal? And what will happen when the hormones do hit? Will these kids be honest and upfront with their parents? Or will they hide their sexuality as much as they can?
The fundamentalists I knew actually hid their sexuality. They still had affairs, cheated, had sex before marriage, masturbated, etc. They just lied about it until they were caught, begged for forgiveness and confessed they were evil and then hoped they could avoid “the traps of the devil” in the future. And certainly many conservative Christian parents have confessed that when it comes to the sex lives of their adolescents they don’t want to know what is happening. They prefer to live with an illusion than face the facts.
One Christian web site admits that fundamentalist teens “are engaging in other sexual activities, including oral sex, at high rates.” They say that the rates of actual intercourse are lower but that Christian teens admit to high levels of sexual activity. I suspect, given the pressure put on them, that with Christian teens there is a tendency to lie and cover up activity that may exist. There is no incentive to admit sexual activity that doesn’t exist, at least not to adults. So these numbers are probably the bare minimum. But they found 29% of Christian high school males had oral sex and 26% of females. Seventy percent have fondled the breasts and genitals of a partner and half have been nude with someone in a sexual situation. They were even shocked to discover that 89% of the males masturbated and 71% of the females did. And this was only high schoola ged students not older teens in university.
Studies of Christian teens who take abstinence pledges show that half of them abandon the pledge within a couple of years. And the couple of years wait is no surprise given the age of the kids who are pledging. One longitudinal study has asked teens about abstinence pledges and the data is not what the advocates of the pledges would like. Again remember these teens have an incentive to lie, especially if they are under pressure to cap their sexuality. This survey found that 52% of the teens taking the pledge “recanted them within a year”. And since they come back and survey the teens over a period of seven years they also find how teens change their stories. By the end of the survey almost three quarters of the teens, who had previously said they took a virginity pledge, were now denying they ever took the pledge. And one out of three teens who had been sexually active when younger later claimed they were virgins.
Follow up surveys showed that 88% of teens who take an abstinence pledge have premarital sex. That is not much different than the population in general. In fact abstinence programs have failed so badly that some Christian ministries have stared new programs to encourage “born-again virginity”. This is a pledge for teens who violated the previous pledge but who now say that they are going to stick to for real. One abstinence program says starting over is one “reason many students attend our program.”
The fact is that Christians don’t know how to deal with sexuality and are doing a poor job of it. Consider that the Right-wing Promise Keepers surveyed men who attended their religious cheer rallies. They found that half the men “in attendance were involved with pornography within one week of attending the event.” One week! What would the percentage be a year later? It is also claimed that 37% of fundamentalist ministers say they “struggle” with pornography and over half admitted to viewing it in the past year. And one out six women having an abortion describes herself as a born again Christian.
One evangelical minister admitted in Christianity Today “the statistics on premarital sex among evangelicals hardly distinguish us from all the other people on the face of the earth” and he says he got in trouble with his congregation when he said if Christians want to “uphold the ‘sanctity of marriage’” they should stay out of the courts and concentrate on their own homes. “I cited statistics on divorce rates among evangelical Christians that put us pretty much in a dead heat with society at large. I talked about the high incidence of spousal abuse within conservative churches. I spoke about the widespread estrangement that prevails among many church-going couples.” He says he was told to “stop meddling” and start “condemning what’s happening out there.”
Those of us who have practical experience in fundamentalist circles know that deception is ripe. It is a necessary strategy for survival. Very, very few fundamentalists actually manage to follow their own sexual moral codes, especially when young. (Abstinence gets easier the older you get as the number of willing partners decreases.) And it goes back to what one conservative Christian I know of said: “I don’t want to know what my kids do.”
It is not the substance that is important to them but the illusion. They want gays to go back in the closet more than anything else. If they do they can pretend they don’t exist. They want to return to the fake world they invented where a pregnant teen wasn’t really pregnant she just went away for the summer to visit a sick aunt. Affairs went on but no one talked about it or, at most, only whispered about it behind the backs of those involved. Volcanoes were erupting all over the place but you could pretend that it wasn't happening.
How can a fundamentalist grapple with the issues of human sexuality when sexuality is intimately connected to biology, and when biology is intrinsically involved with evolution, but the fundamentalist is theologically committed to denying evolution? You need to understand the hows and whys of the evolution of human sexuality in order to even begin understanding these issues. But if you deny the reality of evolution then you can’t. That is why I argue that the theological position is one that is fundamentally at war with reality.
Below is an interesting press release from the University of Leeds. A new Ph.D. thesis by Jenny Skipp “examined, catalogued and categorised every known erotic text in eighteenth-century Britain.” Ms. Skipp was rather surprised to discover how vast a quantity of pornography was circulating in England at that time.
Not only was there a huge amount of it but it was far more widely available and consumed than previously known. As the University press release notes, “much of this work was cheap and widely available.” It was not restricted to just the upper classes as was widely assumed in the past (an assumption I myself have held erroneously before as well).
I find this interesting because the more fields I study the more I am convinced that the the bulk of Westerners (Americans in particular but not exclusively) have been rather wrong about many assumptions regarding sexuality. It is a myth of a gigantic proportions to assume that past Western generations were generally chaste and somewhat puritanical. That has never been the case. Even in Puritanical Massachusetts, under the Pilgrim, there was widespread debauchery. Enough to make the local bishop blush especially when he wasn’t directly involved.
Fundamentalist Christians, who in reality are very guilt ridden about sex and very anti-sexual (despite protestations to the contrary), have claimed that their view of sexuality was the dominant one and that in the 1960s evil “liberals” came along with the “sexual revolution” and introduced “Godless immorality” to the West. Having grown up with those people, and attending their schools, one thing I quickly realized is that if you were to assume the opposite of everything they say you have a very high chance of being right. They bamboozle themselves and others.
That their views of sexuality gained political power in the mid to late 1800s is not doubted. And at that point they used state power in an attempt to mould humanity as they believed to be moral. For them morality seemed to be almost exclusively centered on one’s genitals. And with the use of state power they tried, unsuccessfully, to constrain human sexuality into expressions they found acceptable --- which wasn’t a lot actually. As they are known to put it: one man for one woman for life. And within that relationship they limited, again by law, the expression of sex only to vaginal intercourse with the possibility of pregnancy.
The sexual revolution that began in the1960s was hardly a revolution. It was more like an evolution toward the sexual morality that dominated mankind as far back as recorded history. The methods and forms of sexual expression and freedom may have changed with technology but the general way people act is hardly much different today than it has been in the past. There have been some changes that are good. I think most people today are aware of the necessity of treating women like individuals with all the rights of a man. That would be a major change from the past.
But nothing that upsets the fundamentalist today is new. Sure you can get porn on the internet. But every new communication technology brought about new forms of porn. But it has always been there. I suspect if the camera were invented on Monday that by Tuesday the first pornographic photos had been created. Before photography they had etchings, paintings and drawings. Pompeii has some rather graphic murals on the walls from thousands of years ago. There are Greek vases that would cause a Baptist to fall to their knees in horror (or lust, depending on the Baptist.) Sexuality is so much a part of our hard wiring that we really ought to be careful about legislating it. There are, no doubt, legitimate areas for state involvement. And there are areas where social groups ought to work to help people get control of their lives. But what ought to be legislated is far smaller than what is legislated. Sexuality which involves individuals who are unwilling, or unable to consent, is a proper issue for legislation. But the sexual/romantic lives of consenting adults is no business of the state.
That is not to say that I approve of every expression of sexuality that humans have been able to invent. I don’t. Such actions may be amenable to private social pressure, or charitable assistance for people needing it. It is one thing to say that the state should not be involved and quite another to imply that means you approve of it.
But the Christian paradigm of sexuality is one that is at war with reality. It is contrary to the evolution of the human species and human sexuality itself. It is not historically valid. It has never fit the facts. In many ways it is destructive. At the same time that does not mean it is wrong in every detail, only in its general theory. Nor is it necessarily wrong regarding the benefits to certain sexual values. There are many “Christian” moral values which I would hope that individuals would voluntarily adopt. But they must be voluntarily adopted and not imposed by the state.
Here is what the University of Leeds press release has to say about erotica in the England of the 1700s. Sex and the 1700s Prostitutes, perversions and public scandals – the stuff of the 21st century tabloids was familiar to readers three centuries earlier, according to new research from the University of Leeds.
And just as gaggles of modern day adolescents might pass round their copy of the latest lads’ mag, the reading of erotic literature was already a social activity 300 years ago.
Jenny Skipp’s three-year PhD study examined, catalogued and categorised every known erotic text published in eighteenth-century Britain: "I tried to get a grip on just how many were published, detail the various types of sexual behaviour portrayed and find out who was doing what – and to whom.” It proved a surprisingly rich field: "Most people have heard of Fanny Hill, but there was a huge amount of erotic literature published in the 18th century."
And despite earlier work suggesting that these texts were only for solitary consumption – at home, alone, and behind closed doors – Skipp’s work throws up a surprising image of how these works were used. "They would be read in public – everywhere from London's rough-and-ready alehouses to the city’s thriving coffee houses, which weren't quite the focus of polite society in the way we sometimes think,” she explained. “Some texts even came as questions and answers and were clearly intended for groups of men to read together, with one asking the questions and the others answering them.”
Much of the work is derogatory in its references to women. They are subordinates, courtesans, prostitutes, carriers of venereal disease and bearers of deformed children. "When men write this way, or read these texts, it gives them a context for asserting their authority over women," Skipp added. Yet some texts portray women altogether differently, discussing the nature of female sexuality or describing lascivious aristocratic females.
One group predominant in this literature is the Libertines – whose all-in hedonistic, smoking, drinking, swearing, pleasure-seeking lifestyle was typified by their subjugation of women. Literature aimed at this group, encouraging men to assert their dominance, translated the repressive attitudes of Libertinism further down the class structure.
And Skipp's analysis of the pricing of these works revises earlier studies to show that rather than being solely targeted at the gentry, much of this work was cheap and widely available. Though many from the poorer sections of society are considered illiterate because they were unable to sign their name, they may still have been able to read: "Many more people could read than write," she said. "In London, for example, we believe about 70 per cent of men could read."
The works range from books, down to single-sheet pamphlets. "The price and content of this material suggests it was available to merchants, traders, skilled and semi-skilled men and even labourers," Skipp went on. Its accessibility allowed sexual attitudes to percolate down the social strata.
Dr Simon Burrows of the University’s school of history, one of Skipp’s PhD supervisors, described the study as “pioneering work.” He said: “Jenny has shown that erotic texts are about much more than sexual fantasy. They can give us genuine new insights into cultural attitudes, sexual norms and social customs.”
And Skipp describes a literary quality to the writing which you might struggle to find in modern erotic fiction or top-shelf pornography. "It is very different to today's erotica," she said. "It is more humorous, more literary and more engaged with the wider issues of the life and politics of the times." Its metaphors mirror the passions of the age: "At a time when military power was equated with virility, armed conquest is often used as a metaphor for sex – in phrases such as 'unsheathing the weapon', 'storming the fort' and 'releasing the cannon'." By the 1770s, the transcripts of adultery trials became a new source of titillation. To secure a divorce, a man would first have to successfully sue a rival for 'violating his property', before petitioning Parliament to dissolve the marriage. "There is something rather voyeuristic about these trials," said Skipp. "Often servants would give evidence while innkeepers would testify about lovers taking rooms together."
“The appetite for this kind of material shows readers were interested in gossip about their social betters and fascinated by the sordid details of marital breakdown – just like modern-day readers scanning the tabloids for a juicy scandal.
”The production of erotica was frequently stimulated by intrigues in the lives of well-known public figures – the aristocracy, politicians, writers, playwrights and actresses and occasionally the monarchy. The wives and mistresses were both celebrated and derided in erotic texts – they were the WAGS of their day.”
As Skipp said: “Eighteenth century readers were just as fascinated with public figures as we are today – especially when they had skeletons in their closet!”
The US military has a real rational policy. They will cover up for criminals, they will hide drug abuse, they will harass and lie to kids in an effort to strong arm them into joining the military -- especially if they can do this outside the prying eyes of parents (It’s that Bush pro-family policy you hear so much about). Morons, criminals and druggies are welcome just not gay people. One indication of the “quality” of these people is a military recruiter Sgt. Marcia Ramode.
Ramode trolls the internetlooking for young people to snare, they have empty body bags in Iraq that need filling for the Decider in Charge. And she found a web page of one young man, Corey Andrew, she tried to recruit by sending him a personal email. He asked if he is “able to serve in the US military as an openly gay man.” Well faster than King George could mispronounce terrorist old Marcia told him, in all capital letters for emphasis: “WELL IF YOU ARE GAY WE DON’T TAKE YOU YOU ARE CONSIDERED UNQUALIFIED.” Have a drug problem they’ll help you cover it up that only puts the other guys in your combat troop at risk. Far worse if you think one of them is cute. As Ramode said: "YES YOU MIGHT TO TRY TO KISS A SOLDIER IN THE FOXHOLE SO THAT IS A NO NO." I love the priorities of the military.
Andrews, wrote her back noting that “the US government doesn’t mind taking my ‘gay’ dollars every tax season or out of my paycheck every two weeks.” He also noted that US military recruiters were hanging out “on my school campus and in the local shopping Mall like pedofilic predators, everyday, begging teenagers to join.” Well, true about that. In fact very true since they intentionally try to recruit the kids away from parental authority. That is military recruiting strategy. Andrews reminds Marcia that using all caps, as she did, in emails “represents shouting and hostility”.
Of course this woman, I would never call her a lady, went Postal. She sent a long tirade, all in caps to prove her rage, which to me at least, indicates she is not mentally in control of herself and the military might want to take away her gun before she climbs a water tower and starts picking off imaginary space aliens trying to eat her brains. Here are some excerpts from her email (so I don’t have to type this crap). I particularly like the part where this moron thinks that the military would have the right to grab people off the streets and send them to Iraq if they wanted. Of course as she goes into her tirade she invokes freedom as the justification. Every authoritarian does. I also enjoy her snotty remark about enjoying freedom while it lasts. She and her kind are quite willing to take it away.
In one email she told him: “OH, I FORGOT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT YES YOU MIGHT TO TRY TO KISS A SOLDIER IN THE FOXHOLE SO THAT IS A NO NO.
Now she has really riled up this student. Of course you would think this woman should be doing her work instead of sending out insulting emails. Actually I’m glad she wasn’t doing her work. But I’m not sure the Pentagon will appreciate it. But a little verbal gay bashing, hey General Pace might approve. Corey tells her he doesn’t have to dress up in green and wear dog tags and army boots to prove his patriotism. He tells her he thinks it sad that she belongs to an organization that discriminates and he tells her she is “clearly not stable” in her thinking. What took him so long?
He tells this slightly deranged Rambo that he loves the United States -- personally I wouldn’t pander to the love it or leave it crowd. Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. So just ignore it. Corey tells her there are plenty of countries where being gay is not an issue and then suggests she head off to the playground and find some new recruits. At this point Rambo Ramode completely loses what semblance to sanity she had. Read her reply below:
A few low points for this moron other than the obscenities of course. First, she tells this man she has more rights to be in America than he does. Rubbish. Next she tells him that if he doesn’t like the US military (and who could with hateful bigots like her doing the recruiting and with Bush running the outfit) that he should take his “GAY ASS” to some other country. And she claims, that rights are “given to you by the US military.” Odd the Founding Fathers said that they were inherent rights, part of human nature and the gift of no man or government. The idea that rights come from government, however, is a very Soviet concept. And this is the kind of “patriotic” American they send out to troll the internet to persuade kids to die in Bush’s war.
Corey responds and goes for the jugular. Obviously Ms. Ramode is not particularly literate. And he notes that right off the bat mentioning her “limited vocabulary and poor spelling” and says that maybe she had no other career option but the military. He acknowledges very intelligent people are in the military but informs Ramode that she is “not one of them.” He says that what he finds disgusting are “idiots with big mouths and little brains, spewing hatred under the guise of being ‘American’
Ramode, not happy with just insulting people for being gay then decides to throw some racism into the pot as well. She tells Corey “GO BACK TO AFRICA” because he is Black. Now, that’s real classy. Don’t they have any people with decent qualities to work as recruiters? Apparently not given scandal after scandal with this branch of the military. They obviously scrap the bottom of the barrel. But bamboozling teens so they go off and get killed isn’t exactly the sort of occupation that attracts quality is it?
What is incredible there is she started the communication. She also started any rudeness and name calling. She got aggressive and then tells him that she is blocking his emails as if this were his fault. She was the one out trolling the internet to convince teenagers that being a corpse is a really cool career option.
The military says Ramode is currently not working as a recruiter while they investigate her actions. By the way these are the people who are trying to recruit your kids behind your back.
So sit down with the kids. Warn them. Tell that there will be people who pretend to be their friends. They hang out outsides the schools, at the malls, anywhere where kids hang out. They lurk around the internet. They will even call at home if they know the parents aren’t around. Not only will they pretend to be a friend but they will promise rewards, opportunity, even cash if the kids just do what they want. And they really, really don’t want the parents to know about this. Remember if you don’t tell you kids about these people they will get your children.
And if you think the comparison between recruiters and molesters is strained then watch the following CNN report. Over 80 recruiters, in 2005, were caught for sexual misconduct with the young people they are trying to recruit. Over 100 victims have come forward. These people are given, without the knowledge of parents, full access to kids anytime they want at any school in the US under Bush's "No Child Left Behind" legislation. They are given private information on all children including unlisted phone numbers and you are not able to block their calls, they can bypass blocks on any phone. Since 1996 almost 800 military recruiters have faced these charges.
While it is still a pleasure to watch somehow this strikes me as not quite right. But I guess it is all one can expect from the United States of Jesusland.
I confess they seem to give us so many reasons to dislike them. There isn't a destructive economic theory on the planet that the French haven't fallen in love with. But keep producing videos and men like this and we can over look it.
You don't have to speak French to enjoy this music video. A group of French young ladies from perhaps the early 1900s follow two lovely French men through the woods as the men go to skinny dip. The imagination of the women runs wild as you will see. Stick around for the end.
This commecial helps tell you. Now I suspect this is not a US commecial. Several reasons actually. First the term "togs" is not a US term. But that swimsuit is pretty much the kind of swimsuit that men around the world (outside nations ruled by a Taliban mentality) wear. So it would be a rare thing to see a skimpy suit on men in the US. Used to be common before the Jesus freaks took over. Now a swim suit goes from waist to below the knees and has to be as baggy as possible. Leave the United States and there is none of this fear of the body.
A few weeks back I mentioned the British drama Skins, a show of negligible value plot wise but which has more young male flesh than you can shake a stick at. And the previews I see, the bits here and there when my other show is on a commercial break, indicates they are still doing their best to strip the boys to as a little as possible as frequently as possible. I suspect someone at the network is getting their jollies.
I mentioned that an episode concentrate on a strained friendship between Muslim Anwar and übercute Maxxie, played by Mitch Hewer. And there is still a scarcity of decent photos of Hewer on the net. Very odd indeed. Even the official website for the show only has a few, fuzzy, small photos. Anyway Maxxie and the main character Tony, played Nicholas Hoult, have a very brief fling at Tony's insistance. Tony kisses Maxxie and then briefly goes down on him only to be seen by his girlfriend, who he thought was passed out in a drunken stupor (typical plot line -- drugs, alcohol and sex -- not particularly interesting actually).
Anyway I have two video clips to share. The first one is just a strange little clip, not from the show actually, but from a promotion for the show. It shows Maxxie's "video diary". It is a bit amusing. And while Maxxie doesn't look as cute in this clip as he usual does it gives some context. I add that one in because the clip of the actual kissing scene was rather dark and you never get a good look at Maxxie there. So enjoy.
The bulge seems real and rather inpressive. Unless the boy's been stuffing socks down his jeans when no one was looking. But if he faked it then he did a very good job and deserves a hand. But if you still aren't convinced here is a blow up of the image. All I know is that I don't care about the plot, this hunk has eyes I could swim in.
It has been said that cleanliness is next to Godliness. i suspect that is a misquote and the original was “dumbness is next to Godliness” because in my experience the more Godly they are the dumber they become. Let us go to some church leaders in Tobago for an example.
The Plymouth Jazz Festival has the singer scheduled to perform. That has the Archdeacon of Trinidad and Tobago, Philip Isaac rather upset. The good Christian clown wants Elton John banned for attending because John is gay and that doesn’t conform with the Bible
The Archdeacon says that if Elton John sings there it might “open the country to be tempted towards pursuing his lifestyle.” Now I’ve heard all sort of wacky theories from religious lunatics about why people are gay but I’ve never heard the theory that music by Elton John will do it.
John told reporters he had nothing to say. But I hear rumors that instead of commenting he started humming causing reporters in the room to unexplainable begin nuzzling up other reporters of the same sex.
Meanwhile it appears (tongue in cheek -- and not that cheek) that the Vatican has commissioned a report showing that Elton John’s music has been routinely played in the vestry of most Catholic Churches after mass. The church is saying that they now want the singer to pay damages to the church. Cardinal D’Bauch says that the church believes the music may be responsible for wayward priests attacking altar boys. “Elton John ought to help us pay the hundreds of millions in damages we have been saddled with because of his music,” said D’Bauch.
D’Bauch contended that the CD’s distributed to priests had slight word changes. “One song is called “Candle in the end” and we all know what the means say the Cardinal”. D’Bauch said Elton John is the “only person who has much money as we do so why shouldn’t he pay.” The interview had to end early as the Cardinal said he had a Boy Scout camping trip to attend.
Christians for God and George Bush said that there is indisputable evidence, revealed by God, that the first homosexual was only discovered in 1968 days after the release of Elton John's single "I've Been Loving You."
PS: Yes, the first half of this story is entirely true.
A word for gay voters. The Democrats think they have you locked up nice and tight. They don’t have to give you anything! And they will give you as little as possible. Now we all know about the asinine remarks of General Peter Pace that homosexuals are immoral. So what did the Democratic front runners do when asked about this issue?
They do what front runners always do -- run -- as fast as they could away from the issue. Hillary Clinton, used to ducking issues after being married to Bill, ducked as quickly as she could. When she was asked if she thought homosexuals were immoral she gave a political, non-answer: “Well, I’m going to leave that to others to conclude. I’m very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want to make sure they can.”
Okay, but the question was: Do you think gays are immoral? A typical politician, when asked a question they don’t like ignores that question and instead answers the one they wished you had asked instead. All politicians are inherently dishonest in this way. It’s the nature of the beast.
The thing is that a lot of people noticed she avoided answering the question so she issued a statement “clarifying” the issue. And once again she actually never addressed the topic. Typical double speak from this woman. Her clarification never said whether she thinks gays are immoral. It merely said, regarding Pace, “I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple. It is inappropriate to inject such personal views into this public policy matter, especially at a time in which there are young men and women in such grave circumstances in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in other dangerous places around the world.”
Okay, so are gays immoral? See, Hillary said she disagrees with Pace’s “view” but which view. He actually expressed several views in his comment. One was that gays are immoral. One is that he supports “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (the policy Hillary hubby implemented). She disagrees with a view but which view? Had she said she disagrees with his “views” then we would know.
And notice what she carefully avoided in that statement. The words “gay” or “lesbian” are totally missing. Why? Because she doesn’t want to alienate Black Christians, who are a substantial support base for the Democrats. She also wants to pander to conservatives and win them over as much as possible. But she doesn’t want to lose gay support either. So she says things that she hopes will placate gay voters but doesn’t say anything specific enough to irritate religious bigots.
She was never going to say: “Gay are not immoral.” That is too blunt. So she wanted to give the impression she said it without actually saying it. Republican Senator John Warner did clearly state his position with equivocating in order to maximize votes: “I respectfully, but strongly disagree with the chairman’s view that homosexuality is immoral.” Clinton couldn’t mention the word moral or immoral and couldn’t refer to the group in question. Coward.
Barack Obama pulled the same double talk. His answers were equally evasive changing the subject. And Newsday reported exactly what I suspected: “Clinton and Obama supporters, speaking on condition of anonymity, said both might have been trying to avoid offending socially conservative Democrats, particularly church-going African-americans, who share Pace’s views.”
One gay Democrat, Steve Sanders, tried to play down the betrayals saying that: “Hillary and Barack have made very public overtures to religious Americans. They are trying to figure out how progressive Democrats can also make appeals to Americans of faith. It’s a work in progress.” In other words, they will say anything to maximize votes and are trying to figure out how to have their cake and eat it too. And if the cake on the Right is bigger then gays are shunted to the back of the bus.
A spokesman for Obama later said he disagreed with Pace but Obama didn’t say it for himself. That way there is no film footage that the Religious Right can use to upset Black religious bigots. If Democrats think gays are expendable you can bet they will drop us like a hot potato.
Hillary had zero chance of any support from me. Obama, I was watching but when he decided that the federal government should take over health care he lost me. Anyone so stupid as to think that people who can't deliver mail on time, at a reasonable cost, should run the health system shouldn't be in office. And neither has yet to declare that we ought to get out of Iraq now.
It is interesting to watch the mental gymnastics used to justify what amounts to prejudice. It was first claimed that gay soldiers simply couldn’t do the job; that gay people are intrinsically incapable of performing military service. That myth has been blown out of the water by the vast numbers of gay military personnel who have done their jobs and done them well.
The second argument that I have heard used is not that gay service members are incapable of doing the job but that other service members feel uncomfortable working with them. That argument basically would make gays the only members of society who are denied the right to serve in the military based entirely on the prejudices of others.
But that argument is failing as polls show that young people, in particular, have no such negative feelings toward gay men and women. The actual individuals with whom gay service personnel would work are the least prejudicial of the general public. But prejudice increases with age. One suspects it is not the actual combat soldiers who feel uncomfortable as much as it is the older officers who sit in offices running things.
I spoke with a US military officer, a friend of mine, about this matter about a year ago when visiting his military base in Germany. He informed me that the vast majority of soldiers he works with have no problems working with gay men or women. While he is heterosexual he said he was often assumed to be gay and never had problems from anyone because of it -- including while stationed in Iraq. The reality is that it is mostly old farts in the Pentagon and Congress, along with the Bible-beating bigots, who are upset with gay military personnel, not soldiers.
One example of one such old fart is Marine Gen. Peter Pace who doesn’t want to change military policy regarding homosexuals. He argues simply that homosexuality is immoral and therefore immoral soldiers should be dismissed. Does he really want to open that can of worms?
Let us say that homosexuality is immoral. Many people also think that smoking, drinking, dancing, Hollywood movies, masturbation, oral sex, and fatty foods are immoral. Usually the line drawn on such matters is whether or not the actions in question violate the rights of others -- not whether some dinosaur has some old view and can’t accept change. And there is a long, time honored moral tradition (which I don’t subscribe to) which says that being in the military is itself immoral.
Pace is not a logical man by any means. Prejudice is rarely rational. Let us follow as he jumps through some hoops to explain his bigotry. He says: “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”
He doesn’t mean immoral in any way. He doesn’t exclude fornicators, drinkers, smokers, atheists, masturbators, gluttons, the envious, and a host of others, consider immoral by many people, from military service. He defines morality in a way that excludes gays and allows most other “immoral” people because they aren’t gay.
And Pace is clear that he means homosexuality mostly: “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.” Gee, does that mean if they involve three people they are okay?
Now this old man says that he does support the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. This reveals the real problem. Under “don’t ask, don’t tell” a soldier is allowed to serve, even if he is gay, put will be thrown out if his homosexuality is discovered. So Pace is saying he doesn’t mind having gay personnel in the military provided he just doesn’t know they are gay.
So if their “immorality” is something he is unaware of then he doesn’t care. Isn’t that condoning it? I mean if you actively overlook it, knowing full well it might be happening, then aren’t you condoning it? So it is not “immorality” that bothers him after all.
It isn’t the immorality of what these people do in the privacy of their bedrooms that bothers Pace. He just doesn’t like being around someone he knows is gay. He’s happy for them to be immoral provided he is unaware of it. This has nothing to do with immorality since he doesn’t want to stop the immorality. It merely has to do with the visceral disgust a bigot feels toward people they don’t like.
That’s why all those other immoral acts are ignored by Pace -- he doesn’t have prejudicial views toward drinkers, masturbators, fornicators or the like. It’s gays he doesn’t like and therefore he wants his prejudices cemented into law.
I wondered how conservatives would handle the fact that they unknowingly gave an award to a gay porn star. And how would Matt Sanchez, the porn performer in question, handle the issue. Now I know how they are dealing with it -- it’s really the fault of liberals!
This blog was one of the first to report this story after reading a small news article on the topic. I then went on to read what I could find available at the time. There wasn’t a lot out there but there was enough to piece together the facts. And the original blogs that I could find with articles were rather respectful of Sanchez but had disdain for the people who honored him -- he was being honored because some Lefties called him names at Columbia University because he is now in the Marines. Hardly an inspiring story but it’s more of a victory than Iraq and conservatives are desperate.
Reports I read said that Sanchez has every right to be a Marine if that is what he wishes to do. They even said he had the right to be a conservatives -- about a quarter of gay votes are. But Sanchez and the conservatives have gone on the attack claiming is being victimized by the Left!
Townhall.com was once mainstream conservative where Worldnetdaily.com was the where the loony Theopublicans dominated. But there is no mainstream conservative movement left (which should mean the demise of conservative power in America for some years to come). At this site one foaming-at-the-mouth Theocon, Kevin McCullough has gone ballistic. He writes: “Diabolical liberals are once again showing their disdain for homosexuals...” He says liberals are “the most homophobic mouth foamers the universe has ever seen.”
Now that really is rich. It is logic beyond belief. Remember this is the very conference where Ann Coulter got up and referred to John Edwards as a “faggot” in her speech and the audience applauded. But St. Ann is not mentioned instead it is the “diabolical” liberals who are the real homophobes.
Why? Because they found it amusing that the conservative moralistic Theocons inadvertently gave an award to someone who has done very little except get called names and make porn films and screw men for money. But they claim that in giving out this award they are proven to be tolerant of those “who struggle with sexual sin”. Pardon me if I gag. But that is rubbish. Sanchez would not have received the award if they knew.
Michelle Malkin, a Coulter wannabe, quickly penned a comment on her web site saying that CPAC will have to investigate more thoroughly their award winners in the future. Why? The only reason for such an investigation is to make sure the same mistake doesn’t happen again. Yet, McCullough fakes the line that the award someone proves that the Right is tolerant. Ineptness is not tolerance. But McCullough headlines his article: “Why Christians Embrace ‘Gay’ Porn Stars.”
Malkin, once she understood the party line, climbed on board. On March 8th she wrote: “I said the other day, I thought CPAC organizers would be justified in being embarrassed if the rumors abhout Sanchez’s porn star past 15 years ago turned out to be true. Well, the rumours are true. But it is neither CPAC nor Cpl. Sanchez who should feel embarassed.” Wow, she can turn her views so fast the head spins.
Instead it is the “hate-filled liberals” who should be embarrassed. She says she knew “left-wing bigotry would rear its ugly head”. Malkin drools: “Cpl. Sanchez, it was an honor to meet you and a privilege to know you.”
By the way someone ought to correct Right regarding the time span. Sanchez and the Right are saying that he made these films 15 years ago. One title of a film he made was mentioned and I checked that out on the net and it was produced in 1996. And a film list I found says his last film Touched by an Anal was in 1997. And I believe his “escort” work came after that. His porn career started 15 years ago but it didn't end 15 years ago. It is hard to piece this together since Sanchez has reinvented himself several times. He has used numerous names in his career and even changed ethnicity. He once claimed to be French-Canadian but is now Hispanic. He has called himself Pierre LeBranche, Rod Major and Matt Sanchez. All this duplicity makes it harder to track down the facts.
McCullough goes into a homophobic tirade equal to, and surpassing, the one he pretends diabolical liberals love. He first argues that all bloggers who commented on the case were “homosexual bloggers”. I read about the story at a TV station web site. And then he claims: “The reason so many of these homosexual bloggers knew this is simple. They are rabid consumers of homosexual pornography and have spent, days, months, possibly years in front of their television screens acting out on the urges within them. They have been enslaved by the unforgiving voices that have told them since birth to act upon every sexual urge they have. The thought of sexual restraint is foreign to these bloggers.” Days, months, even years? How the hell did they find time to write their blogs?
When I read something like this I wonder what demons are hiding in McCullough’s closet. Last time I heard a tirade about sex, erotica and such that was this rabid it was Jimmy Swaggart. But that was before he got caught with the hooker, trying to convince her to include her underaged daughter in his escapades, which included hard corn porn and him watching while acting “upon every sexual urge” he had. No doubt many Christians embrace porn stars. Sometimes they get caught when they do!
I want to cover some of Sanchez’s lies now. I had no criticism for him until he opened his mouth in irrational attacks trying to twist the story to make himself a “hero” again to conservatives. He is no hero. He had some insults slung at him by some far Left types and he got upset and went to the media for publicity as a victim. Hell, I get criticism like that from the Left and the Right both fairly regularly. But conservatives are quick to play the “victim card” these days. Especially if it gives them their 15 minutes of fame.
Sanchez claimed that any blogs which reported on the blunder (for them) of CPAC giving him an award were “Left-wing blogs”. Sorry Matt that is false. No Lefties here. Just someone trying to cling to the old ideas of limited government, free markets, non-interventionism, social tolerance -- ideas that once held some sway on the Right (though never enough) before the rise of the bigoted Theopublicans.
Sanchez says that he knew his “past might be put under the microscope”. Really? Then wouldn’t it have been the honorable and “courageous” thing to tell CPAC that he might cause them a huge embarrassment. Apparently his courage award was so good he was afraid to tell the truth. Ironic in a way. He was too cowardly to tell them the truth but gets awarded for his courage.
Sanchez admits that he advertised “my services as a male escort” and “acted in several adult movies.” In case you don’t know the only place he “escorted” men, was to bed. Sanchez has intentionally turned the focus on himself when the emphasis had been that the conservatives are the hypocrites and that in one moment they attack someone as a “faggot” and in the next give an award to someone who made gay porn films.
(For the record I’ve never seen any film with Sanchez nor knew who he was until I read the news story.) The story, until now, has been about how conservatives are out of touch with reality and how the Sanchez award exemplified that. It wasn’t about Sanchez. But he got famous once by crying about being a victim so he is doing it again. Once a whore always a whore.
He made a list of 13 reasons he is supposedly a hypocrite and these were supposed to reflect what was being said about him. Sorry Matt you just weren’t the story. But since you want the limelight so be it. One reason, he said, was “because I am gay, and this is proved by acts on video--and everyone knows you must believe what you see on TV.”
What???? This seems to imply that he really isn’t gay and wasn’t involved in porn. Maybe he can’t write? I don’t know. So are we supposed to not believe the evidence of the senses? Are we supposed to ignore the photographic proof of his previous occupation? I just don’t get what he’s saying. He admits he made gay porn and then attacks people for believing “what you see on TV”. I can see why he is a darling of the Theopublicans -- he’s illogical and irrational as they are.
Now is Sanchez gay? I don’t know and I didn’t care. He was certainly gay for pay in porn films. He took money to go to bed with men. It is entirely possible he was a straight man who was just a whore. And I’m sure that the conservatives would like to believe that. Or, even better, perhaps he can help them indulge another conservative wet dream -- he could pretend to be an “exgay”.
He was asked in one interview if he is gay and he doesn't quite answer the question with a yes or a no. He was asked: Do you consider yourself gay? He replied: "Boyfriends: 0, Fiance 2 Wife: 1. I'd say I'm pretty bad at being gay." He leaves out a critical statistic, sexual partners. I've know gay men who were married, some several times. And many of those who fight their sexuality have lots of gay sex but never have a gay relationship. And certainly his career choice involving having sex with men lasted for many years. He supposedly went into the business in 1992 and he was supposedly confronted by Alan Colmes with evidence that he was still publicizing his career as a sex worker for men as recently as two years ago. You can listen to that interview below. This interview shows how dishonest Sanchez is being. He claims that his film career ended several years before it did. He claims that he did straight porn but no one has found any. He denies that he ran ads offering sex to men up until a couple of years ago and denies it was him and then basically says he will admit to anything. Listen to the full interview and you will show how dishonest he is being.
And he supposedly ran this web page seeking male sexual partners up until just a few days ago. And you can find this old interview with him where he talks quite excitedly about his career having sex with men. And when asked about his dating life he said he likes men "who are modest and have a sense of humility" but said he was not in a relationship. But now he's implying he's not gay, not good a being gay, stopped being gay, take your pick. The problem with Sanchez is that you can't pin anything down since he's invented fake stories so many times in the past for himself.
I can’t help but wonder if Sanchez has remained in the same occupation as before and only switched what services he whores out. It’s not as if he has the same looks from a few years ago. He admits: “I sought attention.” He’s promoting himself. Now if he markets himself as a “cured gay” who was almost destroyed by the evils of porn, but who found salvation in conservatism, the Right will rush out and embrace him and shower him with more awards and hefty speaking fees. Conservatives love to be fleeced by people telling them what they want to hear. And no one knows how to tell customers what they want to hear for cash like an old whore.
Sanchez says he became a “conservative” (though he never says what that means) because of the Left. Too bad he’s not bright enough to realize that one can repudiate the Left without embracing the rabid Right. But there isn’t much money in that and the prime reason one embraces a career of whoredom is the cash. And he is definetly planning on making money off of this. Asked if he is writing a book he says: "I've got to keep that one under wraps for the moment. You know how it is, you're writing a book. I just dont' want to emotionally charge my project with all this melodrama. I want a well thought-out, and well crafted piece I won't be embarased to show, because the Kristen Bjorn stuff is embarrassing enough" (Bjorn was one of his porn directors). To whom will Sanchez sell his book? His market is obviously going to be the Right so he will have to embrace the Theocon agenda fully if he wants to sell his product. So he will have to bash liberals and gays. And he's already started.
Oddly, while pretending to be straight he attacks the gay community saying that gays "start off with the term hypocrite and work their way backwards looking for signs of deviant behavior in hopes of discovering some type of bastard kinship. That's why I've had the term self-loathing thrown at me so often. The gay community eats its own in a frenzied hope of self-serving fulfillment." Oops! Sorry Matt but if you accuse the gay community of eating "its own" that means you are a member of the gay community.
Sanchez admits that he won’t say he’s sorry “for leaving a long-ago summer job off my curriculum vitae”. Was that the porn job? Or the prostitution job? (And I happen to think he had the right to engage in either if he wished. But it sickens me that instead of taking responsibility for his own life he is portraying himself as the victim.)
He admits he left that bit of history out of things. So CPAC didn’t know. They weren’t, as McCullough pretends” embracing a gay porn star. They were embracing someone who did what ever whore does well -- tell the client exactly what they want to hear. There was no tolerance exhibited by the conservatives only the naivety of the John who finds the whore told them what he wanted to hear, handed over the cash, and felt cheated afterwards.
When cheated like that there are two responses. One is is the private response. You get angry and feel humiliated. The other is what you tell the buddies who were with you when you picked up the whore. For them you pretend that you weren’t fleeced and that you knew exactly what was going on the entire time. That is what conservatives like McCullough are doing. To avoid the embarrassment of looking stupid they pretend they are tolerant.
But the way conservatism has evolved in recent years the stupidity theory has a lot more credence than the tolerance theory. Sorry, but anyone who thinks a conference that applauded the word “faggot” is exhibiting tolerance is proving the stupidity theory.
And Sanchez is doing what whores do. He is marketing himself carefully with an image that will guarantee more customers from the Right. He applauds the “faggot” hating Right who he says are wonderful. He claims that liberals (he doesn’t call them diabolical) are heaping abuse on him. And he markets himself as brave and courageous and as a victim. And conservatives today are the major proponents of victimology.’
Now I’ve read Sanchez’s blog and his article in Salon He doesn’t say whether he is or isn’t gay. He leaves it ambiguous. He does admit that someone claims he had a dating page on a gay web site but he insinuates, though doesn’t say, that it isn’t his. I guess he’s trying to decide whether it more lucrative to be a heterosexual who was only gay for pay or to be an exgay. Or he is waiting to see what other evidence arises so his story corresponds with the facts that come out. I don’t know if he’s still having gay sex today. I didn’t ask and he isn’t telling. And i don’t care.
But McCullough pretends to know. He says Sanchez “stopped having homosexual sex” and that proves that all gays can leave “an empty, sad and destructive life”. Gee, that tolerance is just overflowing. It does prove that Theocons will twist the facts to get the results they want.
I first thought Sanchez was just an unwitting victim in all this. I didn’t fault him about his past nor did I care about it. To me it was the inability of conservatives to be realistic about such matters that was the story. Sanchez wants to be the victim and has lashed out with some attacks I think are dishonest and twisted. I had never heard of him prior to this escapade of his. I suspect he overplayed the “abuse” he experienced and played that up. It got him the attention he admits that he craves. And now it appears he is doing the same thing again. As for me I can only conclude he never changed occupations only customers.
We all know about the CPAC conference, the big conference of Right-wing luminaries that is held every year. It was hear that Screech Coulter went into her tirade about John Edwards being a faggot. It wasalso here that they honored Corporal Matt Sanchez with the Jeane Kirkpatrict Academic Freedom Award. In fact here is Sanchez with the Screech herself. (PS, if a penis offends you don’t go any further.)
But it seems that try as hard they want the Right can’t get away from the gay issue. Apparently the man the conservatives just honored is a gay porn star. Or was a gay porn star. I don’t know if he is gay or not. But he supposedly sold his sexual services to men at one time. (This is supposedly the ad he used to do so.) We do know he had sex with men and that is enough to have him thrown out of the military.
Now I would like to see the Right deal with this. The man is worthy enough for them to give him an award but at the same time he shouldn’t be allowed in the military. We will see what Mr. Sanchezhas to say about all this on his blog. We will also see what the military does about this. As far as I know Sanchez is not denying the story but confirming it. I suspect he won't be invited back to the Bill O'Reilly show. Below is a publicity shot from one of Mr. Sanchez's films. I'm not sure why the Marines hired him but I suspect I know how the video producers did.
