Sunday, July 31, 2011
Let it all hang out
A recent study that sets to establish an association between penis size and sexual health among gay men has found some interesting results. The study reported, among its findings, that gay men with "below average penises" were more likely to assume a "bottom" sexual position, while those with "above average penises" were more likely to assume a "top" sexual position. Those with average penises identified themselves as "versatile" in the bedroom.
Furthermore the study reinforced long held beliefs such as the bigger the penis, the less likely to lie about it, smaller guys wish they were bigger, but no one wishes they were smaller.
It also found that those who believed that their penis was “below average” scored significantly worse than others on three measures of psychosocial adjustment. Also, men with above average penises were significantly more likely than men with average size penises to report having ever been infected with gonorrhea/Chlamydia/urinary tract infection. Could this suggest that guys with larger penises get more action? Or take more risks?
Why there can be no compromise
Big Assets: What married same-sex couples don’t get in federal benefits
Steve Doster, CFP® - Certified Financial Planner™ professional
With Pride season in full swing and the recent victory for same-sex marriage in New York, it’s a good time to remember that legally married gay and lesbian couples still do not get over 1,100 federal benefits and protections that opposite-sex married couples receive.
This number gets published quite a bit, but rarely do we hear specifically what these 1,100 federal benefits are. I thought it would be a good idea to outline just two benefits that opposite-sex couples receive that same-sex spouses do not get.
One of the most important benefits denied to married same-sex couples deals with Social Security. For opposite-sex spouses, one spouse can receive 50% of their spouse’s Social Security check.
Let’s say a husband gets $2,000 per month in Social Security. His wife was a homemaker and she would only get $200 per month based on her short career prior to getting married. However, she will receive $1,000 per month in Social Security because she gets 50% of her husband’s benefit.
If the husband dies before the wife, then the wife will start receiving her husband’s $2,000 monthly Social Security check instead of her $1,000 benefit.
For same-sex spouse’s, they don’t receive 50% of their spouse’s Social Security benefit. If one partner stops working to take care of the kids, elderly parents and/or home, then that spouse will get a very small Social Security benefit based on their own short working history.
And when one spouse dies, the surviving spouse does not get to take over their higher-earning spouse’s Social Security benefit.
A second benefit same-sex spouses do not get deals with how retirement accounts of a deceased spouse are passed to the surviving spouse. The surviving spouse can rollover their deceased spouse’s retirement accounts into an inherited IRA, so long as they are listed as the primary beneficiary. However, they have to begin taking distributions the year after their partner dies creating taxable income.
The surviving spouse of an opposite-sex couple can rollover 401(k)’s and IRA’s of their deceased spouse into their own name. This allows the surviving spouse to avoid paying taxes until they have to begin taking Required Minimum Distributions at age 70½.
Those are just two of the 1,100 federal benefits married same-sex couples do not get. I could go on writing about things like filing separate federal tax returns, no unlimited marital estate tax exemption, taxation of partner health benefits, and lack of survivor benefits for federal and military pensions, but I think you get the point.
Gay and lesbian married couples can lose tens of thousands of dollars over a lifetime by being denied these federal benefits given to opposite-sex couples.
The one benefit we do get is the ability to fight for our equal rights by repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and legalizing gay marriage in California. So enjoy Pride and then let’s get back to work!
Steve Doster, CFP® - Certified Financial Planner™ professional
With Pride season in full swing and the recent victory for same-sex marriage in New York, it’s a good time to remember that legally married gay and lesbian couples still do not get over 1,100 federal benefits and protections that opposite-sex married couples receive.
This number gets published quite a bit, but rarely do we hear specifically what these 1,100 federal benefits are. I thought it would be a good idea to outline just two benefits that opposite-sex couples receive that same-sex spouses do not get.
One of the most important benefits denied to married same-sex couples deals with Social Security. For opposite-sex spouses, one spouse can receive 50% of their spouse’s Social Security check.
Let’s say a husband gets $2,000 per month in Social Security. His wife was a homemaker and she would only get $200 per month based on her short career prior to getting married. However, she will receive $1,000 per month in Social Security because she gets 50% of her husband’s benefit.
If the husband dies before the wife, then the wife will start receiving her husband’s $2,000 monthly Social Security check instead of her $1,000 benefit.
For same-sex spouse’s, they don’t receive 50% of their spouse’s Social Security benefit. If one partner stops working to take care of the kids, elderly parents and/or home, then that spouse will get a very small Social Security benefit based on their own short working history.
And when one spouse dies, the surviving spouse does not get to take over their higher-earning spouse’s Social Security benefit.
A second benefit same-sex spouses do not get deals with how retirement accounts of a deceased spouse are passed to the surviving spouse. The surviving spouse can rollover their deceased spouse’s retirement accounts into an inherited IRA, so long as they are listed as the primary beneficiary. However, they have to begin taking distributions the year after their partner dies creating taxable income.
The surviving spouse of an opposite-sex couple can rollover 401(k)’s and IRA’s of their deceased spouse into their own name. This allows the surviving spouse to avoid paying taxes until they have to begin taking Required Minimum Distributions at age 70½.
Those are just two of the 1,100 federal benefits married same-sex couples do not get. I could go on writing about things like filing separate federal tax returns, no unlimited marital estate tax exemption, taxation of partner health benefits, and lack of survivor benefits for federal and military pensions, but I think you get the point.
Gay and lesbian married couples can lose tens of thousands of dollars over a lifetime by being denied these federal benefits given to opposite-sex couples.
The one benefit we do get is the ability to fight for our equal rights by repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and legalizing gay marriage in California. So enjoy Pride and then let’s get back to work!
Hot sport pics
Hockey hotties
Tight end
Bat and balls
Ooops
Juiced
I'da got a boner too.
Knock out
God bless this boner
Knock out
God bless this boner
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Good Lord !!!
Nuthin' could be finer than to be in his butgina in the morning.
Ulf (needs a drool bucket)
Stupid people rule the world
Perry snared by gay marriage issue
By Jennifer Rubin
Earlier this week I reported on the provocative move by Texas Gov. Rick Perry to apply his fondness for the 10th Amendment to gay marriage. He said last week: “Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me. That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”
But now, as First Read reports, he’s backtracking, sort of:
In an interview with socially conservative Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, Perry said he remains opposed to gay marriage and that he should have added “a few words” to clarify the statement.
“I probably needed to add a few words after that ‘it’s fine with me,’ and that it’s fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue,” Perry said according to FRC. “Obviously gay marriage is not fine with me. My stance hasn’t changed.”
But is this really a “backtrack”? After all, his conclusion (allow states to choose) is still the same. This is unlikely to please either Christian conservatives or libertarian, pro-gay-rights voters. And it smacks of the sort of waffling that got Mitt Romney into trouble in 2008. Frankly, Perry has so locked himself into a staunch 10th Amendment position that he’s going to face a lot more questions on everything from gay rights to the EPA (does he want to disband it). In an interview with me earlier in the year, he made clear that he opposes federal tort reform since it impinges on the civil courts of states. How is that going to go over with business leaders and with conservative health-care reformers who want the federal government to step in to tamp down on abusive litigation?
An adviser on another Republican campaign wisecracked to me: “So, the governor was ‘fine with’ gay marriage before he was ‘not fine’ with it. As Perry thinks about tossing his cowboy hat in the ring, everyone will see that this is just one in a Texas-sized string of flip-flops.” You can see the attack ads now.
This episode also bespeaks of a more fundamental problem for the Perry pre-campaign. His words are now highly scrutinized, but he lacks the infrastructure (a policy director, for example) to prevent these sorts of nettlesome problems.
Certainly, the country’s longest sitting governor is no stranger to the media. But state media, no matter how aggressive, simply doesn’t compare to the barrage of questioning and intense scrutiny that goes with the presidency. If Perry is going to avoid the Fred Thompson phenomenon (good on paper, but lousy in a presidential contest) he will need to get up to speed fast, figure out how he is going to navigate through many of these issues and bring in a team that is as familiar with presidential politics as it is with him.
By Jennifer Rubin
Earlier this week I reported on the provocative move by Texas Gov. Rick Perry to apply his fondness for the 10th Amendment to gay marriage. He said last week: “Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me. That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”
But now, as First Read reports, he’s backtracking, sort of:
In an interview with socially conservative Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, Perry said he remains opposed to gay marriage and that he should have added “a few words” to clarify the statement.
“I probably needed to add a few words after that ‘it’s fine with me,’ and that it’s fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue,” Perry said according to FRC. “Obviously gay marriage is not fine with me. My stance hasn’t changed.”
But is this really a “backtrack”? After all, his conclusion (allow states to choose) is still the same. This is unlikely to please either Christian conservatives or libertarian, pro-gay-rights voters. And it smacks of the sort of waffling that got Mitt Romney into trouble in 2008. Frankly, Perry has so locked himself into a staunch 10th Amendment position that he’s going to face a lot more questions on everything from gay rights to the EPA (does he want to disband it). In an interview with me earlier in the year, he made clear that he opposes federal tort reform since it impinges on the civil courts of states. How is that going to go over with business leaders and with conservative health-care reformers who want the federal government to step in to tamp down on abusive litigation?
An adviser on another Republican campaign wisecracked to me: “So, the governor was ‘fine with’ gay marriage before he was ‘not fine’ with it. As Perry thinks about tossing his cowboy hat in the ring, everyone will see that this is just one in a Texas-sized string of flip-flops.” You can see the attack ads now.
This episode also bespeaks of a more fundamental problem for the Perry pre-campaign. His words are now highly scrutinized, but he lacks the infrastructure (a policy director, for example) to prevent these sorts of nettlesome problems.
Certainly, the country’s longest sitting governor is no stranger to the media. But state media, no matter how aggressive, simply doesn’t compare to the barrage of questioning and intense scrutiny that goes with the presidency. If Perry is going to avoid the Fred Thompson phenomenon (good on paper, but lousy in a presidential contest) he will need to get up to speed fast, figure out how he is going to navigate through many of these issues and bring in a team that is as familiar with presidential politics as it is with him.
Mark Bingham: "A true hero who just happened to be gay"
Outfest 2011: Don’t miss the outstanding “With You” which recounts life of gay 9/11 hero Mark Bingham.
Here's an excerpt from the documentary about this amazing man:
Friday, July 29, 2011
Must be Friday because Ulf is horny
Yup,it's Nick Youngquest
He goes against the grain of what we've come to think of str8 athletes and has openly, defiantly supported gay rights; even lending his ever so hot body for nude photos in gay mags.
I won't go into my usual sleazy rant of what I'd want to do with him, at this point I think with him it's pretty much the given that I would do anything he wants.
Ulf
Well, I ain't registering at Cabela's just yet...
Gay marriage gets record support, 70 percent of young people support it
By Blair Mishleau,
A new bi-partisan study confirms that first time, support for gay marriage generally outweighs opposition, and the rate of increase is startling.
According to the study, the rate of increase in support for gay marriage accelerated to 5 percent per year in 2010 and 2011. Between 1996 and 2009, this rate was less than 1 percent.
Freedom to Marry, a pro-gay marriage organization, compiled poll data from Gallup, CNN/ORC, ABC/Washington Post, and Pew Research Center and others.
The Gallup poll’s 2011 data supports marriage at 53 percent, compared to just 27 percent in 1996. Pew’s data, the lowest in support at 45 percent, was also at 27 percent in 1997.
“A secondary analysis of public polling on marriage shows support has increased over the years and that the rate of increase has accelerated dramatically in the last two years,” reads the report.
Also notable is the age demographic breakup – 68 percent of 18-29 year-olds support gay marriage, (up 11 points since 2005). Older adults, while still generally opposing marriage equality, have grown closer to support. Only 33 percent of adults 65 and older are in support, but this is up from a mere 18 percent in 2005.
The authors of the findings are Republican Dr. Jan van Lohuizen of Voter Consumer Research, who worked for President George W. Bush’s presidential campaigns and Democrat Joel Benenson, who was the lead pollster and a senior strategist for President Barack Obama in the 2008 election.
“Even where antigay ballot measures succeed at the time, the net result is that people are prompted into these conversations,” Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, said to U.S. News. “The more people talk about this, the more they move into support of the freedom to marry.”
By Blair Mishleau,
A new bi-partisan study confirms that first time, support for gay marriage generally outweighs opposition, and the rate of increase is startling.
According to the study, the rate of increase in support for gay marriage accelerated to 5 percent per year in 2010 and 2011. Between 1996 and 2009, this rate was less than 1 percent.
Freedom to Marry, a pro-gay marriage organization, compiled poll data from Gallup, CNN/ORC, ABC/Washington Post, and Pew Research Center and others.
The Gallup poll’s 2011 data supports marriage at 53 percent, compared to just 27 percent in 1996. Pew’s data, the lowest in support at 45 percent, was also at 27 percent in 1997.
“A secondary analysis of public polling on marriage shows support has increased over the years and that the rate of increase has accelerated dramatically in the last two years,” reads the report.
Also notable is the age demographic breakup – 68 percent of 18-29 year-olds support gay marriage, (up 11 points since 2005). Older adults, while still generally opposing marriage equality, have grown closer to support. Only 33 percent of adults 65 and older are in support, but this is up from a mere 18 percent in 2005.
The authors of the findings are Republican Dr. Jan van Lohuizen of Voter Consumer Research, who worked for President George W. Bush’s presidential campaigns and Democrat Joel Benenson, who was the lead pollster and a senior strategist for President Barack Obama in the 2008 election.
“Even where antigay ballot measures succeed at the time, the net result is that people are prompted into these conversations,” Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, said to U.S. News. “The more people talk about this, the more they move into support of the freedom to marry.”
Two UK lads demonstrate exactly how to have great sex
I love everything about this vid, from beginning to end. From the flirtation, the chase, the catch and finally, the hot nonstop, flip flopping, nasty trash talkin'
can't get enough of you man on man sex, followed by some of the most perfect after sex banter between two guys that just really got into each other.
Enjoy folks, it don't get much better than this.
Ulf
Let's start today with a vid
It's Friday and I've taken the day off from work, what sux tho, JD is of course working and I'm friggin' horny.
I liked this vid because of the ending, everything else is pretty ho hum, probably because I'm pretty sure both tops in the vid are G4P but the bottom boi saves the scene by swallowing both guy's loads...the mark of a true professional performer.
(Okay, I might just be fantasizing that part just a little)
Ulf
Thursday, July 28, 2011
A lie told often enough...
Sen. Al Franken catches anti-gay witness misrepresenting study at hearing
Robert Steinback – Hatewatch blog at Southern Poverty Law Center
July 21st, 2011
Sen. Al Franken catches anti-gay witness misrepresenting study at hearing
A representative of one of the nation’s largest organizations opposed to same-sex marriage learned, as the U.S. Senate and the entire nation watched, to be careful what studies you cite – because someone might actually read them.
U.S. Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota caught Thomas Minnery, vice president of government and public policy for Focus on the Family, blatantly mischaracterizing a government study on the benefits to children of being raised by two married parents as referring to opposite-sex parents, when the report itself drew no such distinction. It was the latest in a relentless campaign of misrepresentations, half-truths and outright lies in recent years that have defined anti-gay Christian right organizations intent on opposing equal rights and common dignity for LGBT people.
Testifying today at a Senate hearing on a bill that would repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, Franken said, “Mr. Minnery, on page eight of your written testimony, you write, quote, ‘Children living … with their own married biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier and happier, had better access to health care, less likely to suffer mild or severe emotional problems, did better in school, were protected from physical, emotional and sexual abuse, and almost never live in poverty compared with children in any other family form.’ You cite a Department of Health and Human Services study that I have right here from December 2010 to support this conclusion.
“I checked the study out,” Franken said, pausing to let a ripple of laughter from the gallery dissipate, “and I would like to enter into the record, if I may, that it actually doesn’t say what you said it says. It says, ‘nuclear families,’ not opposite-sex married families, are associated with those positive outcomes. Isn’t it true, Mr. Minnery, that a married same-sex couple that has had or adopted kids would fall under the definition of a nuclear family in the study that you cite?
Minnery replied, “I would think that the study when it cites nuclear families would mean a family headed by a husband and wife.”
“It doesn’t,” Franken said, again spurring laughter from onlookers. But as with the earlier audience reaction, Franken, a former comedian, remained deadpan serious. “The study defines a nuclear family as one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all the children in the family. And I frankly don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways.”
Earlier, Franken had said, “The Defense of Marriage Act is an injustice. It is an immoral and discriminatory law. … Repealing DOMA will be a great day in this country, akin to the enacting of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution,” which guaranteed women the right to vote.
It is ironic that Focus on the Family’s representative was the one taken to task today. The organization, once the nation’s unchallenged powerhouse in anti-gay activism, has taken a decidedly more moderate, or at least more pragmatic, stance regarding same-sex marriage since current president Jim Daly took over for founding president James C. Dobson in 2005. Although remaining ideologically opposed to same-sex marriage, Daly has suggested that trying to stop it is a losing proposition for “pro-family” groups due to strong support from young people and pervasive problems confronting heterosexual marriages. Asked in May about same-sex marriage, Daly said, “We’re losing on that one, especially among the 20- and 30-somethings: 65 to 70 percent of them favor same-sex marriage. I don’t know if that’s going to change with a little more age – demographers would say probably not. We’ve probably lost that. I don’t want to be extremist here, but I think we need to start calculating where we are in the culture.”
Robert Steinback – Hatewatch blog at Southern Poverty Law Center
July 21st, 2011
Sen. Al Franken catches anti-gay witness misrepresenting study at hearing
A representative of one of the nation’s largest organizations opposed to same-sex marriage learned, as the U.S. Senate and the entire nation watched, to be careful what studies you cite – because someone might actually read them.
U.S. Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota caught Thomas Minnery, vice president of government and public policy for Focus on the Family, blatantly mischaracterizing a government study on the benefits to children of being raised by two married parents as referring to opposite-sex parents, when the report itself drew no such distinction. It was the latest in a relentless campaign of misrepresentations, half-truths and outright lies in recent years that have defined anti-gay Christian right organizations intent on opposing equal rights and common dignity for LGBT people.
Testifying today at a Senate hearing on a bill that would repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, Franken said, “Mr. Minnery, on page eight of your written testimony, you write, quote, ‘Children living … with their own married biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier and happier, had better access to health care, less likely to suffer mild or severe emotional problems, did better in school, were protected from physical, emotional and sexual abuse, and almost never live in poverty compared with children in any other family form.’ You cite a Department of Health and Human Services study that I have right here from December 2010 to support this conclusion.
“I checked the study out,” Franken said, pausing to let a ripple of laughter from the gallery dissipate, “and I would like to enter into the record, if I may, that it actually doesn’t say what you said it says. It says, ‘nuclear families,’ not opposite-sex married families, are associated with those positive outcomes. Isn’t it true, Mr. Minnery, that a married same-sex couple that has had or adopted kids would fall under the definition of a nuclear family in the study that you cite?
Minnery replied, “I would think that the study when it cites nuclear families would mean a family headed by a husband and wife.”
“It doesn’t,” Franken said, again spurring laughter from onlookers. But as with the earlier audience reaction, Franken, a former comedian, remained deadpan serious. “The study defines a nuclear family as one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all the children in the family. And I frankly don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways.”
Earlier, Franken had said, “The Defense of Marriage Act is an injustice. It is an immoral and discriminatory law. … Repealing DOMA will be a great day in this country, akin to the enacting of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution,” which guaranteed women the right to vote.
It is ironic that Focus on the Family’s representative was the one taken to task today. The organization, once the nation’s unchallenged powerhouse in anti-gay activism, has taken a decidedly more moderate, or at least more pragmatic, stance regarding same-sex marriage since current president Jim Daly took over for founding president James C. Dobson in 2005. Although remaining ideologically opposed to same-sex marriage, Daly has suggested that trying to stop it is a losing proposition for “pro-family” groups due to strong support from young people and pervasive problems confronting heterosexual marriages. Asked in May about same-sex marriage, Daly said, “We’re losing on that one, especially among the 20- and 30-somethings: 65 to 70 percent of them favor same-sex marriage. I don’t know if that’s going to change with a little more age – demographers would say probably not. We’ve probably lost that. I don’t want to be extremist here, but I think we need to start calculating where we are in the culture.”
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Just two guys really enjoying each other
I'll take a simple scene like this, of two men having a real connection over any production company bullshit like ya get with Raging Stallion, Corbin Fisher, Sean Cody or Channel 1 Releasing (Chi Chi LaLoser)
I'm getting so I hate fake porn, especially ones pushing str8 bait over real gay sex.
Don't get me wrong, I love seeing str8 guys paired up with a good cocksucker and ya get to see him "stretch his boundaries" but the turn on is *knowing* that's what it is. I hate having str8 bois presented as the next big gay porn star when they aren't even gay i.e: Ricky Sinz, Reese Rideout, Logan McCree etc.
Ulf (preachy and bitchie today)
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
SIZE QUEEN
I'm not normally into hairless twinkie types, but I like this boi or more specifically, I like his huge gaping boi pussy.
I would just love to lick, suck and slaver all over that hole, hell, if it were possible,I'd love to shove my whole head up that twat and lick him inside out.
Ulf (Oh great, now I'm horny again)
DOD officials: Benefits for gay troops will be examined
DOD officials: Benefits for gay troops will be examined
July 22, 2011
By Chris Johnson on July 22, 2011
Marine Maj. Gen. Steven Hummer and Virginia "Vee" Penrod, co-chairs of the Repeal Implementation Team.
Possible benefits that could be afforded to service members with same-sex partners will be the “the largest piece” of what the Pentagon intends to examine in the 60 days before “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is off the books, according to DOD officials.
Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Steven Hummer, chief of staff of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Repeal Implementation Team, identified benefits Friday as among the policies “important to the department and service members” and said they’ll be examined before and after the military’s gay ban has been lifted.
“The department will continue to study existing benefits to determine those, if any, that should be reviewed based on policy, fiscal, legal and feasibility considerations, to give the service member the discretion to designate persons of their own choosing as beneficiaries,” Hummer said.
Hummer made the remarks during a news conference at the Pentagon intended to answer questions about the path forward for the military now that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal has been certified. The president, the defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certified repeal Friday in accordance with the repeal law, which means the military’s gay ban will be off the books on Sept. 20.
Even with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” off the books, gay service members with partners or spouses faced inequities thanks to straight service members in marriages on issues such as living expenses and medical care, travel, housing benefits. Much of this inequity is because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
Asked by the Washington Blade whether the Repeal Implementation Team identified any partner benefits that could go to gay service members despite DOMA, Virginia “Vee” Penrod, deputy assistant secretary of defense for military personnel policy and co-chair of the Repeal Implementation Team, said the group determined to hold off on those determinations until after repeal takes effect.
“When we looked at the plan for implementation of the law, our priority was to develop the training and ensure that the force is trained,” Penrod said. “And looking at that priority, we realized the benefits, although very important — that we would wait until repeal before we decided to look in the benefits; which we will do upon repeal.”
Pressed by the New York Times for an example of a benefit that may be afforded to service members despite DOMA, Penrod said legal counsel may be among them.
“We have, like, legal policy for — where an individual could come in and would request legal assistance,” Penrod said. “And whether or not is that just for the service member or can I bring in my partner and also have assistance, and so that’s an example. There are just some that are not by law, but it’s by policy.”
Another reporter continued to ask whether the difference in benefits for gay and straight service members “may cause friction” in the armed forces that could disrupt unit cohesion.
Hummer maintained the Pentagon “will continue to follow the law” as mandated by DOMA and leaders are responsible for maintaining good order and discipline “irrespective of sexual orientation.”
In addition to maintaing that an examination of benefits is in the works, Pentagon officials disputed the notion that an executive order would be necessary to provide non-discrimination protections for gay service members. While “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is on its way to being lifted, no new statute has been put in its place to protect gay troops from discrimination.
Some advocates have been calling for an executive order from President Obama that would prohibit discrimination against service members on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The Obama administration hasn’t explicitly said whether or not it would issue such a directive, but Pentagon officials have maintained the current military code within the chain of command is sufficient.
Asked whether an executive order would be needed to address discrimination, Hummer replied, “I believe it does not.”
“All service members, irrespective of their sexual orientation, are entitled to an environment that is free of any bars that would prohibit their full growth to as high a responsibility as they could reach,” Hummer said.
Hmm, well I guess I might have been wrong, but I think I'll wait and see before I say it's a done deal.
Ulf
July 22, 2011
By Chris Johnson on July 22, 2011
Marine Maj. Gen. Steven Hummer and Virginia "Vee" Penrod, co-chairs of the Repeal Implementation Team.
Possible benefits that could be afforded to service members with same-sex partners will be the “the largest piece” of what the Pentagon intends to examine in the 60 days before “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is off the books, according to DOD officials.
Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Steven Hummer, chief of staff of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Repeal Implementation Team, identified benefits Friday as among the policies “important to the department and service members” and said they’ll be examined before and after the military’s gay ban has been lifted.
“The department will continue to study existing benefits to determine those, if any, that should be reviewed based on policy, fiscal, legal and feasibility considerations, to give the service member the discretion to designate persons of their own choosing as beneficiaries,” Hummer said.
Hummer made the remarks during a news conference at the Pentagon intended to answer questions about the path forward for the military now that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal has been certified. The president, the defense secretary and the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certified repeal Friday in accordance with the repeal law, which means the military’s gay ban will be off the books on Sept. 20.
Even with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” off the books, gay service members with partners or spouses faced inequities thanks to straight service members in marriages on issues such as living expenses and medical care, travel, housing benefits. Much of this inequity is because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
Asked by the Washington Blade whether the Repeal Implementation Team identified any partner benefits that could go to gay service members despite DOMA, Virginia “Vee” Penrod, deputy assistant secretary of defense for military personnel policy and co-chair of the Repeal Implementation Team, said the group determined to hold off on those determinations until after repeal takes effect.
“When we looked at the plan for implementation of the law, our priority was to develop the training and ensure that the force is trained,” Penrod said. “And looking at that priority, we realized the benefits, although very important — that we would wait until repeal before we decided to look in the benefits; which we will do upon repeal.”
Pressed by the New York Times for an example of a benefit that may be afforded to service members despite DOMA, Penrod said legal counsel may be among them.
“We have, like, legal policy for — where an individual could come in and would request legal assistance,” Penrod said. “And whether or not is that just for the service member or can I bring in my partner and also have assistance, and so that’s an example. There are just some that are not by law, but it’s by policy.”
Another reporter continued to ask whether the difference in benefits for gay and straight service members “may cause friction” in the armed forces that could disrupt unit cohesion.
Hummer maintained the Pentagon “will continue to follow the law” as mandated by DOMA and leaders are responsible for maintaining good order and discipline “irrespective of sexual orientation.”
In addition to maintaing that an examination of benefits is in the works, Pentagon officials disputed the notion that an executive order would be necessary to provide non-discrimination protections for gay service members. While “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is on its way to being lifted, no new statute has been put in its place to protect gay troops from discrimination.
Some advocates have been calling for an executive order from President Obama that would prohibit discrimination against service members on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The Obama administration hasn’t explicitly said whether or not it would issue such a directive, but Pentagon officials have maintained the current military code within the chain of command is sufficient.
Asked whether an executive order would be needed to address discrimination, Hummer replied, “I believe it does not.”
“All service members, irrespective of their sexual orientation, are entitled to an environment that is free of any bars that would prohibit their full growth to as high a responsibility as they could reach,” Hummer said.
Hmm, well I guess I might have been wrong, but I think I'll wait and see before I say it's a done deal.
Ulf
USPS stamp to honor Harvey Milk?
From a news release
2011-07-23
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has delivered more than 10,000 signatures from a Change.org petition supporting a Harvey Milk Stamp to the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee, which is holding its quarterly meeting this week in Washington, D.C.
"Harvey Milk was a lion of social justice. To see his likeness on a U.S. stamp would do this country proud," said Russell Roybal, deputy executive director of external relations at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "Harvey Milk's courage, commitment and perseverance continue to inspire and inform people all around the world who fight every day for equality and our common humanity."
He adds, "Thousands have made their voices heard by signing this petition. We ask the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee and United States Postal Service to listen and do the right thing by choosing a true trailblazer, Harvey Milk. The Task Force is proud to partner with the Harvey Milk Foundation and International Court Council in this important and historic endeavor."
Read more story below....
The Task Force launched its Change.org petition leading up to Harvey Milk's 80th birthday in May, in coordination with the Harvey Milk Foundation and International Court Council.
"As one of the first openly gay men elected to public office in the United States, and as the first in California, Milk inspired a generation of activists and continues to be a lasting symbol in the fight for full equality," the Task Force petition said. "As a 2009 recipient of the Medal of Freedom, America's highest civilian honor, Harvey Milk has already been nationally recognized as a pioneer in the fight for civil rights of gays and lesbians."
Roy Betts, manager of community relations for the United States Postal Service, told Change.org, "I am pleased to respond that Harvey Milk is under consideration by the committee for possible future stamp issuance. The committee is responsible for reviewing stamp proposals and making subject and design recommendations to the Postmaster General."
On behalf of the United States Postal Service's Postmaster General, the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee ( CSAC ) is tasked with evaluating the merits of all stamp proposals. A public announcement about a potential Harvey Milk stamp will not be made until the fall of 2013 at the earliest.
"The committee decides on new stamp subject recommendations far in advance of the issue date in order to provide time for planning, design, production and distribution. Currently, the 2012 and 2013 stamp programs are completed, and stamp subjects for the 2014 program and subsequent years are being selected," said Betts. "Although many of the subjects for upcoming new stamps have been identified, no public announcement of individual new stamps is made until the entire stamp program for that year has been approved. This occurs in the fall preceding the year of issuance."
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's Harvey Milk Stamp Petition on Change.org:
http:// www.change.org/petitions/honor-harvey-milks-legacy-with-a-usps-stamp
Learn more about the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:
http:// www.thetaskforce.org
Learn more about Harvey Milk:
http://milkfoundation.org
2011-07-23
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has delivered more than 10,000 signatures from a Change.org petition supporting a Harvey Milk Stamp to the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee, which is holding its quarterly meeting this week in Washington, D.C.
"Harvey Milk was a lion of social justice. To see his likeness on a U.S. stamp would do this country proud," said Russell Roybal, deputy executive director of external relations at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "Harvey Milk's courage, commitment and perseverance continue to inspire and inform people all around the world who fight every day for equality and our common humanity."
He adds, "Thousands have made their voices heard by signing this petition. We ask the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee and United States Postal Service to listen and do the right thing by choosing a true trailblazer, Harvey Milk. The Task Force is proud to partner with the Harvey Milk Foundation and International Court Council in this important and historic endeavor."
Read more story below....
The Task Force launched its Change.org petition leading up to Harvey Milk's 80th birthday in May, in coordination with the Harvey Milk Foundation and International Court Council.
"As one of the first openly gay men elected to public office in the United States, and as the first in California, Milk inspired a generation of activists and continues to be a lasting symbol in the fight for full equality," the Task Force petition said. "As a 2009 recipient of the Medal of Freedom, America's highest civilian honor, Harvey Milk has already been nationally recognized as a pioneer in the fight for civil rights of gays and lesbians."
Roy Betts, manager of community relations for the United States Postal Service, told Change.org, "I am pleased to respond that Harvey Milk is under consideration by the committee for possible future stamp issuance. The committee is responsible for reviewing stamp proposals and making subject and design recommendations to the Postmaster General."
On behalf of the United States Postal Service's Postmaster General, the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee ( CSAC ) is tasked with evaluating the merits of all stamp proposals. A public announcement about a potential Harvey Milk stamp will not be made until the fall of 2013 at the earliest.
"The committee decides on new stamp subject recommendations far in advance of the issue date in order to provide time for planning, design, production and distribution. Currently, the 2012 and 2013 stamp programs are completed, and stamp subjects for the 2014 program and subsequent years are being selected," said Betts. "Although many of the subjects for upcoming new stamps have been identified, no public announcement of individual new stamps is made until the entire stamp program for that year has been approved. This occurs in the fall preceding the year of issuance."
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's Harvey Milk Stamp Petition on Change.org:
http:// www.change.org/petitions/honor-harvey-milks-legacy-with-a-usps-stamp
Learn more about the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:
http:// www.thetaskforce.org
Learn more about Harvey Milk:
http://milkfoundation.org
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Ulf can translate...
I want a commitment.
I'm sick of masturbation.
Haven't I seen you before?
Nice ass.
I need you.
My hand is tired.
You're the only man I've ever cared about.
You are the only man who hasn't rejected me.
I'm a Romantic.
I'm poor.
I really want to get to know you better.
So I can tell my friends about it.
It's just orange juice, try it.
3 more shots, and he'll have his legs around my head.
He's kinda cute.
I want to have sex with him till my dick turns blue!
He's not my type.
He won't sleep with me.
I miss you so much
I am so horny that my dog is starting to look good.
I had a wonderful time last night.
Who the hell are you?
Do you love me?
I've done something stupid and you might find out.
Do you 'really' love me?
I've done something stupid and you're going to find out.
I'll give you a call.
I'd rather have my nipples torn off by wild dogs than see you again.
I've been thinking a lot.
You're not as attractive as when I was drunk.
I think we should just be friends.
You're ugly.
I've learned a lot from you.
Next!!!!
BBC censors gay sex scene from Torchwood
ON TV / Uncensored version to air Saturday nights in Canada
Scott Dagostino / National / Thursday, July 21, 2011
From its inception in 2006 by Queer as Folk creator Russell T Davies, the TV series Torchwood has been billed as “sci-fi for adults.” For three seasons now, this blend of The X-Files and True Blood has cheerfully thrown sex, swearing, blood and bondage into its alien mix as openly gay actor John Barrowman stars as the immortal, bisexual WWII veteran Captain Jack Harkness, leading a team of paranormal investigators in the UK.
Ianto Jones, Jack Harkness and Gwen Cooper played by Gareth David-Lloyd, John Barrowman and Eve Myles.
In its new season, a creepy 10-part series dubbed “Miracle Day,” the show has moved to Los Angeles in a co-production deal with the US Starz network. Fans worried the new American partners would neuter Jack’s cheerful polymorphous promiscuity, but for episode three, airing later this week, it’s the BBC that has angered viewers by choosing to censor a sex scene between Barrowman and Canadian actor Dillon Casey.
As an irritated Barrowman told the Sun, “It’s not gratuitous sex...You go back into history with Jack and you discover an integral relationship that is part and parcel to what is happening. It’s a massive story.”
While seasons one and two of Torchwood included Barrowman making out with several male co-stars, the series ran on sub-channels BBC2 and BBC3. With the 2009 Children of Earth miniseries moving to the flagship BBC1, Torchwood got great ratings but increased scrutiny at a time when, like here at home with our CBC, the Conservative government is proposing cuts to the public broadcaster’s funding.
The BBC edits of Torchwood air in Canada on CTV’s Space network on Tuesday nights at 8pm but Renee Dupuis, communications manager at Space, assures that the Canadian network will also continue to run the uncensored Starz versions on Saturdays nights at 9:10pm, so those deprived of seeing Barrowman and Casey go at it this weekend can check it out Saturday.
Davies, meanwhile, has pitched a new series about gay men (enigmatically titled Cucumber) to the US cable channel Showtime, home to daring series like Weeds and Dexter. For a writer who likes to provoke, such censorship worries may soon be science-fiction.
Scott Dagostino / National / Thursday, July 21, 2011
From its inception in 2006 by Queer as Folk creator Russell T Davies, the TV series Torchwood has been billed as “sci-fi for adults.” For three seasons now, this blend of The X-Files and True Blood has cheerfully thrown sex, swearing, blood and bondage into its alien mix as openly gay actor John Barrowman stars as the immortal, bisexual WWII veteran Captain Jack Harkness, leading a team of paranormal investigators in the UK.
Ianto Jones, Jack Harkness and Gwen Cooper played by Gareth David-Lloyd, John Barrowman and Eve Myles.
In its new season, a creepy 10-part series dubbed “Miracle Day,” the show has moved to Los Angeles in a co-production deal with the US Starz network. Fans worried the new American partners would neuter Jack’s cheerful polymorphous promiscuity, but for episode three, airing later this week, it’s the BBC that has angered viewers by choosing to censor a sex scene between Barrowman and Canadian actor Dillon Casey.
As an irritated Barrowman told the Sun, “It’s not gratuitous sex...You go back into history with Jack and you discover an integral relationship that is part and parcel to what is happening. It’s a massive story.”
While seasons one and two of Torchwood included Barrowman making out with several male co-stars, the series ran on sub-channels BBC2 and BBC3. With the 2009 Children of Earth miniseries moving to the flagship BBC1, Torchwood got great ratings but increased scrutiny at a time when, like here at home with our CBC, the Conservative government is proposing cuts to the public broadcaster’s funding.
The BBC edits of Torchwood air in Canada on CTV’s Space network on Tuesday nights at 8pm but Renee Dupuis, communications manager at Space, assures that the Canadian network will also continue to run the uncensored Starz versions on Saturdays nights at 9:10pm, so those deprived of seeing Barrowman and Casey go at it this weekend can check it out Saturday.
Davies, meanwhile, has pitched a new series about gay men (enigmatically titled Cucumber) to the US cable channel Showtime, home to daring series like Weeds and Dexter. For a writer who likes to provoke, such censorship worries may soon be science-fiction.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Captain America
JD and I went to see this movie last night, Chris Evans is so friggin' hot, I barely noticed whether there was a plot at all.
Ulf
Speaking of straight guy's...
Three straight Bulgarian hotties taking turns breeding some man twat.
Personally, I'd do all three.
Ulf (loves me some hairy bois)
Gay Guise: When Straight Men Have Sex With Other Men
Can straight men have sex with men and still be straight?
by Joe Kort
There is a lot of talk about Bromances these days. The urban dictionary definition of a bromance is described as "complicated love and affection shared by two straight males." But what if the two men decide to have sex? Does that make them gay or bisexual?
When girls do this in Girls Gone Wild they are not accused of being latent lesbians or bisexuals. Their sexual orientation is not speculated about at all as it turns out. But this is different for me.
Understanding Straight Men Who Have Sex with Men
There's growing evidence that many men who have sex with men aren't all gay or bisexual. According to the Centers for Disease Control, more than 3 million men who self-identify as straight secretly have sex with other men-putting their wives or girlfriends at risk for HIV infection and other sexually transmitted diseases.
A recent New York City survey that appeared in the September 19, 2006, issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine found that nearly 1 in 10 men say they're straight and have occasional sex with men. In addition, 70 percent of these men are heterosexually married. In fact, 10 percent of all married men in this survey reported engaging in same-sex behavior during the previous year.
Related Articles
To best understand these men, therapists and clients need to be able to differentiate four terms that are often confused: sexual identity and orientation; sexual preferences; sexual fantasies; and sexual behavior. Contrary to common usage, they aren't always in alignment.
Sexual identity and orientation encompasses one's sexual and romantic identity, in which thoughts, fantasies, and behaviors work together in concert. It's the alignment of affectional, romantic, psychological, spiritual, and sexual feelings and desires for those of the same or opposite gender. Sexual orientation doesn't change over time. One's sexual behaviors and preferences might change, but like one's temperament, one's orientation remains mostly stable. The term also refers to how someone self-identifies, not how others may categorize him or her. Some people self-identify as straight, while others self-identify as gay or lesbian, bisexual, or questioning. It's important as therapists to ask your clients how they self-identify, regardless of with whom they have sex.
Sexual preferences refer to sexual acts, positions, and erotic scenarios that someone prefers to have while engaging in sexual activity. The term takes into account what individuals like to do and get into sexually, not necessarily with whom they like to do it. Preferences and erotic interests can change over time, as one becomes more open or closed to certain thoughts and behaviors.
Sexual fantasies are any thoughts that one finds arousing. They can encompass anything-sexual positions, romantic encounters, body parts, clothing and shoe fetishes, even rape. Sexual fantasies aren't necessarily acted out. In fact, in many cases, they aren't.
Sexual behavior is any behavior intended to pleasure oneself and/or one's sexual partner. It doesn't necessarily reflect one's orientation. For example, men who are imprisoned engage in sexual behaviors with other men, but do so out of sexual necessity, not because of erotic interest in another man. They desire the behavior and the sexual release it achieves, and the gender of the partner is secondary.
For straight men who have sex with men, same-sex encounters aren't about romance or sexual attraction and desire, but about sexual and physiological arousal-"getting off" with another who's male and accessible. They don't sexually desire or get aroused by looking at other men, only by the sexual act. But if they don't actively desire other men, how do they get to the point of having sex with them? These men typically want to bond with and get affection from other men. Their behavior may reflect a desire to experiment, to engage in something that's taboo, or to express inner psychological conflicts involving their sexual feelings and desires that have nothing to do with having a gay or bisexual identity.
Straight men who have sex with men do so for a variety of reasons. Some have been sexually abused and are compulsively reenacting childhood sexual trauma by male perpetrators; some find sexual release with another man more accessible; some have sex with men because it's easier and requires fewer social skills than those required to have sex with women; some are "gay for pay" and get financial rewards; some like the attention they receive from other men; some like anal sex, which they're otherwise too ashamed to talk about or engage in with their female partners.
When I learn that a straight client is having sex with men, I ask a series of questions: What is your interest in men? Do you prefer one type over another? Do you feel drawn and compelled to satisfy your sexual urges with men? Do you care about the physical appearance of the man? Do women play any role in the fantasy? Is it different for you if they aren't? I also try to listen for the themes running through their sexual interests and fantasies, which often decode aspects of their personal identity and histories.
by Joe Kort
There is a lot of talk about Bromances these days. The urban dictionary definition of a bromance is described as "complicated love and affection shared by two straight males." But what if the two men decide to have sex? Does that make them gay or bisexual?
When girls do this in Girls Gone Wild they are not accused of being latent lesbians or bisexuals. Their sexual orientation is not speculated about at all as it turns out. But this is different for me.
Understanding Straight Men Who Have Sex with Men
There's growing evidence that many men who have sex with men aren't all gay or bisexual. According to the Centers for Disease Control, more than 3 million men who self-identify as straight secretly have sex with other men-putting their wives or girlfriends at risk for HIV infection and other sexually transmitted diseases.
A recent New York City survey that appeared in the September 19, 2006, issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine found that nearly 1 in 10 men say they're straight and have occasional sex with men. In addition, 70 percent of these men are heterosexually married. In fact, 10 percent of all married men in this survey reported engaging in same-sex behavior during the previous year.
Related Articles
To best understand these men, therapists and clients need to be able to differentiate four terms that are often confused: sexual identity and orientation; sexual preferences; sexual fantasies; and sexual behavior. Contrary to common usage, they aren't always in alignment.
Sexual identity and orientation encompasses one's sexual and romantic identity, in which thoughts, fantasies, and behaviors work together in concert. It's the alignment of affectional, romantic, psychological, spiritual, and sexual feelings and desires for those of the same or opposite gender. Sexual orientation doesn't change over time. One's sexual behaviors and preferences might change, but like one's temperament, one's orientation remains mostly stable. The term also refers to how someone self-identifies, not how others may categorize him or her. Some people self-identify as straight, while others self-identify as gay or lesbian, bisexual, or questioning. It's important as therapists to ask your clients how they self-identify, regardless of with whom they have sex.
Sexual preferences refer to sexual acts, positions, and erotic scenarios that someone prefers to have while engaging in sexual activity. The term takes into account what individuals like to do and get into sexually, not necessarily with whom they like to do it. Preferences and erotic interests can change over time, as one becomes more open or closed to certain thoughts and behaviors.
Sexual fantasies are any thoughts that one finds arousing. They can encompass anything-sexual positions, romantic encounters, body parts, clothing and shoe fetishes, even rape. Sexual fantasies aren't necessarily acted out. In fact, in many cases, they aren't.
Sexual behavior is any behavior intended to pleasure oneself and/or one's sexual partner. It doesn't necessarily reflect one's orientation. For example, men who are imprisoned engage in sexual behaviors with other men, but do so out of sexual necessity, not because of erotic interest in another man. They desire the behavior and the sexual release it achieves, and the gender of the partner is secondary.
For straight men who have sex with men, same-sex encounters aren't about romance or sexual attraction and desire, but about sexual and physiological arousal-"getting off" with another who's male and accessible. They don't sexually desire or get aroused by looking at other men, only by the sexual act. But if they don't actively desire other men, how do they get to the point of having sex with them? These men typically want to bond with and get affection from other men. Their behavior may reflect a desire to experiment, to engage in something that's taboo, or to express inner psychological conflicts involving their sexual feelings and desires that have nothing to do with having a gay or bisexual identity.
Straight men who have sex with men do so for a variety of reasons. Some have been sexually abused and are compulsively reenacting childhood sexual trauma by male perpetrators; some find sexual release with another man more accessible; some have sex with men because it's easier and requires fewer social skills than those required to have sex with women; some are "gay for pay" and get financial rewards; some like the attention they receive from other men; some like anal sex, which they're otherwise too ashamed to talk about or engage in with their female partners.
When I learn that a straight client is having sex with men, I ask a series of questions: What is your interest in men? Do you prefer one type over another? Do you feel drawn and compelled to satisfy your sexual urges with men? Do you care about the physical appearance of the man? Do women play any role in the fantasy? Is it different for you if they aren't? I also try to listen for the themes running through their sexual interests and fantasies, which often decode aspects of their personal identity and histories.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Must be Friday because Ulf is horny
Tonight's honors go too:
Ian Roberts.
Ian is an out gay rugby player and is nuthin' less than my ideal of the perfect lookin' guy.
Seriously, I doubt there is anything I wouldn't do with this fuckin' man.
Ian, if I ever meet you in person, we're gonna redefine what hot man on man sex means.
Ulf
Ian Roberts.
Ian is an out gay rugby player and is nuthin' less than my ideal of the perfect lookin' guy.
Seriously, I doubt there is anything I wouldn't do with this fuckin' man.
Ian, if I ever meet you in person, we're gonna redefine what hot man on man sex means.
Ulf
Which is hotter?
I'm a big *Shameless* fan, both the Uk and US versions.
There are many similarities this being one of 'em.
The first time hook ups between Ian and Mickey.
I had a hard time deciding which one I liked best.
The Uk version is infinitely more funny and lets face it Ciaran Griffiths is hot,
but when push came to shove, I think the US version is sexier.
The fact that Ian in the UK version is such a prick to Mickey helped me decide, the US version still has the two go'in at each other.
But what the fuck do I know, you guys can decide for yourself.
Ulf
The second take is a link to Youtube for the US version (sorry they won't allow embedding)
http://youtu.be/Nk1d1m4ksZY
There are many similarities this being one of 'em.
The first time hook ups between Ian and Mickey.
I had a hard time deciding which one I liked best.
The Uk version is infinitely more funny and lets face it Ciaran Griffiths is hot,
but when push came to shove, I think the US version is sexier.
The fact that Ian in the UK version is such a prick to Mickey helped me decide, the US version still has the two go'in at each other.
But what the fuck do I know, you guys can decide for yourself.
Ulf
The second take is a link to Youtube for the US version (sorry they won't allow embedding)
http://youtu.be/Nk1d1m4ksZY
Thursday, July 21, 2011
What I've been reading
The drama of Steve McQueen's life far surpassed anything he ever played on screen. He followed in the footsteps of his mother, a prostitute, who eventually seduced him as part of an Oedipal fling. Earlier, he'd been brutally molested by some of this mother's "johns," and endured gang rape in reform school. In a bordello in Santo Domingo, he hired himself out as a sex object and porn performer.
Returning to New York, he hustled on the streets of Times Square. Later, in a borrowed tux, he became a "gentleman for rent," the toy boy of rich, aging women, two of whom included Joan Crawford and Lana Turner. When stardom finally came, the abused became the abuser. "The last thing I want is to fall in love with a broad." The string of seductions that followed earned him an almost mythical status as a pansexual Love Machine. His A-list conquests included Jacqueline Bissett, Faye Dunaway, Lauren Hutton, Sharon Tate, Mamie Van Doren, Tuesday Weld, Natalie Wood, and Marilyn Monroe.
Publicly, he insisted that he loathed homosexuals, yet he often went to bed with them, especially if they were bikers or
race car drivers. He had a tumultuous sexual relationship with James Dean, and a longer love/hate affair with Paul
Newman. Other sexual liaisons developed with Peter Lawford, Sal Mineo, Rock Hudson, Chuck Connors, and George
Peppard.
McQueen lived life at top speed, like the machines he raced so famously. His early death remains a source of lurid
speculation, all of it explored within this pioneering biography by celebrity chronicler Darwin Porter.
What a whore, I can appreciate that in any man, 'cause ya know what your gettin'.
Ulf
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Military gay couples won't enjoy benefits
By The Associated Press
07.19.2011 8:00am UTC
(San Diego) – Gay service members from Army soldiers to Air Force officers are planning to celebrate the official end of the military’s 17-year policy that forced them to hide their sexual orientation with another official act – marriage.
A 27-year-old Air Force officer from Ohio said he can’t wait to wed his partner of two years and slip on a ring that he won’t have to take off or lie about when he goes to work each day once “don’t ask, don’t tell” is repealed. He plans to wed his boyfriend, a federal employee, in Washington D.C. where same-sex marriages are legal.
He asked not to be identified, following the advice of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a national organization representing gay troops, including the Air Force officer, that has cautioned those on active duty from coming out until the ban is off the books.
“I owe it to him and myself,” the officer said of getting married. “I don’t want to do it in the dark. I think that taints what it’s supposed to be about – which is us, our families, and our government.”
But in the eyes of the military the marriage will not be recognized and the couple will still be denied most of the benefits the Defense Department gives to heterosexual couples to ease the costs of medical care, travel, housing and other living expenses.
The Pentagon says the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act – which defines marriage for federal program purposes as a legal union between a man and woman – prohibits the Defense Department from extending those benefits to gay couples, even if they are married legally in certain states.
That means housing allowances and off-base living space for gay service members with partners could be decided as if they were living alone. Base transfers would not take into account their spouses. If two gay service members are married to each other they may be transferred to two different states or regions of the world. For heterosexual couples, the military tries to keep that from happening.
Gay activists and even some commanders say the discrepancy will create a two-tier system in an institution built on uniformity.
“It’s not going to work,” said Army Reserve Capt. R. Clarke Cooper, who heads up the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group that sued the Justice Department to stop the enforcement of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. “Taking care of our soldiers is necessary to ensure morale and unit cohesion. This creates a glaring stratification in the disbursement of support services and benefits.”
Cooper said he also plans to marry his boyfriend, a former Navy officer, in a post-repeal era.
The Obama administration has said it believes the ban could be fully lifted within weeks. A federal appeals court ruling July 6 ordered the government to immediately cease its enforcement. After the Department of Justice filed an emergency motion asking the court to reconsider its order, the court on Friday reinstated the law but with a caveat that prevents the government from investigating or penalizing anyone who is openly gay.
The Justice Department in its motion argued ending the ban abruptly now would pre-empt the “orderly process” for rolling back the policy as outlined in the law passed and signed by the president in December.
The military’s staunchly traditional, tight-knit society, meanwhile, has been quickly adapting to the social revolution: Many gay officers say they have already come out to their commanders and fellow troops, and now discuss their weekend plans without a worry.
The Air Force officer says he has dropped the code words “Red Solo Cups” – the red plastic cups used at parties – that he slipped into conversations for years to tell his partner he loved him when troops were within earshot. He now feels comfortable saying “I love you” on the phone, no longer fearful he will be interrogated by peers.
One male soldier, who also asked not to be identified, said after Congress approved repealing the law, he listed his boyfriend on his Army forms as his emergency contact and primary beneficiary of his military life insurance in case he dies in Afghanistan.
He said when he was transferred to South Korea, he and his partner had to pay for his partner’s move.
“But we were able to stay together,” the soldier wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press from Afghanistan. “During the move, I realized I needed to make sure my partner in life was taken care of if something, the worst, ever happened to me, especially knowing I was about to deploy.”
The soldier said when he added his boyfriend’s name to the paperwork as a primary beneficiary and identified him as a friend, the non-commissioned officer in charge shut his office door and told him: “Unlike the inherent benefits to being married in the Army, such as housing and sustenance allowances, our life insurance and will don’t discriminate.”
Same-sex partners can be listed as the person to be notified in case a service member is killed, injured, or missing, but current regulations prevent anyone other than immediate family – not same-sex spouses – from learning the details of the death. Same-sex spouses also will not be eligible for travel allowances to attend repatriation ceremonies if their military spouses are killed in action.
Gay spouses also will be denied military ID cards. That means they will not be allowed on bases unless they are accompanied by a service member and they cannot shop at commissaries or exchanges that have reduced prices for groceries and clothing, nor can they be treated at military medical facilities. They also will be excluded from base programs providing recreation and other such kinds of support.
Military officials say some hardship cases may be handled on an individual basis. Activists warn such an approach will create an administrative nightmare and leave the military vulnerable to accusations of making inconsistent decisions that favor some and not others.
Military families enjoy assistance from the Defense Department to compensate for the hardship of having a mother or father or both deployed to war zones and moved frequently.
“It strains a relationship when you’re gone for over a year,” said Navy medical corpsman Andrew James, 27, who lived two years apart from his same-sex partner, who could not afford to move with him when he was transferred from San Diego to Washington. “But straight couples have support so their spouses are able to be taken care of, with financial issues, and also they are able to talk to the chain of command, whereas gays can’t. They don’t have any support at all financially or emotionally, and that is really devastating.”
He said he was lucky that his relationship survived and now that he is in the Reserves, they are together again in San Diego.
The benefits issue came up repeatedly during training sessions to prepare troops for the policy change.
“There are inconsistencies,” Maj. Daryl Desimone told a class of Marines at Camp Pendleton, north of San Diego, after being asked about benefits for gay military personnel. “Anyone who looks at it logically will see there are some things that need to be worked out in the future.”
The military’s policy denying benefits to same-sex couples could change if legal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act prove successful. The Obama administration has said it will not defend DOMA in court.
Earlier this month, the Justice Department filed a legal brief in federal court in San Francisco in support of a lesbian federal employee’s lawsuit claiming the government wrongly denied health coverage to her same-sex spouse. The brief said the lawsuit should not be dismissed because DOMA violates the constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and was motivated by hostility toward gays and lesbians.
07.19.2011 8:00am UTC
(San Diego) – Gay service members from Army soldiers to Air Force officers are planning to celebrate the official end of the military’s 17-year policy that forced them to hide their sexual orientation with another official act – marriage.
A 27-year-old Air Force officer from Ohio said he can’t wait to wed his partner of two years and slip on a ring that he won’t have to take off or lie about when he goes to work each day once “don’t ask, don’t tell” is repealed. He plans to wed his boyfriend, a federal employee, in Washington D.C. where same-sex marriages are legal.
He asked not to be identified, following the advice of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a national organization representing gay troops, including the Air Force officer, that has cautioned those on active duty from coming out until the ban is off the books.
“I owe it to him and myself,” the officer said of getting married. “I don’t want to do it in the dark. I think that taints what it’s supposed to be about – which is us, our families, and our government.”
But in the eyes of the military the marriage will not be recognized and the couple will still be denied most of the benefits the Defense Department gives to heterosexual couples to ease the costs of medical care, travel, housing and other living expenses.
The Pentagon says the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act – which defines marriage for federal program purposes as a legal union between a man and woman – prohibits the Defense Department from extending those benefits to gay couples, even if they are married legally in certain states.
That means housing allowances and off-base living space for gay service members with partners could be decided as if they were living alone. Base transfers would not take into account their spouses. If two gay service members are married to each other they may be transferred to two different states or regions of the world. For heterosexual couples, the military tries to keep that from happening.
Gay activists and even some commanders say the discrepancy will create a two-tier system in an institution built on uniformity.
“It’s not going to work,” said Army Reserve Capt. R. Clarke Cooper, who heads up the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group that sued the Justice Department to stop the enforcement of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. “Taking care of our soldiers is necessary to ensure morale and unit cohesion. This creates a glaring stratification in the disbursement of support services and benefits.”
Cooper said he also plans to marry his boyfriend, a former Navy officer, in a post-repeal era.
The Obama administration has said it believes the ban could be fully lifted within weeks. A federal appeals court ruling July 6 ordered the government to immediately cease its enforcement. After the Department of Justice filed an emergency motion asking the court to reconsider its order, the court on Friday reinstated the law but with a caveat that prevents the government from investigating or penalizing anyone who is openly gay.
The Justice Department in its motion argued ending the ban abruptly now would pre-empt the “orderly process” for rolling back the policy as outlined in the law passed and signed by the president in December.
The military’s staunchly traditional, tight-knit society, meanwhile, has been quickly adapting to the social revolution: Many gay officers say they have already come out to their commanders and fellow troops, and now discuss their weekend plans without a worry.
The Air Force officer says he has dropped the code words “Red Solo Cups” – the red plastic cups used at parties – that he slipped into conversations for years to tell his partner he loved him when troops were within earshot. He now feels comfortable saying “I love you” on the phone, no longer fearful he will be interrogated by peers.
One male soldier, who also asked not to be identified, said after Congress approved repealing the law, he listed his boyfriend on his Army forms as his emergency contact and primary beneficiary of his military life insurance in case he dies in Afghanistan.
He said when he was transferred to South Korea, he and his partner had to pay for his partner’s move.
“But we were able to stay together,” the soldier wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press from Afghanistan. “During the move, I realized I needed to make sure my partner in life was taken care of if something, the worst, ever happened to me, especially knowing I was about to deploy.”
The soldier said when he added his boyfriend’s name to the paperwork as a primary beneficiary and identified him as a friend, the non-commissioned officer in charge shut his office door and told him: “Unlike the inherent benefits to being married in the Army, such as housing and sustenance allowances, our life insurance and will don’t discriminate.”
Same-sex partners can be listed as the person to be notified in case a service member is killed, injured, or missing, but current regulations prevent anyone other than immediate family – not same-sex spouses – from learning the details of the death. Same-sex spouses also will not be eligible for travel allowances to attend repatriation ceremonies if their military spouses are killed in action.
Gay spouses also will be denied military ID cards. That means they will not be allowed on bases unless they are accompanied by a service member and they cannot shop at commissaries or exchanges that have reduced prices for groceries and clothing, nor can they be treated at military medical facilities. They also will be excluded from base programs providing recreation and other such kinds of support.
Military officials say some hardship cases may be handled on an individual basis. Activists warn such an approach will create an administrative nightmare and leave the military vulnerable to accusations of making inconsistent decisions that favor some and not others.
Military families enjoy assistance from the Defense Department to compensate for the hardship of having a mother or father or both deployed to war zones and moved frequently.
“It strains a relationship when you’re gone for over a year,” said Navy medical corpsman Andrew James, 27, who lived two years apart from his same-sex partner, who could not afford to move with him when he was transferred from San Diego to Washington. “But straight couples have support so their spouses are able to be taken care of, with financial issues, and also they are able to talk to the chain of command, whereas gays can’t. They don’t have any support at all financially or emotionally, and that is really devastating.”
He said he was lucky that his relationship survived and now that he is in the Reserves, they are together again in San Diego.
The benefits issue came up repeatedly during training sessions to prepare troops for the policy change.
“There are inconsistencies,” Maj. Daryl Desimone told a class of Marines at Camp Pendleton, north of San Diego, after being asked about benefits for gay military personnel. “Anyone who looks at it logically will see there are some things that need to be worked out in the future.”
The military’s policy denying benefits to same-sex couples could change if legal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act prove successful. The Obama administration has said it will not defend DOMA in court.
Earlier this month, the Justice Department filed a legal brief in federal court in San Francisco in support of a lesbian federal employee’s lawsuit claiming the government wrongly denied health coverage to her same-sex spouse. The brief said the lawsuit should not be dismissed because DOMA violates the constitution’s guarantee of equal protection and was motivated by hostility toward gays and lesbians.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Thom Barron
Hunky Thom Barron fucks and loads French/Arab boi then lets him suck the cum off his dick.
Damn, now that's porn.
Ulf
Sounds like my mom
John invited his mother over for dinner. During the meal, his mother couldn't help noticing how handsome John's roommate was. She had long been suspicious of Johns' sexual orientation and this only made her more curious.
Over the course of the evening, while watching the two interact, she started to wonder if there was more between John and the roommate than met the eye.
Reading his mom's thoughts, John volunteered, "I know what you must be thinking, but I assure you, Mark and I are just roommates."
About a week later, Mark came to John and said, "Ever since your mother came to dinner, I've been unable to find the beautiful silver gravy ladle. You don't suppose she took it, do you?"
John said, "Well, I doubt it, but I'll write her a letter just to be sure." So he sat down and wrote: "Dear Mother, I'm not saying you 'did' take a gravy ladle from my house, and I'm not saying you 'did not' take a gravy ladle. But the fact remains that one has been missing ever since you were here for dinner."
Several days later, John received a letter from his mother which read: "Dear Son, I'm not saying that you 'do' sleep with Mark, and I'm not saying that you 'do not' sleep with Mark. But the fact remains that if he was sleeping in his own bed, he would have found the gravy ladle by now. Love, Mom"
Over the course of the evening, while watching the two interact, she started to wonder if there was more between John and the roommate than met the eye.
Reading his mom's thoughts, John volunteered, "I know what you must be thinking, but I assure you, Mark and I are just roommates."
About a week later, Mark came to John and said, "Ever since your mother came to dinner, I've been unable to find the beautiful silver gravy ladle. You don't suppose she took it, do you?"
John said, "Well, I doubt it, but I'll write her a letter just to be sure." So he sat down and wrote: "Dear Mother, I'm not saying you 'did' take a gravy ladle from my house, and I'm not saying you 'did not' take a gravy ladle. But the fact remains that one has been missing ever since you were here for dinner."
Several days later, John received a letter from his mother which read: "Dear Son, I'm not saying that you 'do' sleep with Mark, and I'm not saying that you 'do not' sleep with Mark. But the fact remains that if he was sleeping in his own bed, he would have found the gravy ladle by now. Love, Mom"
Warehouse 13 Adds Openly Gay Character For Third Season
19 July 2011
by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
I can imagine that groups like Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, and the rest are, right now, throwing a screaming fit because another character has come out of the closet. Steve Jinks, played by Aaron Ashmore, came out to Claudia Donovan, played by Allison Scagliotti, on last night’s Warehouse 13. The decision to make Jinks gay came from the network, apparently. Ashmore joined the series this season.
According to the star of the show, Jack Kenny, it was the network who pitched the idea, and according to Kenny “We were pitching this character and a couple of the execs are gay and said, ‘What if Steve was gay?’ We immediately jumped on the idea – but it’s just a part of who he is, it doesn’t define the character.”
Ashmore liked the idea, noting that romance isn’t a huge part of Warehouse 13. He said “[T]he show’s not really about romantic relationships. These people’s lives are crazy trying to save the world, so there’s not a lot of time for love. I think when he interacts with some people, in the back of my mind as an actor, I’ll decide that he thinks a guy is cute. But it doesn’t play into how he does his job.”
During the episode, according to OnTheTop:
Steve and Claudia collide over Claudia’s frequent references to being the senior agent on their investigation as they share the front seat of a car during a stakeout. Steve tells her to “relax” because it’s just the two of them on the mission, which Claudia takes as a come on.
“I felt it too, that crackling chemistry between us,” Claudia says. “It’s just that I really need to focus on my career right now. I don’t have a ton of bandwidth for other stuff. As attractive as that other stuff may be.”
“Oh my god, I’m not hitting on you, I’m gay,” Steve interrupts.
“You’re how now?” Claudia asks.
“Gay. You know when two people of the same sex find each other …”
The scene ends with the revelation taking the pair from adversaries to friends.
LGBT characters are popping up all over the place lately. This means that many people in the anti-gay movement are busy complaining about the ‘indoctrination of children’, after all, they want us to be obsessed with the children like the Roman Catholic Church. The anti-gay groups often attack Hollywood for portraying LGBT people as real people instead of the caricatures that they want to use instead. These are people who believe that LGBT people choose to be the way that they are.
It is good to see more positive LGBT characters on TV, especially when they are being treated as just part of the show rather than a lot being made over their orientation. It brings us one step closer to being seen as equal.
Aaron Ashmore being kissed by Mac Fyfe in: "Prom Queen"
I've rather liked this quirky SyFy show, now I have another reason to like it.
Ulf
Monday, July 18, 2011
Just for shit's and giggles
Ten Reasons Gay Marriages Are Wrong!
1. Homosexuality is not natural. Real people always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses,
polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around
tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may
even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage
contract.
4. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women
are still property, blacks still aren't supposed to marry whites.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if homosexual marriage were allowed;
the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Homosexual couples,
infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages
aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight
children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of
one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in
North America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's
why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new
social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy,
or longer life spans.
1. Homosexuality is not natural. Real people always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses,
polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around
tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may
even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage
contract.
4. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women
are still property, blacks still aren't supposed to marry whites.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if homosexual marriage were allowed;
the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Homosexual couples,
infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages
aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight
children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of
one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in
North America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's
why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new
social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy,
or longer life spans.
Marvel comics goes gay...sort of
The Seven Biggest Gay Moments in Marvel Comics History
Posted by
Lyle Masaki
With Marvel announcing that they were making an online archive of their comics available to subscribers, I though it'd be worth noting the company's significant moments in its history with gay characters. Since Marvel doesn't have a complete list of all the comics available to subscribers, I can't tell if any of these comics can be read through the new service. However, if the service succeeds, hopefully it'll get more content to offer. (I'd be tempted to subscribe in that case -- there are plenty of "So bad it's good" stories from the grim 'n gritty era that I might enjoy reading but wouldn't care to own.) There's a little bit of good, a little bit of bad and a lot of "Well, it was progress at the time." In order to keep the best moments above the cut, let's start with the most recent events:
Hulking and Wiccan's (semi-)botched coming out
From: Young Avengers #7 (2005)
A lot of the buzz on the early issues of Young Avengers focused on the relationship between Hulkling and Asgardian. Their banter sounded a lot like a superhero couple, but since the early issues of Young Avengers didn't show the team's downtime, there was plenty of room for debate (including speculation that Hulkling would turn out to be an young woman drawn to look sexually ambiguous) if they really were a gay couple. Part of the confusion came because superhero comic readers still aren't used to seeing same-sex couples written the same as an opposite-sex couple, so when a couple of gay characters were introduced without fanfare it was still surprising. Soon after the relationship between the two young men became clear, the team decided they had to let their parents know about their superhero activities. However, Billy and Ted's attempt at coming out was mistaken for a more typical kind of coming out. The title would later go on to be one of the few Marvel titles to win a GLAAD media award, which frequently goes to independent or DC titles.
Ultimate Colossus is finally outed
From: Ultimate X-Men #65 (2005)
When Marvel introduced the Ultimate Universe in 2001, it introduced familiar characters and stories with new perspectives and twists. For years Ultimate X-Men readers got hints that the Ultimate version of Colossus was gay -- most involved Colossus playing to stereotypes or teammates making snarky comments about Alison Blaire's chances with him (she had an obvious crush). When we finally got confirmation of Colossus' sexual orientation (in the form of him accepting a date with Northstar) it was a pretty welcoming moment, especially since the mainstream version of Colossus was a character that straight, male readers of X-Men titles identified. A safer choice could have been made for a mutant to be re-imagined as gay, but Ultimate X-Men creators happily picked Colossus.
Things get a little more bitchy after the break:
The Rawhide Kid is re-imagined as gay
From: The Rawhide Kid (2003)
When Marvel introduced its short-lived Max line of comics aimed for Mature Readers, that included a number of titles that mixed familiar concepts with "mature" amounts of violence and sexuality (which, sadly, did not include a promising Buffy-inspired revamp of romance comic Night Nurse). In 2003, Marvel drew media controversy over a mini-series that saw Western comic icon The Rawhide Kid as gay. Unfortunately, many readers were disappointed to find that the comic was fueled by stereotypes and innuendo-based humor. Worse, there was little meriting the "Explicit Content" warning aside from the acknowledgment that the character was gay, suggesting a double-standard.
The title got plenty of media coverage thanks to controversy from anti-gay media activists who think of comics as a medium belonging strictly for children. One popular (and politically conservative) writer, Chuck Dixon, even accused Marvel of tricking The Rawhide Kid's artist into working on the gay-themed comic. Three years later, the series ignited more controversy when Marvel Editor-In-Chief Joe Quesada mentioned in an interview that, due to the Rawhide Kid furor, any title starring a gay character would have to have a "Mature Readers" warning -- a comment that left some worried (since Marvel wasn't publishing Mature Readers titles anymore) that gay characters were being specifically excluded at the publisher.
Northstar comes out
From: Alpha Flight #106 (1992)
The coming out of Northstar was a mixed bag. It was an important moment in terms of gay visibility, but it had so many downsides. Most importantly, the story fully falls into so-bad-it's-good territory. The comic stars with Northstar's team, Alpha Flight, finding a baby infected with HIV. When he decides to care for it, the positive media coverage angers a retired Canadian superhero, Major Mapleleaf, into attacking Alpha Flight. The Major's fury, it turns out, is fueled by memories of his son's death from AIDS complications, a death ignored by the media because it happened to a gay man (making him hate HIV-positive babies who get better treatment in the media). Northstar defuses Major Mapleleaf's anger by announcing that he, too, is gay. No, that issue does not make any more sense if you read the actual comic.
Beyond that, however, the story brought about other problems. The story happened to coincide with the writer leaving the series, a coincidence that fueled speculation that he was fired for the story. The way Northstar was handled afterwards was also pretty bad, with stories that included an illness (that was meant to be revealed as AIDS), an unrequited crush on a straight man and a controversy-courting storyline where he dies and comes back.
Larry Bodine's suicide
From: New Mutants #45 (1986)
While not specifically gay-themed, the powerful "We Were Only Foolin" was a major moment for gay readers. It told the story of Larry Bodine, a student picked on at his high school for being the new guy. He is taunted by bullies who call him a mutant as a generic insult, but it turns out that Larry actually is a mutant. Thinking his secret is known and unable to figure out how to deal with being a mutant, Larry kills himself. The story ends with one of the most moving scenes in X-Men history when Kitty Pryde eulogizes Larry:
Who was he, then, that we gather to mourn him? Who am I? A four-eyed, flat-chested, brat, chick, brain, hebe, stuck-up Xavier's snob freak! Don't like the words? I could use nicer. I've heard worse. Who here hasn't? So often, so casually, that maybe we've forgotten the power they have to hurt. Nigger, spic, wop, slope, faggot, mutie--the list is so long. And so cruel. They're labels. Put downs. And they hurt.
"We Were Only Foolin" was a powerful story for gay readers since the outsider metaphor of anti-mutant hysteria applied particularly well to the gay experience. For many gay readers, Kitty's inclusion of an gay slur in her list of hateful words was a quiet acknowledgment that the X-Men's angst was meant for them, too.
Aurora meets Raymonde
From: Alpha Flight #7-8 (1984)
For years, an early scene from Alpha Flight's history was all we had in showing that Northstar was meant to be gay. In the two-part story he introduces his sister to a "special friend" who Aurora isn't so quick to accept and is, instead, quick to condemn for his influence on her brother. When Raymonde is later killed by a supervillain, Northstar's reaction is very strong, furthering suspicion that there was more to the relationship than being just friends. In hindsight, a lot of the hints towards Northstar's sexual orientation plays to gay stereotypes but at the time it was a major step towards gay inclusion.
Bruce Banner is nearly assaulted in a YMCA shower
From: Hulk Magazine #23 (1980)
This story by former Editor-in-Chief Jim Shooter is seen as a notable low point for Marvel's treatment of gay characters. While positive depictions of openly gay characters weren't allowed at the time, that didn't seem to exclude a story where a couple of effeminate men seem intent on sexually assaulting Bruce Banner in a YMCA shower.
Posted by
Lyle Masaki
With Marvel announcing that they were making an online archive of their comics available to subscribers, I though it'd be worth noting the company's significant moments in its history with gay characters. Since Marvel doesn't have a complete list of all the comics available to subscribers, I can't tell if any of these comics can be read through the new service. However, if the service succeeds, hopefully it'll get more content to offer. (I'd be tempted to subscribe in that case -- there are plenty of "So bad it's good" stories from the grim 'n gritty era that I might enjoy reading but wouldn't care to own.) There's a little bit of good, a little bit of bad and a lot of "Well, it was progress at the time." In order to keep the best moments above the cut, let's start with the most recent events:
Hulking and Wiccan's (semi-)botched coming out
From: Young Avengers #7 (2005)
A lot of the buzz on the early issues of Young Avengers focused on the relationship between Hulkling and Asgardian. Their banter sounded a lot like a superhero couple, but since the early issues of Young Avengers didn't show the team's downtime, there was plenty of room for debate (including speculation that Hulkling would turn out to be an young woman drawn to look sexually ambiguous) if they really were a gay couple. Part of the confusion came because superhero comic readers still aren't used to seeing same-sex couples written the same as an opposite-sex couple, so when a couple of gay characters were introduced without fanfare it was still surprising. Soon after the relationship between the two young men became clear, the team decided they had to let their parents know about their superhero activities. However, Billy and Ted's attempt at coming out was mistaken for a more typical kind of coming out. The title would later go on to be one of the few Marvel titles to win a GLAAD media award, which frequently goes to independent or DC titles.
Ultimate Colossus is finally outed
From: Ultimate X-Men #65 (2005)
When Marvel introduced the Ultimate Universe in 2001, it introduced familiar characters and stories with new perspectives and twists. For years Ultimate X-Men readers got hints that the Ultimate version of Colossus was gay -- most involved Colossus playing to stereotypes or teammates making snarky comments about Alison Blaire's chances with him (she had an obvious crush). When we finally got confirmation of Colossus' sexual orientation (in the form of him accepting a date with Northstar) it was a pretty welcoming moment, especially since the mainstream version of Colossus was a character that straight, male readers of X-Men titles identified. A safer choice could have been made for a mutant to be re-imagined as gay, but Ultimate X-Men creators happily picked Colossus.
Things get a little more bitchy after the break:
The Rawhide Kid is re-imagined as gay
From: The Rawhide Kid (2003)
When Marvel introduced its short-lived Max line of comics aimed for Mature Readers, that included a number of titles that mixed familiar concepts with "mature" amounts of violence and sexuality (which, sadly, did not include a promising Buffy-inspired revamp of romance comic Night Nurse). In 2003, Marvel drew media controversy over a mini-series that saw Western comic icon The Rawhide Kid as gay. Unfortunately, many readers were disappointed to find that the comic was fueled by stereotypes and innuendo-based humor. Worse, there was little meriting the "Explicit Content" warning aside from the acknowledgment that the character was gay, suggesting a double-standard.
The title got plenty of media coverage thanks to controversy from anti-gay media activists who think of comics as a medium belonging strictly for children. One popular (and politically conservative) writer, Chuck Dixon, even accused Marvel of tricking The Rawhide Kid's artist into working on the gay-themed comic. Three years later, the series ignited more controversy when Marvel Editor-In-Chief Joe Quesada mentioned in an interview that, due to the Rawhide Kid furor, any title starring a gay character would have to have a "Mature Readers" warning -- a comment that left some worried (since Marvel wasn't publishing Mature Readers titles anymore) that gay characters were being specifically excluded at the publisher.
Northstar comes out
From: Alpha Flight #106 (1992)
The coming out of Northstar was a mixed bag. It was an important moment in terms of gay visibility, but it had so many downsides. Most importantly, the story fully falls into so-bad-it's-good territory. The comic stars with Northstar's team, Alpha Flight, finding a baby infected with HIV. When he decides to care for it, the positive media coverage angers a retired Canadian superhero, Major Mapleleaf, into attacking Alpha Flight. The Major's fury, it turns out, is fueled by memories of his son's death from AIDS complications, a death ignored by the media because it happened to a gay man (making him hate HIV-positive babies who get better treatment in the media). Northstar defuses Major Mapleleaf's anger by announcing that he, too, is gay. No, that issue does not make any more sense if you read the actual comic.
Beyond that, however, the story brought about other problems. The story happened to coincide with the writer leaving the series, a coincidence that fueled speculation that he was fired for the story. The way Northstar was handled afterwards was also pretty bad, with stories that included an illness (that was meant to be revealed as AIDS), an unrequited crush on a straight man and a controversy-courting storyline where he dies and comes back.
Larry Bodine's suicide
From: New Mutants #45 (1986)
While not specifically gay-themed, the powerful "We Were Only Foolin" was a major moment for gay readers. It told the story of Larry Bodine, a student picked on at his high school for being the new guy. He is taunted by bullies who call him a mutant as a generic insult, but it turns out that Larry actually is a mutant. Thinking his secret is known and unable to figure out how to deal with being a mutant, Larry kills himself. The story ends with one of the most moving scenes in X-Men history when Kitty Pryde eulogizes Larry:
Who was he, then, that we gather to mourn him? Who am I? A four-eyed, flat-chested, brat, chick, brain, hebe, stuck-up Xavier's snob freak! Don't like the words? I could use nicer. I've heard worse. Who here hasn't? So often, so casually, that maybe we've forgotten the power they have to hurt. Nigger, spic, wop, slope, faggot, mutie--the list is so long. And so cruel. They're labels. Put downs. And they hurt.
"We Were Only Foolin" was a powerful story for gay readers since the outsider metaphor of anti-mutant hysteria applied particularly well to the gay experience. For many gay readers, Kitty's inclusion of an gay slur in her list of hateful words was a quiet acknowledgment that the X-Men's angst was meant for them, too.
Aurora meets Raymonde
From: Alpha Flight #7-8 (1984)
For years, an early scene from Alpha Flight's history was all we had in showing that Northstar was meant to be gay. In the two-part story he introduces his sister to a "special friend" who Aurora isn't so quick to accept and is, instead, quick to condemn for his influence on her brother. When Raymonde is later killed by a supervillain, Northstar's reaction is very strong, furthering suspicion that there was more to the relationship than being just friends. In hindsight, a lot of the hints towards Northstar's sexual orientation plays to gay stereotypes but at the time it was a major step towards gay inclusion.
Bruce Banner is nearly assaulted in a YMCA shower
From: Hulk Magazine #23 (1980)
This story by former Editor-in-Chief Jim Shooter is seen as a notable low point for Marvel's treatment of gay characters. While positive depictions of openly gay characters weren't allowed at the time, that didn't seem to exclude a story where a couple of effeminate men seem intent on sexually assaulting Bruce Banner in a YMCA shower.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)