Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
ethics

Is It Wrong to Report on a Marine Starring in Hardcore Gay Porn?

Levi Johnston isn’t the only one making porn headlines on this website. So too is (former) Marine Cpl. David A. Bradberry, whose appearance in a Marine-geared magazine helped expose his other day job: performing in gay videos for the website ActiveDuty.com. As you might imagine, neither Bradberry nor ActiveDuty.com’s owner is pleased with the coverage. Were we wrong to report a story based on publicly available information?

davidbrad

Some of Queerty‘s readers have criticized our coverage of Bradberry’s gay porn gig, saying we “outed a Marine who will no doubt be brought up on charges and dismissed under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Others say we did nothing wrong, and that Bradberry is “the one that made the movies. He’s the one that knew the risks.”

To be sure, Queerty didn’t break the story. The porn industry site The Sword did. Its editor, Paul Bookstaber, emailed Queerty to promote the story. But after hearing from ActiveDuty.com owner Dink Flamingo, the site removed the post, he tells us. (We don’t know The Sword‘s editorial policies, but evidently they have no problem exposing the porn careers of other folks; link NSFW.)

But it was a story that didn’t really need breaking: Any casual reader of Leatherneck Magazine — which featured the story on Bradberry participating in a Marine combat video — might have noticed he looked quite similar to the David on ActiveDuty.com. And besides, don’t young men, gay or straight, in the military or not, know that if they get naked on the web, everyone will eventually find out about it?

In writing to Queerty, asking us to pull the “tasteless article,” ActiveDuty.com’s owner Dink Flamingo tells us:

I have written to The Sword and ask that they please remove this article from their site and they have responded favorably and removed it. I am writing to you and asking that you please do the same.

Queerty has NEVER reported anything about ActiveDuty.com and to have such sleazy and tasteless trash be the first and only article about us is just in poor taste. As a semi-regular reader of Queerty I find it hard to believe that you guys followed The Sword’s lead in posting something that could possibly be so damaging to one of our own. I ask that you now follow their lead once more and please remove the article.

Queerty publisher David Hauslaib fielded this one, replying:

It appears you are mistaken in what Queerty is: It is not an activist site, like many gay blogs. It’s a site that deals with LGBT-oriented entertainment, news, politics, and every so often, porn. We wouldn’t cover ActiveDuty.com regularly, because we don’t cover porn sites — unless they become newsworthy for something other than “Jack quickly moves up to test the waters and puts his cock in Quinn’s face and Quinn readily takes it in his hot mouth and shows it some respect.”

That one of your models is — very publicly, as any porn site is — engaged in conduct that had others dismissed from the military is a news story. Thus, we’ll cover it. I can’t answer for The Sword’s policies. Nor can I answer for yours.

And so he asked Flamingo:

Do you accept any responsibility for monetarily profiting from putting active duty servicemen at risk of dismissal? You criticize news coverage of your models, and yet it seems you have no problem from reaping financial gain from actually videotaping and publishing gay sex acts from these same individuals? Are you not, equally or more so, putting their military careers at risk?

Flamingo responded, apparently under the ridiculous assumption that blogs and publications pay the people they talk about for the privilege to talk about them:

The difference is I pay them, you don’t. And any model of mine who has ever been dismissed from the military as a result of being on my site has been taken care of financially, helped to make the transition back into civilian life and I’ve stuck by them through thick and thin. Of the seven guys dismissed in 2006, five of them still work for ActiveDuty.com and are doing very well. [See this Queerty story for background.] Did you offer any of them a job? No, but you sure got a lot of traffic to your site as a result of “reporting” on their misfortune. And don’t be so quick to take so much credit for your discovery. After all, it took the likes of The Sword to do your homework for you on the matter. It is you—the so called “mainstream” media or those hiding behind the guise of reporting “entertainment, news and politics” and your self-serving agenda’s that are the truest form of pornography.

That’s actually quite noble of Flamingo to take care of his porn stars’ financial well-being if they’re dismissed.
(We’ve asked Flamingo to clarify what, exactly, it means to be “taken care of financially.” We’ll let you know what he says.) But Flamingo doesn’t realize, as many Queerty readers sometimes do not, that this website is not maintained for activism. We promote pro-gay things, yes, but it’s not our lifeblood.

bradberryad

Some might say Flamingo is in the business of exploiting young, naive military men. Some might say we are in the business of exploiting, well, anyone. In the end, both parties profit — whether financially or with notoriety and traffic — from the subjects featured on their websites. (Traffic between this story and the earlier post will earn Queerty, on the high end, about $50, or two days worth of our Starbucks latte consumption.) But the adult men who appear on ActiveDuty.com are paid to perform a service (masturbate or have sex with other men), and in exchange they, supposedly, knowingly give up their rights to any semblance of privacy. And that includes keeping their gay sex antics a secret from their commanding officers.

(For what it’s worth, some of Flamingo’s copy reads (link NSFW, nor is this language): “Dorian steps in to fill David’s hole and what a good filler he proves to be. He’s fucking him hard as David strokes his own meat fast and hard. Dorian’s huge cock going in and out of that little tight ass is seo fucking sexy. It must be just what the doctor ordered because David blows his huge load as Dorian pounds him the hardest.”)

Bradberry also wrote in to Queerty: “I understand how ‘newsworthy’ this story may be, and that people could simply put all the dot’s togeather on their own; but I would like to request that this artice be taken down, or at the very least that my FULL NAME be removed from the website.” We responded with a series of questions (we’ll let you know what we hear), along with a note that we would not be removing his full name, which he willingly allowed to be included in a magazine article featuring his picture. At this point, we don’t even know if Bradberry is even gay, or just engaged in gay-for-pay.

So is Queerty “aiding and abetting” in the dismissal of a U.S. marine by reporting (or, in fact, relaying) a story about Bradberry’s porn career? (UPDATE: No, because Bradberry is no longer an active duty Marine. See below.) We’re probably not doing him any favors, sure. But to say reporting on a story of interest to readers (read: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’s implications plus porn) — using only publicly available information — is somehow maligning a young man forgets that this same young man was paid to have sex for a gay porn website, knowing full well his videos might reach his parents, future children, and yes, his military commanders. (And maybe Sec. Gates will give him a pass, anyhow.)

We’d hate to see Cpl. Bradberry dismissed* (see update below) like other ActiveDuty.com performers have been, because starring in a few porn videos doesn’t make you a bad marine.

But certainly Bradberry prescribed his own fate, whatever it may be, with the help and financial motives of Mr. Flamingo.

UPDATE: An attorney representing Bradberry tells Queerty he received an honorable discharge from the Marines before starring in the ActiveDuty.com videos, thus removing any possible Article 125 (sodomy) violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

By:           editor editor
On:           Nov 20, 2009
Tagged: , , , , , , ,
  • 102 Comments
    • juan
      juan

      two wrongs don’t make a right – just because he might be threatening the positions of these guys through his website, it doesn’t mean that you doing the same thing isn’t wrong. why take down dustin lance black’s photos, but not this? is it because he is not a leader in the gay rights movement? dont act like you arent activists.

      Nov 20, 2009 at 4:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael W.
      Michael W.

      The whole world is about to come crashing down on that boy. He’ll probably blame Queerty when the life he knew comes to an end, but there will be no one to blame but himself. Hauslaib is absolutely right.

      Nov 20, 2009 at 4:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael W.
      Michael W.

      There are no “two wrongs” here, Juan. To be honest, nobody is wrong. David A. Bradberry is a grown ass man who made a personal choice to appear on that website. He was compensated and he knew the risks that came with it. He wasn’t exploited by Dink Flamingo, he chose to exploit himself and now he’ll have to deal with the repercussions.

      The only wrong is the law passed by congress that says gay men and women aren’t worthy of serving in the armed forces unless they conceal their identity.

      Nov 20, 2009 at 4:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hp160
      hp160

      At least take his full name down. This is a tabloid site that picks and chooses what journalistic issues to endorse. If you have done it for others in the past why not this time. The reason is you want the traffic for your ads and this is the only way you know how to get some quick cash. Yeah, he did porn but he did not put his name out in flashing lights like what has been done here to him. I hope the site enjoys its quick fix of cash. Maybe the National Enquirer has an opening for its staff.

      Nov 20, 2009 at 4:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tommy
      Tommy

      The nerve of ActiveDuty.com’s founder to ask that you pull the article out of some sense of worry over his enlisted models. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I’m glad the folks at Queerty have the fortitude to stand up to this type of bullying.

      That said, I do feel really bad for Mr. Bradberry. He’s obviously a competent marine and incredibly cute to boot. Whatever his motivations (I don’t care if he’s gay), he shouldn’t have been starring in porn while on (excuse the pun) active duty. He had to have broken a morals code that doesn’t pertain to gay sex-having. The fact that it was with another man only compounds his worries.

      Hopefully Mr. Bradberry will answer Queerty’s questions because I’m curious toward his motivations… but if he doesn’t, I’ll totally understand. Now is not the time for him to be raising his profile.

      (That said, I know what website I’ll be visiting this weekend. ActiveDuty.com should thank you for that.)

      Nov 20, 2009 at 4:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dvlaries
      dvlaries

      Too soon to know if I have a fixed opinion one way or another on this.

      But I do know that your privacy is one of those intangible, but mightily priceless commodities that you truly don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone. (If you don’t think so, let a needy friend or relative move in for a while…)

      Bradberry, though technically ‘a grown man’, still looks young and dumb enough -or at least of a still impulsive age- that I’m not convinced of what I now count in middle age as ‘informed’ consent happened here. Maybe in a legal sense but maybe not in a fair sense. I suspect what was a pressing, immediate need for some fast cash clouded judgment here, and I hope it doesn’t end up ruining this young man’s life.

      Nov 20, 2009 at 4:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Get a Real Job
      Get a Real Job

      yes, but you’re assuming ‘it is his fault for doing videos’.. well that’s naive, lots of military, police and government works have done videos or pictures. that’s why there are so many of those sites. two GAY sites decided to report about this, Fox News or some straight organization isn’t exposing this guy, fellow gay men, all who are guilty of profiting from it one way or another, is wrong.

      either way queerty, this story exposes you to look more ridiculous and sleazy than usual.. once you go down this path, i don’t think there is any going back. enjoy the company of perez hilton and dick flamingo.

      Nov 20, 2009 at 4:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      Dink Flamingo is trash who has used military men and thus ruined their military careers. For him to be pontificating on the content of this site and the right, or wrong of publishing the info is laughable at the least, but more likely feckless.

      If Mr. Flamingo really cared about these men, he wouldn’t actively seek them out, knowing their military careers will end because of his desire for money.

      And the insatiable lust gay men have for new faces in porn–especially if we think they’re straight, is just as culpable in all this.

      People like Dink Flamingo, Chi Chi LaRue and all the others who rake in piles of cash off the asses of young men are parasites and their greed should be exposed

      Nov 20, 2009 at 4:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      But after hearing from ActiveDuty.com owner Dink Flamingo, the site removed the post, he tells us….”Queerty has NEVER reported anything about ActiveDuty.com and to have such sleazy and tasteless trash be the first and only article about us is just in poor taste. ”
      _______________________________

      Is that a JOKE?! The owner of Activeduty.com is pretending that he cares about anything other than making money off this guy? Here’s a thought, if he gave a shit about the career of the young marine then why did he bill him in the video by his real first name? Sorry, the guy has had several other of his actors busted a few years ago so he can’t pretend he didn’t know that it could happen again, and then he goes and does something like that? Give me a break. If he really cares about the guy how about paying for his legal fees, then I MIGHT believe his crocodile tears were real.

      Nov 20, 2009 at 5:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AlanInUtah
      AlanInUtah

      Sounds like a Perez Hilton tactics. Are you stealing his techniques Queerty?

      Nov 20, 2009 at 5:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eugene
      Eugene

      “Were we wrong to report a story based on publicly available information?”

      Yes, you were wrong. Even though the information was publicly available, you are fully responsible for making it more public. Let’s not pretend that it’s a black-or-white issue. As people already pointed out, there’s a reason why porn actors don’t disclose their full name. It keeps their persona in a gray area. You intentionally made it more public for no good reason.

      “That one of your models is — very publicly, as any porn site is — engaged in conduct that had others dismissed from the military is a news story. Thus, we’ll cover it.”

      Why exactly is it a news story? If you caught him kissing another guy in a public place, would you do the same thing? After all, it could get him dismissed from the military, especially if you made it more public.

      Or was your decision motivated by the whole “Hardcore Gay Porn” thing? Does he “deserve” it for getting “naked on the web”?

      What’s especially disgusting is the sleazy hypocrisy:

      “We’d hate to see Cpl. Bradberry dismissed like other ActiveDuty.com performers have been, because starring in a few porn videos doesn’t make you a bad marine.”

      Yes, you’d hate to see it happen, but, at the same time, you are increasing the probability of it.

      I’m afraid I had been “mistaken in what Queerty is”. According to David Hauslaib, it “is not an activist site”, which apparently means that Queerty doesn’t really care about real people’s well-being and “pro-gay things”. That’s why I will delete Queerty from my bookmarks and I will never visit this site again.

      Nov 20, 2009 at 5:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      No. 11 · Eugene

      Eugene, so no venom for the porn director who claims to care about all these guys and yet puts out a movie using the guys real name? This is only about two years since the LAST scandal from the SAME company, yet he is still using these military actors, paying them nothing and using their real first names in the movies. As far as I’m concerned that guy is the villain in this.

      Nov 20, 2009 at 6:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • chelesley
      chelesley

      Queerty didnt do anything wrong. I’m glad they chose to report about this marine and his situation. Its reality and what is happening. He knew the risks. But the real point is that we have a federal govt. ready to treat a significant minority of this country like second class citizens.

      Nov 20, 2009 at 6:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      Please this is not 1985 where one could probably make a porno and have it only seen by those who really, really wanted to see it……..Anyone who decides to make any type of video and unless it goes from the recording device into some kind of locked storage box that only you have access to you have to assume that it is potentially going to be viewed by millions of eyeballs. Especially if one has been compensated for doing so. I have seen many of these vids where the models are “assured this is only for personal use” Sorry if you are smart enough to find someone to pay you for your penis, you should be smart enough to know its gonna go into cyberspace and you can’t control who sees it. And you can’t tell me that they can’t find fake ID which has a different name or request that a “stage name” be used in the videos. Queerty People post shit here that is going to build traffic and have people comming back. If its out there they have every right to post it.

      Nov 20, 2009 at 6:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Po
      Po

      Please, what queerty is doing here is so transparent and disgusting.
      The probability of a casual viewer seeing whatever that random magazine was and active duty and connecting the dots was very low(possible yes, probable no). Now that you have someone’s full name next to a picture of them basically having sex and a link, that probability is raised to a certainty.
      I just wait for the day when he does get dismissed, and queerty reports on as some sort of sob story. When in reality they had a great hand in causing it.
      Queerty is basically trading on someone’s(perhaps gay) career and ability to sustain themselves to report on an issue(DADT) that could be and has been reported on in numerous other ways that are not harmful
      Yes, it was out there. Of course queerty has the “right” to publish it. Then again, I have the right to do a lot of things that doesn’t make it not wrong
      As another poster brought up, why remove the Dustin Lance Black pictures and not these(if you indeed did so)
      I agree with others that this is a sleazzy road to go down, and does not help anyone nor endear me towards queerty in any way.

      Nov 20, 2009 at 6:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eugene
      Eugene

      No. 12 · Cam: “Eugene, so no venom for the porn director who claims to care about all these guys and yet puts out a movie using the guys real name?”

      Does he put out movies using the guy’s full name? I don’t think so. Yes, he’s using their first names, and that’s a little careless. But the guy’s first name is much less personal than his face, so – in the context of the situation – it’s almost a non-issue.

      On the other hand, Queerty is strangely proud of refusing to take the guy’s full name out of pornographic context. In fact, they are posting the second article with his full name. It’s no longer news. It’s meat circus now.

      “As far as I’m concerned that guy is the villain in this.”

      Think again.

      There’s a huge difference between a random “David” on a relatively obscure site and “David A. Xxxxxxxxx” on the first page of Google’s search. And, again, what’s disgusting is the way Queerty pretends that they didn’t do it, and “it was a story that didn’t really need breaking”.

      Finally, David consented to and got paid for a particular kind of publicity/exposure (a random “David” on a relatively obscure site). Regardless of Queerty’s bullshit, it doesn’t mean that porn actors “knowingly give up their rights to any semblance of privacy” – at least when we talk about moral rights. The simple fact that he didn’t disclose his full name implies that he had a partial expectation of privacy. And Queerty didn’t have a good reason to invade it.

      Nov 20, 2009 at 6:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • nonotreally
      nonotreally

      Wow way to absolve yourselves of any wrong doing Queerty. The hypocrisy is ridiculous.

      Way to out a gay man maliciously for no reason. You’re really helping the cause.

      Nov 20, 2009 at 6:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hp160
      hp160

      Is this site going to post every performers real name on it pages? Or just military personnel?

      Nov 20, 2009 at 7:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DSNX
      DSNX

      I’ll tell you what’s wrong: Professing any kind of moral high ground in this scenario when all you’ve done is
      1) Repost another site’s reporting
      2) Giggle and point and the dirty, silly porn star who should have known better.
      3) Gotten into an e-mail flame war with a publicity-seeking pornographer
      4) Posted it all in an effort to re-hash

      The loser here is David A. Whatever…(was it REALLY necessary to swing his name around that often?)

      I dunno Queerty, for someone that celebrates a twit like Davey Wavey and his “How to Hook Up” bullshit, you sure took a sex and community negative stance on all of this.

      Nov 20, 2009 at 7:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AxelDC
      AxelDC

      I adamantly oppose DADT, but I would think appearing in porn is a violation of military honor codes.

      Just because this guy is gay doesn’t mean we have to back his violation of his duties. A straight Marine appearing in straight porn should be disciplined as well.

      Nov 20, 2009 at 7:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Another
      Another

      Eugene practically captured my longer sentiments.

      So let me just add to the post count of people who think Queerty was transparently callous and distatesful in running the story the way they did.

      I am a regular of Queerty and this has changed my view of it. Perhaps I as well have been “mistaken in what Queerty is.”

      Nov 20, 2009 at 7:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cheeky
      Cheeky

      A soldier performs in gay porn flicks that are broadcast on the internet. The soldier should have realized and expected that someone in web and/or print media would eventually recognize him. Ergo, the soldier will likely be dismissed due to army regulations. Should the media have reported this story?

      Of course, the media should report this story regardless of the expected consequences because the soldier made a conscious decision to do porn while serving as a Marine. C’est la vie.

      Nov 20, 2009 at 7:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eugene
      Eugene

      No. 20 · AxelDC: “I adamantly oppose DADT, but I would think appearing in porn is a violation of military honor codes.”

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but even gay sex in private is a violation of “military honor codes”. And just because you “adamantly oppose” DADT, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t a law. As a result, all non-celibate gay soldiers “violate their duties”. If you really care about the law – instead of simply being a prude – you shouldn’t back any violations of soldier’s duties, including all violations of DADT.

      No. 22 · Cheeky: “Of course, the media should report this story regardless of the expected consequences because the soldier made a conscious decision to do porn while serving as a Marine. C’est la vie.”

      By this logic, DADT isn’t a problem. All gay marines/soldiers made a conscious decision to become a marine/soldier. Why shouldn’t Queerty report them all? Why shouldn’t they be dismissed?

      Nov 20, 2009 at 8:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wheaton
      Wheaton

      I feel bad for the soldier. And I am repeating a little bit of what I wrote on yesterday’s post: For Dink Flamingo to be outraged over this or any site for reporting on something that he caused is beyond belief. Yes, these are grown men, but in many cases just barely. I think back to when I was 18, 19, 20 and I know that there was not a maturity level to be making certain life decisions.

      These guys in many cases are not emotionally mature and some of them are in the military for lack of any better option. I don’t want to generalize. But Dink Flamingo is an asshole for preying on them in Walmarts, etc asking them if they’ve ever done any modeling, knowing that what he is about to profit from them doing could make their lives very, very difficult if they are found out.

      His response to QT’s query about how exactly he is helping the guys who got in trouble I suppose would be interesting. I think a more accurate accounting would be to ask the men themselves. For me, I think Flamingo’s decency is suspect.

      And just to wade into waters that are only tangentially related: This is the same porn director who encourages these soldiers to have unsafe sex, then blasts BAREBACK all over box covers in huge letters. He would argue, I’m sure, that they are tested or he is careful with them while they are in his care. I always wonder about what happens down the road, when after a night of drinking or whatever, one of those guys decides to hook up and thinks, “Ah, what the hell…”

      Nov 20, 2009 at 8:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hammar
      Hammar

      If a marine thinks his acting in hardcore gay porn movies will go unnoticed, then he is unfit to be a marine. Not because of the hardcore gay porn, but because of his stupidity.

      Nov 20, 2009 at 8:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChristopherJ
      ChristopherJ

      Yeah, pornographers are douchebags but so are people who repost articles from other sites and refuse to remove from an article the last name of a person who might be negatively impacted by DADT (after requestes). How does that add to the article? Needless, queerty.

      Nov 20, 2009 at 8:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wy
      Wy

      No one questions how The Sword broke the story. Who tipped them off? Do they sit and go through Dink’s site and every military-themed magazine out there and run facial-recognition software on the images? Or was The Sword tipped off by someone who stood to reap benefit from the story breaking? Who potentially reaped a windfall from the last time this happened?

      Nov 20, 2009 at 10:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • nonotreally
      nonotreally

      I really wish I could bang some of these idiots heads together.

      How exactly does acting in gay or straight porn have any baring on your ability to serve in the military?

      It’s just as idiotic as DADT. Wake the fuck up.

      There’s no more excuse for that as there is for them to tell us we’re not allowed to be gay and serve.

      Do they think ex-pornstars will start stripping and shove their tongue in the nearest anus? Get real.

      Climb down off your high horse and sit your tight asses on a dildo. Might loosen you up a bit.

      Nov 20, 2009 at 10:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DSNX
      DSNX

      The fact of the matter is, ruining David A. Whatever’s career is not going to over-turn Don’t Ask Don’t Tell anymore than Carrie Prejean’s jerk-off videos are going to destroy NOM.

      This is a person’s LIFE. Dink and Queerty are the winners. David is the loser.

      I’m disgusted.

      Nov 20, 2009 at 11:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHIP1218
      CHIP1218

      Dink Flamingo? That CANT be a given name! So he’s smart enough to have a stage name, but doesn’t ensure more privacy for his models by at least changing their first name???

      Nov 21, 2009 at 12:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tylertime
      Tylertime

      Queerty did nothing wrong.

      Stop defending the marine just because he is cute and “young”. Anyone under the age of 30 has come of age in the internet era and knows that whatever goes on the internet is going to get out there. My 10 year old nephew knows better. My 90 year old grandfather has know clue, but my nephew does.

      As for Dink. He’s just concerned that he is going to lose cock. Not only does he pay these guys, but in a couple of videos in the past he has slept with them. Mama Dink doesn’t want her soldier well to dry up.

      Nov 21, 2009 at 1:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Colby412
      Colby412

      I’m 40. At 25 I was offered to be in a porn and I turned it down worrying about people I know seeing it. This was back in the OLD days of 1994. You mean to tell me that in 2009 and the reach of internet that someone who does porn thinks it isn’t going to get out there and his identity be revealed? IDIOT!

      Nov 21, 2009 at 1:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DrDichotomy
      DrDichotomy

      If he’s such a manly solider, than where is his chest hair? Are my tax dollars really going to a bunch of pantie waists who haven’t hit puberty?

      At least this article proves that some of these “Military” Porn sites have actual members of the military; even if it’s only the really faggy ones.

      Nov 21, 2009 at 3:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Keith Kimmel
      Keith Kimmel

      I have been around the porn industry long enough to know that thier business ethics are very situational.

      A year or two ago, I learned that a porn industry software company was selling its database of customer contact and financial information on the black market. To put it simply, the same software powers most of the porn sites back ends, billing wise. The company that makes that software provides managed installations, meaning they have access to the databases of most major porn sites. Ever wonder why you get an assload of spam after you buy a membership? It aint no coincidence. Its because the company, Too Much Media, was selling the DB or turning a blind eye as a hacker “stole” the info.

      Well, when I found out what was going on, I outed them on an industry discussion board. The result was not pretty. I got threatened with a SLAPP lawsuit (and later my life was threatened) by the jackass that owned the company, as did the person who leaked data to me to help get the story out. They actually made good on the threat to sue the other person, an attorney in California. The Department of Justice still has an investigation open into the death threats made.

      So then I got pissed off and I started calling the media. I started with the LA Daily News which ran a story, quickly followed up by The New York Times and The Washington Post. Then the Assocaited Press picked it up and the story went worldwide, getting picked up in 1000s of publications. They did the best to spin it as a data theft, but it was no such thing. Its been proven.

      What did the porn industry do to thank me for exposing a crook among them who was stealing thier customer data and fucking around with it? They tried to blackball me from the industry. Suddenly there wasnt a single studio, affiliate program or anyone else who would do business with me. So they can tell me how they “take care of thier own” all they want, its all bullshit. If anyone wants to read the articles, here are some links.

      http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2008-01-11-823562762_x.htm
      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322550,00.html

      So yeah, fuck them. Publish, Queerty. It wasnt a secret and if someone stars in porn, they are made aware of the possible ramifications.

      Nov 21, 2009 at 4:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MacH
      MacH

      Seriously, Queerty, as a ex-soldier myself, I can tell you you’re totally in the right.

      He knew what he was doing. This is not some doe-eyed teenager. This is a man that has to make the call between preserving life or destroying it on the battlefield.

      Military pay is not fantastic. I’m not the first to say it, doubtless, I won’t be the last. However, if you’re a single guy, pay’s okay. There is no justifiable reason besides the thrill to do something dangerous and public like this (money’s just a bonus, and an EXCUSE – a poor one, at that).

      He put himself out there. You’re reporting the news – you’re not exposing anyone. He already exposed himself (heh) – you’re just reporting the news based on open source information.

      No, Queerty, you are not to blame, and good on you for bringing the story together.

      Nov 21, 2009 at 8:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anyway
      anyway

      I’m with a lot of the commenters here: You didn’t have to publish the guy’s name.

      Nov 21, 2009 at 11:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GofortiQueerty
      GofortiQueerty

      Yes, ActiveDuty is a trash site, but the guys going into it know it. IF you’re in the service, you’re supposed to uphold some values, ethics and codes. By doing this, you are violating that. You’re being stupid. Low pay? Yeah, many people suffer from low pay, and they don’t go around doing porn. This guy knew what he was doing. No one put a gun to his head. So, time to be a big boy and face the consequences. Bravo Queerty for exposing this and the hipocrisy that accompanies it.

      Nov 21, 2009 at 12:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jay Franco
      Jay Franco

      A huge point that everyone is missing here is that the media including Queerty may be putting this guys personal safety a risk also with him being in the military. How many times have we heard of someone either being bashed or god forbid worse that was in the military for supposedly being gay? I guess we don’t really stop to think that perhaps not only his career on the line but also his safety.

      Nov 21, 2009 at 2:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dawson
      Dawson

      The damages is done. The last time I heard such a stupid arguement like this was when I was in Junior High School. And then to act like a Jr. High kid just shows how much class this web site has. You are acting like, ‘No one is going to tell me what to do, na-na-na.’ And then to hide behind it because it is news worthy and then say you don’t cover porn. What a bunch of baloney.

      You are living off this now because it draws attention to your site. But you don’t get it. I don’t know David personality but it truly offends me to think how little you think of the consequences of not just writing the article the first time but by dong it again. You are living off this publicity because it’s your website and then trying to put the blame on David. David is not to blame. He did nothing wrong. Unfortunately try saying that to his family, future career employer, ect.

      What is missing is David never list his real last name in Active Duty.com and the military magazine never listed that he was doing porn. The two were mutually exclusive. The link pin was two gay publication who choose to sensationalize this without thinking of what damage they were causing. You know, some Jews helped Hitler too. How are you any different?

      Please, I don’t know David, but for the sake of decency Please remove these articles.

      And lastly, where do people get off thinking so high and mighty about those who preform in porn. What a bunch of hypocrites. How many of you have never got off to a porn flick. And then criticize the people you just got off watching. Give me a break. I am sure you all go to church every Sunday too. What seperates gay men from straight America is that gay men are not embarrassed about watching porn. So then to not feel for what David is going through? If you had any sense of a heart you would.

      We should all be allowed to tell our family, friends, co-workers if we are gay. We shouldn’t have to be force to because of some sanctmoious web site. He never used his last name for god-sake.

      And for those who have serve and defended our liberties as David has, God Bless You.

      Nov 21, 2009 at 2:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHIP1218
      CHIP1218

      Sorry, but this is how I see it, David made the decision to do these movies for that website, he can’t blame anyone else for his identity being revealed. We live in a different society than just even 10 years ago, everything can be linked and found on the internet, there is no real privacy. This is why prospective students shouldn’t put up sexy photos or pictures of them doing illegal activities like underage drinking on myspace or facebook if they don’t want the admissions counselors from schools they are applying to seeing those photos. Those employed by conservative companies or companies that seem more conservative (like an investment bank) should not show any pictures of them looking drunk or stoned or almost naked on their facebook page (or allow any of their friends to post such photos) if they don’t want someone in their company seeing this and it going to HR. You have to realize that EVERYTHING you allow put up on the internet, even if your name isn’t attached, can eventually be traced to your identity! When I was a senior in high school, we had a senior show and we joked about a funny incident that happened my junior year, which resulted in my getting a one day in-school suspension. If there was YouTube and Facebook back then, that would have been on the web, and probably sent to the college I was accepted to – the suspension was erased from my record before I applied to colleges so I did not have to tell any schools I was ever suspended. Nowadays with everyone looking to do anything to be on top, I am sure some classmate of mine would have taped that scene in the senior show, and sent it to the university hoping I would lose my place in the class and they can get off of the waiting list. If you do anything that could be a liability to you in the present or future, and you allow yourself to be video taped or pictured, the repurcussions are yours and yours alone. I feel sorry if this results in his dismissal from the military or if he experiences any trauma from this ordeal, but it was ultimately his decision to undertake those films and the producers decision to not cover his face or at least give him a stage name besides his own first name!

      Nov 21, 2009 at 6:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Creek
      Creek

      “QUEERTY Free of an agenda. Except that gay one.”

      Well, Queerty, you’ve failed at that too. You’ve exploited plenty, almost every day you feature soft porn. You’ve featured this brave soldier in four places on your home page today, three of them have the same picture.

      In the vernacular of the issue it’s time you manned. If you had bothered to do some research you would have found Active Duty and Dink Flamingo is one of the good guys in porn. Maybe a review of your agenda is in order.

      Nov 21, 2009 at 6:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 40 · CHIP1218 wrote, “Sorry, but this is how I see it, David made the decision to do these movies for that website, he can’t blame anyone else for his identity being revealed.”

      He can’t blame anyone else if someone in his unit stumbled upon a picture or video of him “moonlighting” at a gay porn site. That doesn’t mean, however, that the media has to raise the probability of that happening by printing his full name as text. If QUEERTY had merely used an image file containing his name, that alone would have helped reduce the risk of someone tying the pictures to him because Google does not use character-recognition software to look for words in images.

      I really don’t see a justification for using his full name. He’s not some well known politician or whatnot that is frequently in the news – it’s not like he’s a senator raising money from the religious right wing while appearing in gay porn sites on the side. Giving his full name added nothing to the story, but does increase the risk of adverse consequences for him. QUEERTY should have shown better judgment.

      Nov 21, 2009 at 6:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • nonotreally
      nonotreally

      Wow this is still here?

      I’m officially done with Queerty.

      You can listen to your little defenders with their tongues up your asses all you want. You had no right to do this to someone and risk their life.

      He’s not some celebrity he’s an average joe.

      As if the constant racism on this site wasn’t bad enough you’ve gone above and beyond to prove you have absolutely no morals Queerty.

      Eat shit and die.

      Nov 21, 2009 at 6:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Keith Kimmel
      Keith Kimmel

      “If you had bothered to do some research you would have found Active Duty and Dink Flamingo is one of the good guys in porn.”

      LO-fucking-L! There are no good guys in porn! Did you sniff glue or eat lead paint chips when you were younger? They are just a bunch of fat, rich playboys making mega bank while filling a need.

      Yes, I included myself in that category when I was running sites and will include myself in it again when I launch my new site next year. Its part of the game, but everyone whose involved knows the score, knows whats up and accepts it. Yes, I am working on one despite the black ball. The adult industry can go pound sand for all I care. They can shut me out of whatever they want including InterNEXT, and Too Much Media can keep thier shitty product (NATS), nor do I need the studios. I have my own payment processing and I’m shooting my own content.

      People who get into porn know exactly what they are doing. If you don’t know that the internet is a worldwide medium and once something goes up it NEVER comes down, then you’re a fucking idiot. Too bad if you didn’t think about that ahead of time when you signed your model release. Mistakes, we all make them. Living with them is called personal responsibility. Dink is an idiot for thinking that e-mailing every site that runs the story will make the story disappear.

      Nov 21, 2009 at 8:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHIP1218
      CHIP1218

      If you work in a job that says if you are homosexual or perform acts of homosexuality, that you will be fired, and you star in a homosexual pornographic video, it is a risk you decided to take. In our age, you can’t expect any digital image to not have a future impact. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell wasn’t in the news so much lately, this probably wouldn’t have happened. However, with it being news, someone who reads that Marine magazine recognized the face and put two and two together. The only thing I would say most are ignoring is that the individual who started this whole reveal has not been identified. If he is actively in the military, then he is subject to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell also.

      Nov 21, 2009 at 8:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHIP1218
      CHIP1218

      Old school Bel Ami models deal with everyone in their home countries being able to know what they did, even though when they first filmed in the early to mid 1990’s they were told the videos would never be seen or sold in their home countries…then came the rise of the digital age and internet porn and all of their content was placed on websites without their permission. Did they sue? Did they complain about this ruining their lives? No, they realized they made the choice to do those videos and although they never expected the reach would be worldwide and domestic, they could either embrace it or call it the past – they could not pretend they didn’t make those movies!

      Nov 21, 2009 at 8:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Keith Kimmel
      Keith Kimmel

      Queerty, if you remove these articles I will stop reading this site. Because in doing so, you’ll prove that you are no better than The Daily Bigot (The Daily Oklahoman) which, when asked, will pull/not run coverage that certain influential members of the gay community (Richard Ogden, Cimmarron Alliance Foundation) find offensive or not serving of their ideals. Any publication that retracts a story simply because some readers disagree with it is not worth my time in reading because its proven that the editorial management has no spine and is not worth my consideration.

      Its not the media’s job to protect people who are too stupid to protect themselves from themselves. I agree with not outing people who want to remain in the closet, except when it comes to priests and politicians who want to throw rocks at us from behind the protection of their closet doors. Those I fully support forced outings for. I don’t care what damage it does to them personally. When it comes to my rights, you’re either part of the problem or part of the solution and I don’t care what your orientation is. If you are taking shots at my rights, then all is fair. Including the fact that hey, guess what, you like the cock too.

      NEWSFLASH: When you put a cock in your mouth or bend your tight little ass over and take it like a man for the camera and then contract with a professional promoter to publish the photos worldwide on the Interwebs, you’ve outed yourself in the most outing way possible. You made yourself a sex object and a celebrity, you don’t get to bitch when others anymore when you are talked about even when its not in the context you like.

      Yeah, some porn stars may be short on cash. But thats bullshit. Plenty of kids short on money for school flip burgers, get on work-study, get jobs and drum up cash. Porn wasn’t their only choice for money, but they choose it because it was easy, fun and allowed them to live a certain lifestyle of bling bling. Just like becoming a drug dealer has consequences, so does sucking cock and selling your ass for dough.

      Wake the fuck up people.

      Nov 21, 2009 at 8:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Spherical Time
      Spherical Time

      Queerty: “But it was a story that didn’t really need breaking.”

      If that was so, why break they story? I mean, by this logic Robert Novak did nothing wrong exposing Valerie Plame Wilson. Why report it at all and hope that the military misses this? Despite the aspersions that you throw on The Sword’s editorial practices, at least they had the decency to remove a post when the negative consequences of that posting are revealed.

      Sure, there’s no law about publicly pointing out gay soldiers, but that says nothing about the ethics of the situation.

      Queerty: “but certainly Bradberry prescribed his own fate, whatever it may be, with the help and financial motives of Mr. Flamingo.”

      Eh? With some help from Queerty pointing the way, obviously.

      Queerty: “But Flamingo doesn’t realize, as many Queerty readers sometimes do not, that this website is not maintained for activism. We promote pro-gay things, yes, but it’s not our lifeblood.”

      . . . Oh. Well. Why then should I continue to follow you, if you are so unwilling to act in the best interests of gay people and the gay community?

      Nov 21, 2009 at 8:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rob
      rob

      I concur with some of the others, you didn’t have to use his full name. It’s one thing to report “gay interest” pieces but another to ruin a guy’s life and career. That is cruel and disgusting.

      I use to love Queerty’s bitchy snarkynes but this crosses the line. Consider me another reader you have lost- towleroad will be the only gay blog I visit from now on.

      Nov 21, 2009 at 8:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Uhaditcoming
      Uhaditcoming

      Karma is a bitch, isn’t it David?

      Nov 21, 2009 at 8:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mk
      mk

      I don’t see how this story is useful in defeating DADT at all, so this is just pointlessly putting a guy’s personal safety in danger and his career at much further risk. It’s actually more likely to hurt efforts to defeat DADT since it will fit with bigots’ views that gay men are sleazy sex mad degenerate types who can’t be trusted to “run free” in the military. Straight people are not going to look at this case and have their minds changed about DADT. What helps is putting attention on people like Lt Dan Choi, an upstanding service man with very valuable skills who chose out of a sense of honor and love for his boyfriend to out himself in protest to DADT.

      But apparently Queerty is not an activist site so I guess doesn’t care about what helps.

      Nov 21, 2009 at 9:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dawson
      Dawson

      Please, when have we lost our sense of decency? Lesson #1–You do not out our own. Not unless they are in position to do us harm.

      Now we have to deal with the haters. Eric and Uhaditcoming I am sure are the same person and I doubt what you are saying is true. I am sure you are some whack job who loves to visit web sites and say things and leave. How about this both Eric and Uhaditcoming. Please list your real name, first and last. To say slanderous things about someone you owe it to give us your full name. Instead you would just like to have your hateful fun by making statements without the bases of fact. There is something very evil about making statements like this without proof. Maybe David refused to sleep with you, is that it. So take your hate somewhere else unless you can prove what you have to say.

      Could someone please tell me how putting this patriot through all of this is worth it? Why so much hate within our own people? Leave the man alone. Did you not get it. This is a man who didn’t do anything to anyone. He didn’t do anything to you. But so much hate and self rightousness from people who should use this at our politicans or churches that are really the enemy.

      Have you thought of the man you are hurting with such vitriol? And why. David is an American hero. He serve our country to protect our freedom and he is gay. We should be thankful for men like David. So he made porn. So what. Porn is entertainment. That’s all.

      But so many seem to like to kick someone when there are down. Do those of you have any heart left? Please, where is your sence of decency. Leave the man alone. It is his life, not your to judge.

      Nov 21, 2009 at 9:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      In No. 46 · CHIP1218 wrote, “Old school Bel Ami models deal with everyone in their home countries being able to know what they did, even though when they first filmed in the early to mid 1990’s they were told the videos would never be seen or sold in their home countries …”

      They also live in countries that weren’t invaded by Puritans.

      In No. 47 · Keith Kimmel wrote, “Any publication that retracts a story simply because some readers disagree with it is not worth my time in reading because its proven that the editorial management has no spine and is not worth my consideration.”

      But they don’t have to retract the story to simply reduce his last name to an initial or to show his name in an image (you can then read it but search engines won’t pick it up as a text string that you can search for). Also there is an HTML Meta tag

      meta name=”robots” content=”index,follow,noarchive”

      (I’m not showing the angle brackets) that tells google to index the page. Indexing it makes the situation worse for the guy unless his name is not shown on the page. Either don’t give his name, put it in an image, or don’t index it – just do something so it won’t turn up if someone types his name into Google.

      Nov 21, 2009 at 10:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHIP1218
      CHIP1218

      To Number 55 B – I go to Eastern Europe frequently, I have friends there and my boyfriend currently lives there. I can be slightly affectionate with my boyfriend in the US in most major cities, not all. I can’t do so in his home country or the neighboring countries. Out of all the places in former soviet bloc I been to, I’d say only Prague I felt comfortable showing Im gay. They might not have Puritanism, but those countries have conservative Catholicism or Orthodox Christianity.

      Nov 21, 2009 at 10:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dontblamemeivotedforhillary
      dontblamemeivotedforhillary

      I missed the days when celebs or enlisted personnel were outed by a Cheap Whore!

      Nov 21, 2009 at 11:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      I didn’t want to post on this one because it’s hard to know the facts of the situation. But this kind of story is going to come up pretty much only in a gay publication or blog, and for that I think it’s just not cool to expose these boys this way. They did it for porno, and in those sites, they’re pretty much safe from the kind of exposure that would harm their careers.

      These boys aren’t try to harm us. Let’s face it, they’re doing us a favor.

      We should protect our own.

      Nov 21, 2009 at 11:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BrianZ
      BrianZ

      No of course it isn’t wrong, Queerty: How could anything be wrong that generates clicks? It’s been perfectly clear to everyone for the longest time that you really don’t have any journalistic integrity anyway, so what the fuck, right? Keep posting that Girly Whirly bullshit, he’s about on par with your intelligence level. Even more amusing is your assertion that active-duty Marines are doing gay porn is “news”. Yea, maybe in 1960.

      Nov 22, 2009 at 12:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      CHIP1218 wrote, “To Number 55 B – I go to Eastern Europe frequently, I have friends there and my boyfriend currently lives there. I can be slightly affectionate with my boyfriend in the US in most major cities, not all. I can’t do so in his home country or the neighboring countries.”

      I thought Bel Ami was run out of countries in Western Europe (the phrase is French). Obvious places to run such a company would be in Scandinavia due to liberal attitudes. Just checked (via Google) and found out I got the location wrong. Guess that shows how little I know about porn. :-)

      I don’t think people would treat a former porn star as a pariah in countries like the Netherlands or Denmark, even though most of the citizens of those countries would not get into that sort of “career”.

      Given the number of people who buy porn in the U.S. (figures are higher among conservatives), it does seem a bit hypocritical to treat “actors” in the porn industry as dirt.
      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers.html
      has an interesting factoid: “Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by,”

      The data is hilarious. For example,
      “Residents of 27 states that passed laws banning gay marriages boasted 11% more porn subscribers than states that don’t explicitly restrict gay marriage.”

      and

      “The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users; Montana bought the least with 1.92 per 1000.”

      and

      “States where a majority of residents agreed with the statement ‘I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage,’ bought 3.6 more subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority disagreed. A similar difference emerged for the statement ‘AIDS might be God’s punishment for immoral sexual behaviour.'”

      Nov 22, 2009 at 12:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Danska
      Danska

      Very low class. I have no issue with the article, his picture, or even his first name. But his full name? You just helped ruined his career. You are just as bad as the porn directors who hired him. No better. I have visited this site for a while now. This type of crap is why i don’t visit perez hilton. I deleted your bookmark. You could have made your point in a more respected way. But, no. You did not. You picked the sleazy way. Thanks!
      Former reader.
      Dan

      Nov 22, 2009 at 1:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • El Brucio
      El Brucio

      While Dink Flamingo claims that he cares deeply about his roster of porn stars, my cynicism can’t help but bring up the fact that if this article becomes widespread on Google, his pool of fresh meat will dry up as they wise up on how it could ruin their military career. Active Duty wouldn’t be nearly so active anymore.

      As for Queerty’s decision to run with this story and the marine’s full name … I am somewhat ambivalent. In doing so, Queerty has certainly helped ruin this man’s military career who I find to be morally, if not legally innocent of any “crime” under DADT. To claim that this should not matter because the story was broken elsewhere first is rather disingenuous to say the least.

      However, it is still technically news, and if the marine in question didn’t want people to see him having gay sex, he shouldn’t have allowed someone to pay him and videotape it. He is not some innocent flower who has had his privacy invaded – he gave up that right willingly in exchange for money.

      In the end, it still seems kind of mean spirited by the people who run Queerty. I feel that you could have handled things differently.

      Nov 22, 2009 at 1:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Not Amused
      Not Amused

      But it was a story that didn’t really need breaking: Any casual reader of Leatherneck Magazine — which featured the story on Bradberry participating in a Marine combat video — might have noticed he looked quite similar to the David on ActiveDuty.com. And besides, don’t young men, gay or straight, in the military or not, know that if they get naked on the web, everyone will eventually find out about it?

      Might have noticed that he looked “similar,” but that’s a fuck of a lot different than reporting his full name in print, and you damn fuckin’ well know it.

      It appears you are mistaken in what Queerty is: It is not an activist site, like many gay blogs. It’s a site that deals with LGBT-oriented entertainment, news, politics, and every so often, porn.

      Bullshit. You were up to your eyeballs in promoting the recent Equality March in Washington, D.C., and you’ve been right out there in front of bashing Human Rights Campaign for being too timid. All of that is your right, but don’t sit here and fuckin’ tell us that you don’t have an activist agenda, because that is a blatant and obvious lie.

      So is Queerty “aiding and abetting” in the dismissal of a U.S. marine by reporting (or, in fact, relaying) a story about Bradberry’s porn career? We’re probably not doing him any favors, sure.

      To answer your question: FUCK YEAH. Look, the Marine Corps wouldn’t have paid any attention to this but for your story. Really, they wouldn’t have. There’s a goddamn war going on, remember? They are pretty fuckin’ busy at the moment. But you idiots are pretty visible, so you can bet they’ll do something.

      Not doing him any favors, you say? No shit, Sherlock. Thanks a lot. Who the fuck’s side are you on, anyway? You were all for the “Equality” march for an idea, but when it comes to a real person you’re okay with ruining that fella’s life. You scumbags.

      Nov 22, 2009 at 1:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Not Amused
      Not Amused

      p.s.: If this marine decided to become, say, a far-right wing Republican activist, a la Matt Sanchez, then I’d tell you to bring it on. But until something like that happens, you should have left him the fuck alone.

      Nov 22, 2009 at 1:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dawson
      Dawson

      Eric

      All active duty models are tested

      I am sorry if any part of your friends situation is true but may I say that your friend shares equal responsiblity? If it was an issue for your friend could he have stated that he would not have sex with David if he didn’t wear a condom? Since your friend had no problems having unprotected sex did he ask David about his status prior to having sex? Since your friend has no problem with his partner not wearing a condom could it be that he shares a part of the responsiblity?

      My concern is that your personal opinion and you defense of your friend has further stigmatize this man. Did you out of fairness to David ask him if any of the things your friend says were true or are you just going by the opinion of your friend? Don’t you believe that when someone is saying something about you that you would rather them come to you directly to find out the other side of the story?

      David has been tested regularly by Active Duty. He has been with the company about a year and all models are tested. If he was HIV- Dirk would never have let him put the other models at risk. David has been very open that he was stationed in Africa, that he goes to Rehobath Beach and that he is open about his porn career in the D.C. gay community. And Leatherneck Magazine has stated that he is stationed in the D.C. area.

      My concern is why the hate? David may or may not have done something that upset your friend. He has been tested over and over and to think otherwise just seems unfair. May I ask you Eric have you serve in the military? Have you defended your life for our freedom? Don’t you think that David has been through enough? But why the hate? All he did was make some porn. He didn’t do anything wrong. He is not active duty. All he wanted was to start another career in films. Can’t a person go on with their life in peace and without judgement? Could there be any compassion left in you to see the other side?

      Yes, I wish that they would remove these articles. Yes, I wish that people would leave David alone and that he could live his life in peace and without judgement. Yes, I wish that we could honor our gay service men and women who fight for our freedom yet have to live in the closet to do so. And yes, Eric I wish you peace and love as I do for David and all our servicemen and women.

      Nov 22, 2009 at 2:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Not Amused
      Not Amused

      He didn’t do anything wrong. He is not active duty. All he wanted was to start another career in films.

      Hey, a second thought here. Maybe I reacted too quickly. Is this guy a marine? What do you mean he’s “not active duty?” What’s his status? And if he’s not a marine, then WTF is either Sword or Queerty interested in him for, anyway?

      Nov 22, 2009 at 2:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Not Amused
      Not Amused

      Keith Kimmel, you’re a real piece of work. All outraged about the billing company that violated their customers’ privacy, then you turn around and make it clear that you couldn’t give a flyin’ fuck about porn actors. I hope someone reminds all two of your friends what risks they are taking by associating with a lowlife scum like you.

      Nov 22, 2009 at 3:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      MY GOD! A lot of these queens have a bunch ‘o bees in their bonnets!! A few things to remember about the Bradbury Brooha:

      1 > Again, this guy should have known that any time he drops trou and there is a red light on a video recording device- It can now be seen by millions of eyeballs. This ain’t 1966 with the old reel to reels and the only way to get a porn tape is to meet someone in a back ally (I don’t know if they really did it back then but it sounds cool……..)

      2 > Its obvious he made more than one tape, I don’t think anyone put a gun to his head any of those times, He seems quite happy having a cock in his ass…..

      3 > He was paid cash for these performances. The band played and he danced

      4 And some advice for David B: Your cock is hotter than ever because of all this publicity, next video make sure you ask for a bigger paycheck…………….

      Nov 22, 2009 at 7:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      Hey Queerty People: How come my post #70 was edited??????

      Nov 22, 2009 at 7:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matthew Rettenmund
      Matthew Rettenmund

      Queerty is 100% right on this. (I’m just glad this wasn’t pinned on Obama somehow, ha). I’ve got nothing against porn and everything against Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. However, if someone is stupid enough to be in the fucking marines AND gay AND doing things on film to prove they’re gay AND believe that everyone on the planet who sees that film will keep his secret, that is not a bright person and that is not a person the marines should keep around anyway or at least isn’t a person I’m gonna worry about too hard.

      Cherish your privacy? Don’t fuck asses on camera, don’t walk around in public holding your gay partner’s hand and don’t tell anyone you’re gay. Otherwise, man up or woman up because people are going to know and talk about the fact that you’re gay.

      Nov 22, 2009 at 11:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Uhaditcoming
      Uhaditcoming

      Dawson, we’re talking about a guy who does porn, and just because he is in the military does not exempt him from being a douchebag. I was in the military too, so I know what I am telling you. There’s a lot of people there who put others at risk with their HIV status. And who are you coming in here to talk about decency? Who made you the moral police or defender of poor gays who make a decision to appear on film naked? Do you really think David did not know what he was doing? Don’t you know there’s a military code he had to abide to? What don’t you understand? Sorry to break it to you bud, but just because he’s gay does not give him a free pass.

      Nov 22, 2009 at 11:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PootieTang
      PootieTang

      Can’t we all just be happy?

      Nov 22, 2009 at 11:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dawson
      Dawson

      Not amused and uhaditcoming

      My understanding is that he is no longer in the services and hasn’t been since last year. And he didn’t appear in any films until his service career had ended. So how did he viloated the military code?

      Also he states that he is a single gay male. So what seem to be all the hostility? Who did he hurt?

      Uhaditcoming, did he turn you down and that is why you are so angry? Do you have a real name like Eric to defend yourself or are you just going to hide behind the fact that you don’t like him? We are not going to like everyone but that doesn’t change the fact that he did this while he was no longer in the service.
      So what is your agruement?

      This is a time we in the gay community need to fight together, not against someone who did nothing but make a porn movie especially when he wasn’t currently active.

      I take it that Mr. Uhaditcoming that as a former service person that you never, never, ever have seen a porn movie. May I ask you were you honorably discharged or were you kicked out of the military? Since you hide behind a name I guess we will never know. Peace be with you.

      Nov 22, 2009 at 2:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rob
      Rob

      I don’t understand why Queerty published this story. The article is likely to harm Cpl. Bradburry’s career and possibly also his personal life. To what end? To get Queerty $50 worth of page hits and to give its readers thirty seconds of amusement?

      I’m not interested in this kind of journalism. I’m removing Queerty from my RSS feed.

      Nov 22, 2009 at 4:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Uhaditcoming
      Uhaditcoming

      Dawson, u still did not address any of my points. Not worth discussing anything with you. Yeah, peach to you too. Until you serve in the military, you have no clue.

      Nov 22, 2009 at 4:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • glennmcgahee
      glennmcgahee

      What makes Bradberry marketable is not his willingness to do porn or his talents. There are many men with as many attributes. He is chosen and marketed for precisely the fact that he is an actual US serviceman. The more he and activeduty.com protest, the more publicity for the sale of his videos. I like the military genre but its a fantasy and has nothing to do with DADT. If he is forced out of the military, it should be for conduct unbecoming (publicly marketing that he is a serviceman doing porn), not for being gay. Its a different issue.

      Nov 22, 2009 at 5:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Randy214
      Randy214

      if you are going to play you are going to pay. this guy should have known better. what a moron. if he was so concerned about his identity being revealed he could have worn a mask. there are sites that have guys in masks. it appears that david didn’t feel the need to hide his identity. i’m sick and tired of all these people who shoot themselves having sex and they get up in arms about it being seen and discussed. Obviously, you want it to be seen hence shooting it.

      Nov 22, 2009 at 5:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      · Randy214: Good God there is nothing more annoying then seeing pornsters with freakin masks on!!! (almost as bad as the Asian porn where they blur the cocks!!) As I pointed out in the full text of post #70 which I can’t figure out why was edited (I defended the Queerty peeps!) One of the points was that I know some guys who have dabbled in porn movies, it is pretty damm easy to use the Google on the internets to find “legal looking id”. David B. could have gone that route or simply requested they use a “stage name”. Do you think “Lexington Steele” or “Lance Sword” are the actual given names of the pornsters???

      Nov 22, 2009 at 6:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Keith Kimmel
      Keith Kimmel

      “No. 69 · Not Amused

      Keith Kimmel, you’re a real piece of work. All outraged about the billing company that violated their customers’ privacy, then you turn around and make it clear that you couldn’t give a flyin’ fuck about porn actors. I hope someone reminds all two of your friends what risks they are taking by associating with a lowlife scum like you.”

      The CUSTOMERS didn’t know their information was going to be sold. Had they been told up front, I would have been fine with it. They weren’t.

      The TALENT knew full good and well their ass was gonna be shown worldwide on the Internet. Thats why that little thing is on set that goes clickedy click, clickedy click. Its known as a camera. Its not there just as a decoration. What, do you idiots actually think this guy didnt know what he was doing? People think porn is just free money for blowing a load. And it is. But it comes with a price and everyone knows it going in. I have a brochure I give my talent before they sign the contracts. Most other studios do as well.

      I care about the talent as much as I care about anyone else. I don’t care about talent that takes the cash and says “Give me more, give me more, I want three shoots a week not one!” and then gets mad when they cant teach Sunday school anymore. Fuck that shit, thats a kids game. I have better things to do.

      Just think. Now he can sell his ass on rentboy.com for even more than he was making in porn. Far more, actually. His career isn’t over, its just begun. Porn photoshoots dont pay nearly as much as you all think they do. Most studios pay from a few hundred bucks to about five grand. I have signed models to go for a home run for $100 and I have done solo shoots for $25. The real money is in escorting after you become a star.

      And he is not in physical danger, not anymore so than any other porn star or homo. He is a strong young man, he can take care of himself.

      This whining has just gotten out of control.

      Nov 22, 2009 at 10:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Peter
      Peter

      I’m cracking up that David actually said that Queerty is not activist site…oh please…totally ruined credibility with that one line…

      Nov 22, 2009 at 11:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Not Amused
      Not Amused

      It’s still unclear whether or not this guy is a marine. Queerty’s stories say he is, but a commenter here says he isn’t. If he is still a marine, then Queerty has decided to reach out and trash a gay guy’s life for nothing. If he isn’t still a marine, then Queerty is even more fucked up. Where is a goddamn “news” in a former marine making porn. What a bunch of flaming assholes.

      Kimmel, you are a sociopathic shithead. Really. You don’t give a flyin’ fuck about anyone but yourself. And you’re proud of it. Congrats. Now I have to go puke.

      Nov 23, 2009 at 2:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Same Crap
      Same Crap

      Wow. It pains me to say it. I am totally in agreement with queerty on this one.

      Plus, he’s not even hot. Pffft!

      Nov 23, 2009 at 11:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Same Crap
      Same Crap

      “What makes Bradberry marketable is not his willingness to do porn or his talents. There are many men with as many attributes. He is chosen and marketed for precisely the fact that he is an actual US serviceman.”

      Exactly. Who else would hire a pale, scrawny guy with an average face (at best) and the chest of 13 year old boy as a porn actor if not to fill this niche?

      Nov 23, 2009 at 11:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • simon
      simon

      quote:
      “Queerty has decided to reach out and trash a gay guy’s life for nothing”
      ActiveDuty.com actually specializes in “straight” military men having sex. Is he now saying that he is gay?

      Nov 23, 2009 at 12:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dawson
      Dawson

      Not Amused

      He has stated on Active duty.com that he is no longer in the services. This is the detail that so many people are missing.

      As to those who like to kick those who are down, what is the point? What did he do to you? What you are saying says more about your character then you have any idea. He made these movies when he was out of the service. Leave the man in peace. David appears to be a happy, funny and a joyful man who has a heart and feelings just like you. When is enough, enough?

      Mr. Uhdaditcoming

      I am not the defender of poor gays men and am no different than you. But since I asked Eric to give his last name I will tell you what my background is, which has no bearing on anything. I am a former minister (still licensed) and a current social worker. Yes, a gay minister who doesn’t believe there is nothing wrong with porn (as long as it is concentual and people being of legal age) but has many issues with the current policies of most religious organizations. So try being a gay minister Mr. Uhaditcoming. I do not speak for anyone but myself and feel that your post says more about your anger and lacks objectivity. David, as I have said over and over to deaf ears did nothing wrong. He was out of the service when these films were made. And who is anyone to cast stones? I still wish you peace and hope you get the counseling that you obviously need.

      Nov 23, 2009 at 12:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Not Amused
      Not Amused

      He has stated on Active duty.com that he is no longer in the services. This is the detail that so many people are missing.

      Thanks, Dawson. I assumed that Queerty was correct in conveying that the guy was in the military. But he’s not, so does this mean that Queerty is going to run an article on every former servicemember who appears in porn, on the grounds that there is some connection to DADT?

      This is such a fucked up web publication. I’ve bookmarked it for a few months, and in that time I have seen them fail time after time. That’s all for you, Queerty. What a ridiculous bunch you are.

      Nov 23, 2009 at 1:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      I am disgusted with this site. This is probably the last straw for me. Why in heaven’s name must this site go out of its way to wreck a young man’s career?

      Yes, he took risks in order to make money. And yes, Flamingo went ahead with it. But there was an upside for that risk: Flamingo makes his movie, the public enjoys the movie, and the Marine makes money. So it is understandable that all involved would decide to take a risk in order to realize the gain. But what does Queerty gain by publicizing this? This isn’t a matter of poltical or social importance. It is simply an opportunity for Queerty to publish pics of a cute Marine. So Queerty puts the Marine at risk for no gain.

      It is inflicting harm for absolutely no reason. This is digusting.

      Nov 23, 2009 at 5:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chirssypoo
      Chirssypoo

      I’m sorry, but why are people bringing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell into this?

      This has nothing to do with DADT. It has everything to do with violating military policy about making porn, any porn — straight or gay.

      Also, if he’s not in the military, why does Dink have his panties in bunch?

      My other question, wasn’t David listed as straight on the Active Duty website?

      Nov 23, 2009 at 9:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert
      Robert

      No. 11: You threatened to leave and never return, but you kept on posting after that. ENABLER! Queerty posts stuff like this because we “lap it up.” That includes YOU. So, get off your high horse. The real problem here is DADT and, secondly, I disagree that PORN is a violation of “honor.” Make LOVE not WAR!

      Nov 23, 2009 at 10:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert
      Robert

      #33

      The military likes to recruit at young ages…YOUNG AND DUMB…because they are more malleable/brainwashable.

      Aside from the Rambo stereotype, the vast majority of army privates that I’ve seen are nerds, short guys, just-out-of-high school types that feel a need to “prove” their manhood. The Marines are supposed to be tougher; I agree from the photos that this hairless guy is still just a growing boy. Maturity often doesn’t come until age 25-30. That’s why car insurance rates go down at 25; why home loans become available at age 25. Studies on the human brain show that it is still growing at 18 but largely mature by age 25. That should tell us something about “consent” at such a young age. But I do ask again: which is worse, being exploited for porn, or being exploited for the military-industrial complex? Those that send these kids to war rarely have gone themselves.

      Nov 23, 2009 at 10:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alex
      Alex

      Look Queerty, you got traffic!!

      You guys are shrewd. The Marine guy obviously didn’t care what it meant to be a Marine, which from what I know from family, is honor, duty, a certain moral fiber. Sex with who you want is fine. But getting paid for it? I’m with Queerty on this one. If you want to get paid for the porn you make, your choice, but obviously you knew what you were getting into. Did you expect it to go like this? Maybe not, but for shit sure it’s happening now. Queerty is pretty harsh, because the site certainly didn’t alieviate the situation, but it is modeled after a tabloid…run by gay men…so, what the FUCK did you expect? Mercy from Queens who BLOG?

      Nov 24, 2009 at 8:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alex
      Alex

      Wait a minute.

      If the guy is out of the service then…why this article?

      Hmm. Okay, if you are in the service, any service, porn-making is wrong. That’s my opinion. You are a part of the military, a military that is important to our country. They care about appearances, because it matters. If the dude wasn’t in the military, which has obligations, moreso for gay servicemembers, then he didn’t do anything wrong.

      Wow, Queerty. Did you fact check? Because I think this just got irrelevant. Or did it?

      Nov 24, 2009 at 8:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dawson
      Dawson

      Little facts people want to ignor.

      1) David was HONORABLY DISCHARGED in 2008 after serving four years.

      2) David didn’t appear in a gay related film until 2009, after his service was over and he had moved to the D.C. area.

      3) Was falsely accused of being in the services while making these films by many GAY publication that took this information as fact and didn’t do any reseached and yet listed his last name.

      4) Not one of these publication has written a retraction or apoligized to David. (Just a note that this could be any of us. Some publication could accuse us of anything and forget to do their research.)

      5) Not one person in our community has reached out and said they are sorry to this man who serve our country honorably. Nor has anyone admitted to being wrong. How sad is that!

      David, I hope you hire a good attorney. Nothing like being falsely accused and having your character destroyed. Fight back. Next time it could be any of us. Go in peace. There are many of us who will stand beside you. You are not alone.
      Peace. (A new chapter for your book)

      Nov 25, 2009 at 12:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Not Amused
      Not Amused

      From what I’ve read, he hasn’t been falsely accused on the porn front, at least not in any way that really matters. Queerty looks like a bunch of foolish and petty queens, that’s all. However, there have been some specific allegations with respect to the guy’s HIV status, and that’s something that he could win some real money on if it’s not true.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 1:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Not Amused
      Not Amused

      Specifically, the JSiegel poster here has made an allegation that the guy is HIV positive. I am very familiar with the law of libel and slander, and JSiegel’s posting is what the law called prima facie libel. If it’s true, then the guy is flatly barred from collecting damages, but if it’s false, JSiegel could lose a boatload of cash if the guy decided to pursue it.

      Oh, and JSiegel shouldn’t imagine that the “anonymity” of the Internet will protect him. Trust me on this: If the guy decided to pursue this, Queerty (and/or whoever hosts this site) would be compelled to cough up the JSiegel’s I.P. address, which could then be fairly readily traced to the actual author.

      Nov 25, 2009 at 1:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ryan
      Ryan

      While I agree that queerty can report on this if they chose, I find it hypocritical given some of the articles they have taken down in the past, that they are choosing this normal person to brow beat and make an example out of (most likely because he cannot afford the ace lawyers to make queerty take it down ala lance black et al) I never thought I’d say it but I miss the old editor, he at least had some human decency. Queerty I’m officially done with you.

      Nov 27, 2009 at 4:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Zach
      Zach

      I’ll tell you what’s wrong other than using his FULL name. The fact you’re allowing posters to blindly post stuff like his HIV status with no proof other than heresy and not do a thing about it. You wonder why crap like Prop 8 in California and the recent garbage in Maine passed. Because in addition to their tactics, they could simply direct people to sites like this and show people that the gay community can be worse to its own kind than straights ever can.

      Nov 28, 2009 at 3:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jon
      Jon

      Strange. This would have been a non-story if The Sword would have checked it’s facts and discovered that David was a FORMER Marine. There are several porn stars who are FORMER miltatry. But no, the story was the opportunity to “out” a real, live, active duty service member. But look what happens when “news organizations” fail at their jobs. The Sword had the facts wrong, the picture wrong, and Queerity fell right in line behind them.

      And yes, David knew what the downfall would be. In fact, I’m sure all of the Active Duty guys know the history of Active Duty and what happened to the other guys a few years ago. It may be part of the allure to these guys.

      I’m waiting for Queerity or The Sword to do an article on all of the new young guys that start porn and “should have known better.”

      Let’s see, I know a few guys that have done gay porn in the past: a couple of teachers, a current miltary service member, a couple of guys who are now married and fathers…would you like me to give you their stage and legal names so that you can out them too?

      Bottom line, there is a lot of exploitation that is now at the surface. AD exploits the fact the young men WANT to make porn(regardless of the risks), service men exploit the “dirty old man” pornographer (for money, kicks, opportunity, the blogs and “news organizations” exploit stories (sometimes without out checking facts) to make news.

      I guess I just don’t understand why Queerity saw it newsworthy to publish this guys legal name? What’s the point?

      Dec 4, 2009 at 10:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Neil
      Neil

      What Queerty is doing in this instance is disgusting. Queerty should remove this story immediately. If not, I do not see myself coming back.

      Dec 13, 2009 at 9:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rhane
      Rhane

      Although I guess Queerty did nothing technically wrong in this instance the whole matter seems cold and mean spirited. I don’t really see a reason to keep up his name when he politely asked you to take it down, and keeping the story up when you acknowledge that it could negatively impact his life seems cruel.

      There is an idea of “he made his own bed so he can lay in it” but we don’t really know why he chose to perform and I really don’t see why you would knowingly punish him for his decision.

      Jan 26, 2010 at 7:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DavARob
      DavARob

      Bradberry went into this situation knowingly and consensually, and as many young people sometimes regret, the faculties he had at the time. He had to have been aware of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and chose to partake of the actions request by Flamingo. Likewise Dink Flamingo cheerfully and willing made use Bradberry’s consent to make money from the images he was permitted to take of said Marine. No one was breaking any statues, and since Bradberry wasn’t even active duty when he performed for ActiveDuty.com, he wasn’t even in violation of the Military Code of Conduct.

      The issue that really sticks for me here, is what kind of a publication Queerty wants to be. An entertainment magazine, yes, news and politics, sure. Does Queerty also wish to be classified as a considerate member of the Homosexual Community, while still providing entertainment news? That is the question. Whether David Bradberry is gay or not, does not matter, I would personally not have printed an article of this nature with the full name and photographs of Bradberry. I would not have done this because I believe that the greatest thing we lack as a community is the willingness to stand up for one and other, through thick and thin, and to make sacrifices for one and other. This article could have been printed without the marine’s full name, and even without mention of the Sword, since it’s already been pointed out that everything here is already public knowledge.

      If Queerty prefers to be a tabloid style, cutthroat, publication that prefers readership and internet traffic, which in our free market style of economy is just as credible, that is a decision made at an editorial level.

      Jan 27, 2010 at 12:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • andrew kotcher
      andrew kotcher

      You live by the cock you die by it.
      He made the video and if he was discharged before making the video whats the big deal?? i am a former Marine and i think activeduty and those other sites definitely exploit our young men and Oh flamingo probably tells them i will help you financially meaning you need to fuck to get paid.
      as for getting charged on the sodomy law HA , better charge is conduct unbecoming of a marine! you dont fuck and film while in active service Period.

      Feb 11, 2010 at 9:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tim
      Tim

      I’ve never been to this site but I’ve heard of it before. I got here by following a link, and have bounced around on a few pages. One thing I notice is that you have a lot of blind items about celebrities, but when it comes to a Marine, you post his name and photos. Why the double standard? Because a Marine has no power and a celebrity can bury you?

      As a gay veteran, this story has me pretty angry right now. I would be pissed at you for outing a service member regardless, but the fact that you’re afraid to do it to actors but you’re ok with doing it to a Marine is nauseating.

      I’m glad to read that the man is now a civilian, and not subject to an Article 15. But you didn’t seem to know that when you published your story. I think your double standards are vile and despicable. Next time, print the names of the celebrities and just drop hints about the service members.

      Feb 14, 2010 at 7:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Todd
      Todd

      I agree fully with Tim (comment 10 above). We are in a fight for our rights and yet publications like yours continue to trample on our right to privacy whenever you feel like it.

      What possible public good did your article serve? It’s clear you care more about publicity, even negative publicity, than serving the needs of gay men and women.

      Perhaps you need to reexamine your core values and ask yourselves what it is you are really here to do?

      Promoting cheap and personally damaging gossip about powerless indidivuals who are doing nothing wrong just cheapens whatever higher purpose you have set for yourselves!

      May 3, 2010 at 11:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.