Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  Scandal

What Those Naked Photos Will Cost Carrie Prejean

prejeanback

What started as a conservative response to a same-sex marriage question turned into Miss California Carrie Prejean not winning the Miss USA title, and now possibly losing her Miss California title. As we told you about yesterday, naked photos of Prejean have surfaced (though only a rather safe PG-13 shot has turned up … so far), which could be in direct violation of her contract with Miss California USA prohibits Prejean from being “photographed in a state of partial or total nudity.” Prejean claims they were “modeling” shots, taken by someone she believed to be representing Victoria’s Secret. But the photos are likely to cost her, well, everything, including her reputation.

Already, one of the only organizations who rallied around her — the National Organization for Marriage — quickly backed off from its association with Prejean after she filmed an anti-gay marriage ad for them. NOM’s swift backtracking begs the question: Did they know the photos were coming and want to distance their cause from the sexy photo scandal?

The photos not only could cost Prejean her Miss California title, but also the well-paying speaking deals she was hoping to line up. It doesn’t make sense for conservative groups to hire her to speak when she’s a web a hypocrisies: traditional values good and gay marriage bad, but posing for naked photos … good? (Of course, this isn’t the first set of erotic pics.)

Prejean’s only means of reputation resuscitation at this point? Blame the media. But she’s already tried that, to limited results. Making herself the victim of media persecution can work. But not always, as Hillary Clinton learned during her presidential bid. Prejean’s beauty and naivety might work in her favor. So, too, could the support of right-y voices like Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

Responding to the brewing photos scandal, Prejean said in a statement:

On April 19, I chose to answer a question during the 2009 Miss USA pageant in an honest and personal manner that expressed my views of the long-established definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. That answer, and my commitment to stand by my beliefs, has since resulted in attacks on me and my integrity as a woman. We live in a great country; a nation that was built on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Yet my comments defending traditional marriage have led to intimidation tactics that seek to undermine my reputation and somehow silence me and my beliefs, as if opinion is only a one-way street.

I am a Christian, and I am a model. Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos. Recently, photos taken of me as a teenager have been released surreptitiously to a tabloid Web site that openly mocks me for my Christian faith. I am not perfect, and I will never claim to be. But these attacks on me and others who speak in defense of traditional marriage are intolerant and offensive. While we may not agree on every issue, we should show respect for others’ opinions and not try to silence them through vicious and mean-spirited attacks.

With that in mind, I will continue to support and defend marriage as the honorable institution it is. I will continue to stand with the overwhelming majority of the American people and the voters of my home state of California. If this whole experience has taught me anything, it is our precious right to speak freely, and how we as Americans can never allow anyone or any group to intimidate or threaten us to keep silent.


UPDATE: Prejean’s reps are circulating a bit of information claiming the photos were snapped when Prejean was she was 17. (Prejean’s statement above says they were “taken of me as a teenager.”) Except entertainment reporter Alicia Jacobs says the photos were taken only about six weeks ago, which explains why the breast enlargement is visible; her breasts would’ve been much smaller at age 17, pre-surgery. Here’s the statement we received from Prejean’s publicist Kristin U. Cole at A. Larry Ross Communications: “I saw that Queerty.com has posted a recently released photo of Carrie Prejean. These photos were taken when Carrie was a naive 17 year old, just starting out in modeling, when she mistakenly believed an agent that said she could be the next Victoria’s Secret super model if she would submit such photos.”

By:           editor editor
On:           May 5, 2009
Tagged: , ,

  • 164 Comments
    • atdleft
      atdleft

      How long before the NOMbie trolls invade this site again to tell us to stop “attacking our Queen Esther” as they verbally attack us and call us every ugly name in the book? I’m watching my clock…

      May 5, 2009 at 1:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John Visser
      John Visser

      A wise person once said, “(s)he who lives in a glass house shouldn’t throw stones.”

      May 5, 2009 at 1:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dennis
      Dennis

      “I am a Christian…and I am a model”…(and I am an opportunistic fame whore hypocrite airhead who sees nothing wrong with bashing anyone who stands in my way, so long as I get my close-up)

      Is it just me, or is this bitch displaying some mega-sized cojones and an “off the charts” narcissistic personality disorder?…’Tis a shame you are fighting on the side of EVIL Carrie Prejean, because with your qualifications, you could have been a gay icon, what a waste of fake titties and blind ambition.

      May 5, 2009 at 1:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nickadoo
      Nickadoo

      I hope this doesn’t go too far. I really don’t need to see any nude photos of Maggie Gallagher and Orson Scott Card.

      May 5, 2009 at 1:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jayson
      Jayson

      I’m not in the least surprised. The right wings crusaders usually end up being exposed (no pun intended) in the end (again, no pun intended)

      May 5, 2009 at 1:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • atdleft
      atdleft

      @Nickadoo: I dunno. I think nude pics of Miss Maggie would spell the final death knell for NOM. At the very least, her bare H8 would scare everyone out of the building! :-p

      May 5, 2009 at 1:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AJ
      AJ

      I can’t believe how many right-wing nuts have descended on Queerty as of late. Aren’t they afraid someone might go through their internet history?

      May 5, 2009 at 1:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Zakakaka
      Zakakaka

      Those panties are ugly…nothing like Victoria´s Secret…

      May 5, 2009 at 1:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • whatman?
      whatman?

      shes not naked i dont get it

      May 5, 2009 at 1:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • whatman?
      whatman?

      but i agree she still sucks

      May 5, 2009 at 1:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      I think it is time to use this to maximum advantage. She took the photos what, six weeks ago? She lied about taking them as a teenager, one assumes; I saw one press report stating that she took them at 17, which I really doubt, both because the implants seem to be firmly in place and because that would make everyone who posted and viewed the pictures felons subject to the sex offender registries.

      Someone needs to do a “Picture Perfect” campaign or something to that effect and just get her out of the public eye and ruin her reputation for good. I felt a little sorry for her after the initial question and the response, but she is actively trying to emulate Anita Bryant at this point and needs to go.

      May 5, 2009 at 1:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bruno
      Bruno

      She’ll still end up some sort of talk show host (and that would be such an exercise in migraine-worthy stupidity), I just don’t know if the religious right will be her audience now.

      May 5, 2009 at 1:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • roger
      roger

      damn! this was harder to find than i expected! miss california, if you or your advisors are reading this: you’re welcome.

      http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4984/3144/1600/15wz0pu.0.jpg

      May 5, 2009 at 2:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @roger: Is that Hilton’s profile? Of what relevance is it? Did he sign a contract promising to refrain from appearing nude? Does he go around to churches promoting anti-gay propoganda?

      No. OK then….

      May 5, 2009 at 2:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AJ
      AJ

      Perez’s MH profile is so old. Like nearly three years.

      May 5, 2009 at 2:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • roger
      roger

      @alec: payback’s a bitch. that snarky idiot is an awful face for any community, gay or straight. and, if there’s nothing wrong with this profile, why has perez made it so hard to find these?
      now, shut the fuck up.

      May 5, 2009 at 2:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AZgaybe
      AZgaybe

      religious bigots love to tell us all about that alleged holy bible and how christian they are but don’t know crap about their own freaking bible book. “i’m standing up for what i believe”, is santa claus and the tooth fairy real in that brain? prejean you’ll go further with your vagina than with that mouth so spread your legs. jesus will still love you.

      May 5, 2009 at 2:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ha Ha Pat Toomey Sucks
      Ha Ha Pat Toomey Sucks

      @you are idiots: I will fawn over my “Communist President.” You know, the one who kicked your ass so bad last November we took NORTH CAROLINA and INDIANA away from you. I’ll also fawn over my 257-member House of Representatives. And my filibuster-proof Senate. And my Communist President’s high approval ratings. You can keep doing what you’re now left with: sitting in your den below your Confederate flag posting comments about ACORN on Townhall.com and calling in to Michael Savage to complain about the Mexicans.

      Have fun in the minority, it’s gonna last a while.

      May 5, 2009 at 2:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dennis
      Dennis

      @you are idiots:
      (#14)Welcome to the site, we need more nuanced, reasoned intelligence as evidenced in your thoughtful post…

      Oh, and one more thing, PLEASE DON’T BREED, as we have enough fucking imbeciles on the planet already! Have a nice day!

      May 5, 2009 at 2:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dennis
      Dennis

      @bill:
      Please see post #21, and then go fuck youself! thank you…

      May 5, 2009 at 2:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BradK
      BradK

      “…a have a cure for guy desease so pls come for counseling….

      I see that G.E.D. is really paying off for you.

      May 5, 2009 at 2:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Smokey Martini
      Smokey Martini

      @BradK, Dennis, and Dennis

      Ladies, ladies… no need to attack the attackers. Just flag their comments (see the button beside @reply) and they will magically disappear!

      May 5, 2009 at 2:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John
      John

      She is going to defend Marriage for the honorable istitutiion it is? Then can we please PLEASE go after all the straight people who get divorced after 3 months or so? Straight people have done an outstanding job of making marriage look like a theme park ride, get on, get off, run to the next ride and get on, get off…don’t look at gay people as the ones who have come to ruin everything, you guys accomplished MUCH MORE in the ways of making marriage look like a joke than we ever could have.

      May 5, 2009 at 2:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anon
      anon

      while I don’t expect a response from you, I’ll still ask.

      to “you are idiots”…

      “you would have had equal rights if thats what you really wanted but no you wanted the world to change to your way of life”

      how so?

      btw, you calling Obama a “communist” shows that you have NO idea what communism (or socialism) is. read up and educate yourself before you spew such ignorance.

      and, to “bill”…

      “live on goverment money because their only career is being gay for the rest of their life”

      all I can say is WTF does that even MEAN?

      May 5, 2009 at 2:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dennis
      Dennis

      @Smokey Martini:
      Aww shucks, that’s no fun…much more enjoyable to bat them back and forth between my paws then extend my claws and shread them to bits…just a little harmless fun…c’mon

      May 5, 2009 at 2:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dgz
      dgz

      queerty,
      LISTEN: they told you those pics of her as a 17 yr-old to make you take them down. it’s a veiled threat of legal action. just f.y.i.

      May 5, 2009 at 2:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AlanInSLC
      AlanInSLC

      Is this comment thread for children or adults? I’m almost expecting to hear the recess bell ring.

      May 5, 2009 at 3:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • malaise
      malaise

      As utterly delighted I am that these photos have surfaced, I think they are largely irrelevant. At best, pointing toward her hypocrisy constitutes an ad hominem attack, and at worst it risks sounding like an attack on women who make sexual spectacles of themselves. That is, by focusing on the hypocrisy, there is a risk of reinforcing puritanical, sexist assumptions about women and female sexuality.

      She made ignorant, uninformed, and bigoted comments, and now she is making a platform of it. What, aside from schadenfreud and general amusement, is the point in going: “Oh look, she’s showing her boobies, what a hypocritical whore!”? Isn’t that like going: “Hey did you see Perez went to mass last week?”

      Let’s talk about the assumptions implicit in her claim that a “long-standing definition” is necessarily a good, accurate, or desirable definition…the distinction between freedom to and freedom from, the problem with making appeals to scriptural authority as a basis for civil laws in a pluralistic republic like the US, etc., and leave the frat boys to talk about her tit-waving.

      May 5, 2009 at 4:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      Is that like saying “I am a Christian and a prostitute.”?

      May 5, 2009 at 4:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matthew Rettenmund
      Matthew Rettenmund

      Roger, you’re an idiot. It’s fun to see Perez’s profile but it’s not relevant. No one cares if a blogger or a gay activist has a sex profile or has nude photos. A pageant contestant has signed contracts saying she won’t pose nude, plus she is thumping her God-damned (pun intended) Bible over one sin but is flaunting her naked body as if that isn’t also a sin.

      As for “these were from when I was 17,” BULLSHIT. For one thing, they were NOT taken by some phony scout—look at the picture, she took this in the mirror herself! Her hand is in the position to be taking it herself. Plus her boob looks like it’s already been enhanced.

      Lying is a sin, too.

      May 5, 2009 at 4:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sal
      sal

      doesnt Victoria secret sell bras???why is she not wearing one ??LIESSSSS LMAO!!

      May 5, 2009 at 4:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • roger
      roger

      @matthew: glad YOU think it’s fun to see his profile. and, you’re WRONG about no on caring about a blogger and gay activist who has nude photos. especially when he is doing all he can to present himself as a spokesperson for a cause and he is using his own blog and the mainstream media to destroy a young woman.

      the release of the photos of carrie were intended soley to embarrass her. perez hilton has made it his new mission to embarrass this woman who has obviously made some mistakes. so, i hope he appreciates that folks can do the same thing to him. quite embarrassing.

      perez has gone to GREAT lengths to make it VERY hard for his manhunt profile to be seen. why is that, you dipshit? he must not like it when his youthful indiscretions get exposed.

      so, shut the fuck up. and go back to drooling over perez.

      May 5, 2009 at 4:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • timncguy
      timncguy

      @you are idiots: really you don’t need to be so concerned. Nobody wants you to “turn gay” as you claim.

      May 5, 2009 at 4:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @roger: I just don’t see the parallel. I mean, Perez Hilton didn’t sign a contract pledging not to post pornographic pictures of himself.

      He can’t appoint himself a spokesman. Last I checked he isn’t being endorsed by any prominent gay rights groups (unlike Prejean’s endorsement by NOM) and the pictures aren’t embarrassing because they’re nudes; they’re embarrassing because they’re inconsistent with her own purported lifestyle and profession.

      May 5, 2009 at 4:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cufflinks
      cufflinks

      Yes, Miss Prejean has horrible views about gay marriage, but I feel uncomfortable that we’re judging her for having “semi-nude photos” done of herself. I’d understand the hypocrisy if she was doing hardcore porn, but semi-nudes?

      There’s nothing in the Bible that demonizes sexuality or gays. It’s possible to be a Christian and still be proud of having a banging bod. And by the same respect there’s nothing wrong with being gay or same-sex marriage. There are no semi-nudes of me circulating on the internet. And that’s not because I’m Christian. It’s because no one wants to see me naked.

      To me, Ms Prejean was being un-Christian when she condemned gay marriage. But when she posed for those photos, she wasn’t. And by claiming that she’s a hypocrite, the gay community is inadvertently buying into the notion that there’s something wrong with our god given sexuality. And that’s counter productive.

      So let’s just disagree with her because she’s wrong and stop trying to burn her as a witch because she’s a human being.

      May 5, 2009 at 4:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • bill
      bill

      @Dennis: commom you f*** f*** that was a common mistake. you need help, wake up.

      May 5, 2009 at 4:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sal
      sal

      @cufflinks: personally i dont have a problem with the pics,as i think all of us are…its the PERSON in those pics that we have a problem with,she takes a “moral” stand when it comes to other peoples lives but as we see now she doesnt follow this “moral stand” when it comes to furthering her success

      May 5, 2009 at 4:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sal
      sal

      @cufflinks: god is number one when its not hurting her but when it is he takes the backseat

      May 5, 2009 at 4:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @cufflinks: This stopped being about marriage and started being about her fundamental opposition to gay rights when she appeared at churches and on TV touting her view that homosexuality was a “choice” and a “behavior” that “develops over time.” Her refusal to address adoption and civil unions, in light of that, was very telling.

      And no, I don’t think you can make sexual semi-nudes for mass consumption (triggering lust in straight men) based on her fundamentalist reading of the bible.

      She was called out. She needs to disappear for a while.

      Hey Queerty:

      Maggie Gallagher is “rushing” to her defense:

      Today, Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage, released the following statement regarding Carrie Prejean:

      “Because Carrie honestly said what she believed in answer to a question–marriage is the union of a man and a woman– she is now the subject of ongoing character assassination. The level of hatred directed at her is astonishing. Even more astonishing is her personal courage and strength of character in the midst of these attacks. Of course Carrie is not perfect. On a personal note, as a former unwed mother, I want to say to Americans: you don’t have to be a perfect person to have the right to stand up for marriage. Nothing gay marriage advocates can do can change the fact—we all saw it on national TV—that Carrie is a young woman who surrendered all the glitter Hollywood has to offer, because she would not become the kind of person afraid to say the truth.

      “Through Carrie, we are also learning, the lengths some people will go to hurt and harass those who speak up for marriage.”

      http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=omL2KeN0LzH&b=5075187&content_id={4ED0866E-C06C-4806-B660-33D763370854}&notoc=1

      May 5, 2009 at 4:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • stevenelliot
      stevenelliot

      Damn Perez Hilton is a top?? Jeeze Ive got to get my gaydar fixed. It must have broken during me watching that beauty pageant Perez judged. I could have sworn he threw his legs to Jesus in the bedroom……

      May 5, 2009 at 5:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wayne
      Wayne

      So wait a minute. She was just saying that she was raised by her mother as a good christian girl. Why then, was her mother allowing her good christian daughter to pose naked at 17? This sounds a bit fishy.

      May 5, 2009 at 5:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John Santos
      John Santos

      Gay porn didn’t keep the conservatives from loving Matt Sanchez; why would booty shots keep them from loving this silly heifer?

      May 5, 2009 at 5:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alec
      Alec

      @John Santos: Does he make appearances any more? And he wasn’t drummed out of the armed forces?

      Say no more…

      May 5, 2009 at 5:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dawson
      Dawson

      Wasn’t she a blonde in the pageant?

      Fake colored hair

      Fake tits

      Fake church

      Fake soul

      May 5, 2009 at 6:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cufflinks
      cufflinks

      @Alec: Yes, she has spoken out against gay marriage and homosexuality but she’s a pageant girl. Who cares what she thinks? She has no political power, she doesn’t contribute to the legislative process and she holds no elected position. She didn’t even win Miss USA. Even Sarah Palin is more relevant that this chick.

      During this whole fracas, Maine and D.C. passed significant marriage laws and there was a hate crime bill passed on a federal level.

      She’s not turning the tide at all, so let her flap her gums and learn some life lessons. She’s twenty years old for crying out loud. Calling her a whore or questioning her religious beliefs are kind of overkill at this point when she’s clearly just a pawn being taken advantage of by a losing, shrinking movement.

      May 5, 2009 at 7:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jody
      Jody

      Methinks she’ll be evangelizing in a Hooters before too long, in-between refilling her customers drink orders and bringing them their hot wings.

      And that’s not a bad thing.

      May 5, 2009 at 8:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • stevenelliot
      stevenelliot

      If someone approached both of those two and there was a good bit of money involved, it would make our collective heads spin to see how fast they would agree to do “The Carrie and Perez Show”

      Perez and Carrie= media whores. And as with all media whores, there are no scruples

      May 5, 2009 at 8:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Christian
      Christian

      This is a free ad for her, from California to Playboy Mansion, $$$

      May 5, 2009 at 9:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rick
      rick

      she lied on the contract. christians never seem to have a problem with that commandment about telling lies and breaking it. how dare she blame someone else for exposing her lies.

      May 5, 2009 at 10:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rick
      rick

      i see carrie and sarah palin in a spread for hustler. when larry calls i bet even jesus would tell them to take the job because they are going to need the money.

      May 5, 2009 at 10:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BradK
      BradK

      @rick: Talk about some primo spanking material…at least for those Christian man/boys that actually like girls.

      May 5, 2009 at 10:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mikeandrewsdantescove
      mikeandrewsdantescove

      I hope she loses the crown. She’s obviously lying about being 17 as those are breast implants.

      Mike
      Out Loud Dedicated to Gay Marriage Couples in Iowa / Vermont

      May 5, 2009 at 10:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marko
      Marko

      You people are so fu^cked-up. She hasn’t said any of the things you are accusing her of, yet the way you talk about her, and the intolerance you show for her opinion (which most Americans share) makes you all sound like a gang of bigoted and hypocritical fools. btw, spreading your bile around on a website populated mostly with similar-minded idiots doesn’t get you anywhere. Go stand on a stage with a few million people watching and voice you opinions…oh, that’s right, it takes an honest and strong person that isn’t afraid of her convictions to do that.

      May 6, 2009 at 12:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marko
      Marko

      No. 45 cufflinks:
      If by “a losing, shrinking movement” you mean real marriage, you need to read a book now and then. Men and women have been marrying each other for several thousand years. The purpose of marriage is to protect the women and civilize the men. What is the purpose of your pointless and silly idea of marriage?

      May 6, 2009 at 12:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • missingthepoint
      missingthepoint

      I get that people are upset at her views but there’s quite a few people here sinking pretty low over someone with a different viewpoint than them.

      This isn’t doing anything for the cause and if it keeps going down this negative, immature road, where our only argument for equal rights is “Look, she’s taking sexy photos”, we’re fighting a losing battle.

      We need to take the high road and not fall into this sort of schoolyard finger-pointing.

      May 6, 2009 at 12:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • missingthepoint
      missingthepoint

      Oh, and Perez Hilton is not our spokesperson. He’s a self-indulgent media-whore out for his own 15 seconds of fame who just happens to also be gay.

      May 6, 2009 at 12:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jake
      jake

      she’s one of those man-eater types that fake tan, fake blonde, fake teeth (whiteners), hates women (major backstabber)

      basic man pawns trained by straight, white, christian male with discipline through trained mom (a subhuman with shaped free-will)

      infected mind

      these photos should have been expected

      doesn’t she remind you of that main character in showgirls?

      May 6, 2009 at 2:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dk
      dk

      @AJ: Perez Hilton hasn’t been that thin in years. TOP? BWAHAHAHAAA!

      May 6, 2009 at 9:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hardmannyc
      hardmannyc

      “The little sow is mine.”
      — Satan

      May 6, 2009 at 9:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rapport
      rapport

      As a bisexual, I’m psyched to see hot chicks getting posted up next to hot guys on Queerty. Her views suck, but she adds a nice element to the site. peace out

      May 6, 2009 at 10:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • timncguy
      timncguy

      WHAT PHOTOS? Anybody see any actual NUDE photos? Until I see them posted somewhere, I won’t believe they actually exist.

      May 6, 2009 at 11:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • roger
      roger

      @missingthepoint: when is the last time you appeared on larry king, greta van susteran, the today show, good morning america, the situation room, and many more news shows? when is the last time keith olbermann called you “an intellectual titan and some sort of civil rights spokesman?”

      i thought so. like it or not, but the mainstream media has annointed perez as your spokesman on this issue. and, predictably, he fucking loves it. so, you’re screwed. because he is a bitchy queen who american seems to hate.
      you’d better find a new spokesperson. pronto!

      in the meantime, perez makes his living out of embarrassing people. so, i think carrie’s folks having access to and at least being aware of his old profile is a bit poetic. again, perez has made it pretty difficult to find these pictures and this profile. so, i hope they do get picked up for the mainstream world to see.

      what’s good for the goose…

      May 6, 2009 at 11:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alan brickman
      alan brickman

      Perez Hilton may not be a role model for queers..but at least he had the “balls” to do what you guys are afraid to do….

      May 6, 2009 at 12:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GranDiva
      GranDiva

      @Bruno: As long as it’s on FOX News or consigned to a segment on one of those lame inspirational-block basic cable channels, let her talk her fool head off. Just keep it away from the MSM.

      May 6, 2009 at 12:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Synnerman
      Synnerman

      @Marko,

      I hope you paid good money for your wife. Because old time marriage is about breeding and property rights. Don’t play the “civilized” game, because it’s bullshit.

      May 6, 2009 at 12:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marko
      Marko

      @Synnerman: One little problem with your theory; men and women have been committing to one another since long, long before anyone had “property rights”. Read up on paleontology. Some of you people need to quit munching on tube-steak long enough to gather an original thought. btw; if the women had not civilized the men, and we’re talking more than 10,000 years ago, we would be still living in grass huts because the biggest and loudest men would still be pounding the shit out of the rest of us to get their way. If the men had not been protecting the women, we would all be the products of rape and incest, pregnant women would rarely make it to term, and infant mortality would be in excess of 90%. Too bad so many of you hate women; you’re missing out on one of the richest parts of being alive.

      May 6, 2009 at 2:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Women civilized “the men”? Do you have sources on your sexist theory you’d like to cite? Any books which stated that civilization was caused by women civilizing uncontrollable men?

      May 6, 2009 at 2:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And you contradict yourself, too…the women civilized the men, yet without the men (who were just acting on their instincts, right? Boys will be boys…and kill each other, huh? oy gevalt…), women would still be victimized by uncontrollable men…but they civlized them…so, that doesn’t make any sense.

      May 6, 2009 at 2:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JJJ
      JJJ

      What I love most about scandals like this: Most in the LGBT community (except for, possibly, some militant feminists) would probably support her decision to strip for the camera and show off her bod. It’s the self-appointed morality police on the right for whom it’s a discrediting magic bullet. Oh, they will rant about it for a while, but then they’ll peel away, leaving her to twist slowly in the wind. Same thing happened to Anita Bryant. And good riddance to both.

      May 6, 2009 at 3:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marko
      Marko

      @TANK: It would make sense if you were willing to see that I described a mutual effort. Anyone that has gone to a modern high school can still see it: the big, loud, obnoxious ass that bullies and intimidates smaller, quieter, maybe more reflective and, yes, often more intelligent kids, until a sweet thing walks up and tells him to lay off. It happens every day in every school. It’s been going on since the dawn of time. By the same token, men have been willing to struggle, sacrifice, and even die to protect and provide for a woman and her babies. If you can’t see that, read a book. Listen to a song. Watch a move. It’s everywhere. If you’re going to be gay, at least be honest about what it means.

      May 6, 2009 at 3:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Aaron
      Aaron

      If in fact she signed a contract which states she is not allowed to partake in this kind of behavior than she should have to deal with the consequences. People need to be held accountable for their actions!!!!!!!!
      What I don’t undrstand is why you people are crucifying her for excecising freedom of speech. She was asked a question and she answered it according to her convictions. What makes this different than what all of you are doing. You stand up for your beliefs and make yourselves heard, why can’t she? We have that right in this country, maybe you need to remember that!

      May 6, 2009 at 3:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @Marko:
      @TANK:
      I don’t think there’s a scientific basis for it, but the theory that women created agriculture, animal husbandry, teaching and tribal structure is pretty common.

      It does make sense, based on the hunting/gathering division of labour, the fact women kept the camp running, raised and taught children while men concerned themselves with hunting, grunt work and defense.

      And of course there are scientific studies showing that women have a better ability to read body language.

      Plus you find more matrilineal societies in older and tribal cultures.

      I wouldn’t go so far as to make a black-and-white statement like “women civilized men”, but it is undeniable that women were more central to the perpetuation of the tribe and men were (and remain) much more disposable.

      When I visited Stettin in northern Germany I was told that one of the medieval rulers there (Henry the Lion) managed to kill off virtually all the men in his kingdom through wars and slavery.

      He just imported a bunch of new ones from Poland.

      May 6, 2009 at 3:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      First, not what he was saying. The agricultural explosion and our ability to domestic livestock largely explains the birth of western civlization, and I don’t think either can be given that overly simplistic gendered analysis (or, are given such an explanation by historians, bio anthropologists, sociologists, and evolutionary psychologists).

      May 6, 2009 at 3:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      and the agricultural explosion (actually, several of them) was due to a fortunate location and improvement in farming and irrigation tech–burgeoning scientific understanding.

      May 6, 2009 at 3:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Marko:

      So no source at all? Just a reference to the practices of bullies in school? Oy…are you also a proponnent of social darwinism, or do you believe it’s a fact?

      May 6, 2009 at 3:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marko
      Marko

      @strumpetwindsock: For the record, the statement “women civilized men” was a narrow, out-of-context paraphrase by tank.
      Also like to point out that the oldest evidence of human/prehuman existence identified and recognized by science are some footprints fossilized on the shoreline of an ancient lake in Africa. They are not the footprints of two men. They are not the footprints of two women. They’re the footprints of a man, a woman, and a child.

      May 6, 2009 at 3:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      I read what he said. Did you read what I said… or are you just being a contrarian for the sake of argument?

      He was talking about theories about prehistory and tribal societies (not Sumer, China, the Indus or anything as advanced as cities) and so was I.

      May 6, 2009 at 3:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      For the record, you can refer back to mark saying that women civilized men who were, apparently, just a bunch of uncontrollable slobs before the delicate womenfolk took upon them and corrected their immoral ways…how sexist and gender binary is that? It’s disgusting, marko. Update your theoretical paradigm…it’s way too nineteenth century.

      May 6, 2009 at 3:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      No, you apparently failed to understand what he said as per usual with you and your defense of…scumbags.

      And what you wrote is based upon outdated and sexist oversimplifications of the division of labor in stone age man.

      May 6, 2009 at 3:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @Marko:
      I was going from your comment #66:
      “if the women had not civilized the men… 10,000 years ago”

      May 6, 2009 at 3:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Specifically, he stated we’d still be living in “Grass huts” (…wow…that’s actually not as primitive as you think) if not for women civilizing men, strumpet. SO unless you have yet another eccentric interpretation of a bigot’s words in their defense to be exactly what you just accused me of (contrarian) being, then embrace the silence.

      May 6, 2009 at 3:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marko
      Marko

      @TANK: There you go again. Bullies in school are a modern-day demonstration of the part of the human condition that I was referring to. What you are doing is one of the two main tools of the loony left; pick a few words out of an idea and respond to them as though they were the whole idea. It is an error in reasoning. As far as references: some people can read many books, attend many classes, listen to many thoughts, and arrive at our own ideas. Also, if I were a “PROponnent of social darwinism” that would mean that I do believe it’s a fact (I don’t). You didn’t write what you meant to.

      May 6, 2009 at 4:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Marko:

      Yes, bullies in school…goodness you’re dumb.

      May 6, 2009 at 4:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      I was simply correcting you by pointing out the theory that women created many of the structures of society is a common (if not a scientific) one.

      I’m not saying it is the proven truth, but I do say that your outright dismissal of it is unwarranted.

      Is it such an assault to your senses to imagine that men did NOT do it all (or even most of it)?

      I make no defense for anything else he said, so please keep your tar brush to yourself.

      God you can be insufferable sometimes. You’d argue blue is green just to say something different than I do.

      May 6, 2009 at 4:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marko
      Marko

      @TANK: It’s only disgusting because you are going out of your way to not understand what I said.

      May 6, 2009 at 4:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marko
      Marko

      @TANK: I am in no way dumb. I’m an engineer/scientist at one of the world’s largest aerospace companies, with 2 college degrees and a 3-decades-long track record of significant accomplishments. I guess we’ve reached the point here that you can’t even reply with nonsense, so you make a personal attack. Maybe you need a woman to teach you some manners ;)

      May 6, 2009 at 4:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      But I never dismissed it–that women played an instrumental part in organizing society. YOu simply fail to understand what marko said. I suggest you go back and read it. He said, and this not ambiguous…even for someone like you…that women civilized men… I’ll quote him.

      Some of you people need to quit munching on tube-steak long enough to gather an original thought. btw; if the women had not civilized the men, and we’re talking more than 10,000 years ago, we would be still living in grass huts because the biggest and loudest men would still be pounding the shit out of the rest of us to get their way.

      Do you get it now? Is the hamster wheel spinning yet? I don’t think that women civilized men considering women were basically property and had no rights…and if they did civilize men, then they didn’t a very good job, did they? It all rests on this soft headed sexist notion that women are made from sugar and spice and everything nice…and that due to their gentle and womanly natures, they tame uncontrollable men who just can’t help themselves…in acting aggressively toward one another, in a hobbesian natural state. This is just rubbish. People are people, women or men–much more similar in psychological composition than distinct. Of coure it plays to the gender binary which sustains sexism to play up differences…LOL!

      That least bit wasn’t addressed to you, strumpet, because I highly doubt you understood a bit of it.

      May 6, 2009 at 4:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Marko:

      Some of the dumbest people I know are engineers…and, some of the most intelligent, actually. It’s no measure on your ability to do anything but long division.

      May 6, 2009 at 4:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      Nope..

      Based on your explanation I do disagree with you.

      The fact is there IS a sexual division of labour in many societies – particularly tribal societies, and in many cases that involves men hunting and women gathering and staying closer to home. That’s not sexist; it’s reality.

      And as I said there are studies which show women have better ability to read body language and understand others’ feelings – just as men tend to have better spatial perception. THat’s not sexist; it is the physical differences in men’s and women’s brains.

      And men ARE more physically aggressive. You don’t have to look any further than rates of violent crime and family violence.

      May 6, 2009 at 4:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @dk: Well you are wrong he is actually skinny now he just has a big head. He actually is kind of hot now.

      May 6, 2009 at 4:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @jake: Wow you sound like a woman hater. She is objectionable because of her views not because of how she looks.

      May 6, 2009 at 4:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marko
      Marko

      @TANK: So, I can tell now that you’re one of the loud, obnoxious brutes that I mentioned earlier. You’ve also mis-understood the point again; it is not based on any notion of what women are made of. It’s based on the notion that men will comply with what a woman wants of him because she controls the sex. It has absolutely nothing to do with rights. Ask an MD, a policeman, or a hooker if men and women are more similar or more distinct. You’ll find that, again, you are wrong. Men and women are very, very different. (thank god…). (and, I’ve done a lot more than long division. If you’ve ever flown on an airplane and lived to tell about it, you’re welcome).

      May 6, 2009 at 4:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      You can’t disagree with me, because you don’t understand what I wrote. Nothing you wrote even begins to contradict anything I wrote…you don’t get it.

      I never wrote that there isn’t a division of labor based upon sexism in many societies…I think sexism exists, and has existed for a long time. I dispute that women “civilized men” because they weren’t considered people to do so. Men had all of the power, and in many societies still do. It is unbelievably sexist, backward (of you, perhaps) and patronizing to suggest that women civilized men, granting them social power they just didn’t have to do achieve such a feat. As I said before…these things aren’t things you understand very well. You defend bigoted ideas and opinions.

      Further, I never stated that there weren’t psychological differences between men and women; just that the differences based upon overall patterns (always without fail thrown through a loop when you at look at individual cases as some women are manly than men, and men more “womanly” (social constructs that underpin sexism and homophobia–I trust you don’t understand that, either, strumpet)than women) are not nearly as many as the similarities and identities. Women and men are vastly more similar than they are different, and it behooves sexists like you to play up the differences in say, spatial understanding in cognition and multitasking (the aggression bit is perhaps not nearly as true as you believe it to be, but a product of one’s culture, not one’s genetic composition) to affirm the binary, and sustain sexism. It’s just sad because though you defend it, strumpet, you aren’t benefiting from it as a gay man…and yet you simply don’t understand why.

      May 6, 2009 at 4:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Marko:

      You’re a deeply sexist man. That’s why you’re homophobic, too. That explains your homophobic slurs and your negative attitudes about same sex marriage found earlier in this thread… It’s your attitudes about gender, really. You think women have it easier and better, too. Well, women don’t control the sex, okay? WOmen never have. I can show you rape statistics that would be sobering, but I doubt a sexist pig like you can be helped to understand that WOMEN WERE FOR MOST OF PREHISTORY AND HISTORY nothing but property…they did not control anything…especially sex.

      May 6, 2009 at 4:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marko
      Marko

      @TANK: You don’t what homophobic means. A phobia is an irrational fear. I’m not afraid of gay people, it’s just that, like almost all straight people feel, homosexuality not only seems unatural and pointless, it is simply incomprehensible what you get out of it.

      As for the rest of that rant, WOW, are you confused! Rape has nothing to do with sex. It’s about violence and domination. Do all gay men think that straight men want to rape women? If they are in the mood and she isn’t, it’s rape time? No, the way it works, and always has, is that if he is in the mood and she isn’t, he waits.

      Meanwhile, he does what she wants, even if it means letting the more intelligent guy make a new tool, or a better mud brick, even when his urge is to bash the guys head in with a rock just because he is smarter. That was the first step in societies becoming civil. The brutes first had to get under someones control, to allow other ideas to take hold.

      Clearly, you were one of the bullies, so combine that with a dislike of women and there is your belief: women are property. Most men don’t agree with that, and never have.

      May 6, 2009 at 5:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Marko:

      Redefining a word to play a semantic game in the name of defending your bigoted values won’t work.

      May 6, 2009 at 5:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Rape is primarily about power and control, but it involves sex. I never said nor suggested otherwise. It is also the product of sexism, though (women as objects..property to dominate and control).

      May 6, 2009 at 5:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Marko:

      So I guess women weren’t property for millenia, and female enfranchisement is an entirely new phenom…who knew that women actually held all of the cards in society! Sexism exists, but the men are really the victims! LMAO!

      You sound like rep foxx calling the matthew shepard hate murder a hoax.

      May 6, 2009 at 5:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @TANK:

      isn’t an entirely new phenom

      May 6, 2009 at 5:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marko
      Marko

      @TANK: You’re an idiot. Goodbye.

      May 6, 2009 at 5:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Marko:

      Typical. When the sexist runs out of his bag of tricks, he resorts to more name calling.

      May 6, 2009 at 5:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      It is untrue to say women were just property in all tribal societies. A number (not all) of them were and are matriarchal.
      Even if they were, they were the ones who worked with the technology of raising kids, keeping the house, gathering plants for food and medicine, and keeping animals around the camp.

      The imbalance of control in favour of the patriarchy only started after the rise of city states.

      So sorry, you can’t dismiss the argument with that false blanket statement.

      May 6, 2009 at 6:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John Santos
      John Santos

      One little problem with your theory; men and women have been committing to one another since long, long before anyone had “property rights”.

      But they have not been getting married until recently. That straight people think they own marriage is absurd. You own shacking-up together, but nothing else.

      if the women had not civilized the men, and we’re talking more than 10,000 years ago, we would be still living in grass huts because the biggest and loudest men would still be pounding the shit out of the rest of us to get their way.

      Women did not civilize men, you moron. The Agrarian culture did. When men learned it was easier to plant and raise sheep, than to kill wild animals, we became civilized.

      If the men had not been protecting the women, we would all be the products of rape and incest,

      Men protected women so that they could rape them themselves, idiot.

      pregnant women would rarely make it to term, and infant mortality would be in excess of 90%.

      Uh…idiot, up until the early 1900’s the infant death rate was still high. We don’t need to go back 10,000 years to see that. Civilized men had nothing to do with that–modern medicine, proper hygiene and sterilization did.

      Too bad so many of you hate women; you’re missing out on one of the richest parts of being alive.

      And too bad you see women as a prize; you’re missing the opportunity to treat them as equals.

      the big, loud, obnoxious ass that bullies and intimidates smaller, quieter, maybe more reflective and, yes, often more intelligent kids,

      Much like you’re acting now, jackass.

      until a sweet thing walks up and tells him to lay off.

      That ignores that fact that high school girls can be bullies just like–and even worse than–high school males.

      By the same token, men have been willing to struggle, sacrifice, and even die to protect and provide for a woman and her babies.

      Because they were viewed as property. It wasn’t unusual in times of war during the darker period of our ancestry, for farmers to offer their daughters and wives in order to spare their cattle and other livestock. Maybe if you read something other than WatchTower, you’d know that.

      If you’re going to be gay, at least be honest about what it means.

      If you’re going to be straight, then try to be honest about what that means. Raping, pillaging, war mongering, selling your daughters to the highest bidder, marrying multiple women.

      They’re the footprints of a man, a woman, and a child.

      Please provide a link proving this comment, Marko. provide a link that those footprints belonged to a “man”, “woman” and “child” as you claim.

      I am in no way dumb.

      Yes you are. You’re trying to correlate the ownership of women in times of less industrialized eras with modern day family arrangements. You’re claiming that six fossilized footprints belonged to some sort of pre-historic “family”; you’re trying to claim that if it weren’t for women, we’d all be cave dwellers. And you’ve not provided a shred of evidence to back up your statements. Dumb.

      I’m an engineer/scientist at one of the world’s largest aerospace companies,

      Which one?

      with 2 college degrees and a 3-decades-long track record of significant accomplishments.

      Bullshit. You’re Walter Mitty type desperate for attention.

      I guess we’ve reached the point here that you can’t even reply with nonsense, so you make a personal attack. Maybe you need a woman to teach you some manners ;)

      And clearly you need a woman so that you may spend less time debating anonymously on a blog, and more time walking on an African beach.

      You’re an anonymous troll spoiling for a fight. When yo got one, you started lashing out.

      It always amazes me the obsession anti-gay straight people have with gays. You’re obsessed with our marriages; our sex live; our money; our votes.

      It’s based on the notion that men will comply with what a woman wants of him because she controls the sex.

      So now you’re claiming that all straight men are pussy-whipped?

      If you’ve ever flown on an airplane and lived to tell about it, you’re welcome).

      You invented air travel too? Uh huh.

      You don’t what homophobic means.

      You have 2 college degrees and you can’t even structure a sentence correctly, can’t use proper grammar, nor punctuation? Absurd.

      I’m not afraid of gay people,

      Yes you are. You’re afraid that gay people will appear normal in the eyes of society and you will no longer be able to feel superior to anyone. You fear that we are just like you and your years of anti-gay bias will have been nothing more than irrational hate. You fear a world where everyone is equal and you will no longer be able to publicly ridicule those whom you oppose.

      it’s just that, like almost all straight people feel, homosexuality not only seems unatural and pointless,

      For someone preoccupied with past civilizations and nature, you’re quite ignorant to the fact that homosexuality has been around as long as mankind has. Homosexuality is quite natural.

      it is simply incomprehensible what you get out of it.

      Love. Ant that is what you hate most about us–that we love each other.

      Do all gay men think that straight men want to rape women?

      You do it so often, it seems logical. I’ve never heard about a gay man raping a woman.

      That was the first step in societies becoming civil. The brutes first had to get under someones control, to allow other ideas to take hold.

      You’re a fool who has no concept of how man modernized. It was the toughest, most aggressive men who won the day. It was the hunter who lead the group to success. You’re still thinking like a high school kid, which shows us that you’re just a mook stuck in adolescence. Grow up, marko.

      God, I LOVE it when these anti-gay turds show up and we have the opportunity to put them in their place!

      May 6, 2009 at 6:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      Wow, what are the odds… Okay, you’re not going to deny the property status of women throughout history, and pre recorded history by bringing up a literal handful of matriarchies. No, you aren’t going to attenuate and sap the charge that sexism has been the predominant view regarding women in western civilization and, for the most part, around the globe…since the beginning of man. I know you want to, because you’re a sexist yourself. But the evidence is against you.

      Once again, I repeat, women didn’t “civilize men” for they did not have the social power to do so. They didn’t have rights, and they were not in any position to “civilize men”. We don’t live in grass huts, and sexism is still a tremendous problem…and it was a lot worse in the enlightenment…your assertions are gratuitously offensive in their ignorance and desperate to defend the thesis that women civilized men by denying sexism’s role in our society and its history. It’s disgraceful, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

      May 6, 2009 at 6:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Similarly, I have good reason to suspect that sexism and gender roles existed in prerecorded history (our stone age ancestors) because of its prevalence in just about every society and culture extant and recorded but now extinct (including some pretty interesting theories concerning stone age societies). Can you name a stone age society that was a matriarchy or more than five of them in RECORDED history that thrived and comparatively large?

      I realize that your identity is linked to your ability to be a contrarian and advocate for not only the factually incorrect position, but the ethically repugnant one, too. This is why you’re often perceived as defending bigotry and being, especially in this case, a sexist denialist. But that’s your problem….

      May 6, 2009 at 6:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      Here are a few societies which are matriarchal, or in which women had equal rights to men:
      http://www.saunalahti.fi/penelope/Feminism/matrifoc.html

      Several you should take note of:
      The Iroquois Confederacy, one of the largest political organizations before the whites came. In fact part of your constitution was poached from them.

      They don’t mention Canada’s Salish, Haida, Dene and Ojibway tribes, but I know they are matriarchal as well (and very much alive).

      Hopi, Navajo, Sioux
      among the best-organized modern tribes

      The Etruscans
      Ruled Italy before the Roman empire

      Ancient Egypt. Not matriarchal, but women had equal rights (the longest surviving empire in the history of the world)

      This site does not mention the Cathars, who ruled most of southwest France and threatened the Roman Catholics so much that they launched a crusade against them. They were not matriarchal, but they had women as well as men as clergy.

      The Roma (gypsies) are also matriarchal.

      May 6, 2009 at 8:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @strumpetwindsock:
      So you see, traditional and trial societies tended to lean toward the matrilineal. It made sense, actually, since before DNA tests the only thing you knew you could count on for sure was maternity.

      Actually I forgot to mention Iceland.
      They had the first European Parliament… in the 900s, I think.

      May 6, 2009 at 9:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      ..TRIBAL societies, I meant

      May 6, 2009 at 9:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marko
      Marko

      @John Santos: The only one put in their place was you. Your place is the loony left, where if someone disgrees with you, you pointedly misunderstand them, then argue with your own illogic. If you were able to follow a thought, you would be able to see that the agrarian society was a result of civilization, not a precursor. Fool.

      If more of you on here would actually engage in an intellegent discourse, instead of tagging people with made-up labels, your point of view might actually get some traction. I wasn’t anti-gay until seeing what bile some of you here can spew. One would think that people that had once been under the bus wouldn’t be so quick to throw someone else under it.

      And yes, straight society does own marriage. The fact that we live in an age of unprecedented political-correctness-gone-wild is not an endorsement of anything. That 6% of the population can re-order the world of the other 94% is just a bizzare fluke. Consider yourself lucky.

      As for my career, you just sound jealous that someone else can do something positive for the world. So many of you are so panicked at the idea that women are worth something.

      As far as me raping my wife, fuck you.

      May 6, 2009 at 11:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      Okay, you’re not getting it. As I said, a handful of soceities does not make render the claim that historically, women have been property false. And you need to do some serious reading up in history if you think that in ancient egypt, women were equals. The estruscan society was not matriarchical, as there were etruscan kings–several of them. It is embarrassing distortions by gay sexist men like you that gives us all a bad name. And how dare you bring up native american tribes that were matriarchies to somehow refute that the vast majority of women throughout history were treated like property. Your depseration knows no bounds. These were exceptions, not the rule. And yet you continue to defend the false claim made by a sexist homophobe marko because of your oppositional defiant disorder.

      Next you’ll probably cite joan of arc to say that France hasn’t been a deeply sexist society (as were all–and to this day…are, though not as overtly sexist–since the fifteenth century. You’re a joke. And I’m not going to back down because you wish to distort and minimize the profound sexism which has defined the lives of countless women (most of them) throughout human history. It’s no less ethically disgusting than saying that because britain outlawed slavery before the united states, british colonialism wasn’t so bad… You simply don’t get it.

      May 6, 2009 at 11:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      Further, women did not “civilize” men. Western civlization as we know wasn’t caused by women “civilizing” men; it was caused by the domestication of animals, and the mass production of food through several agricultural revolutions and irrigation and farming technological innovations. WOMEN WERE PROPERTY, once again. If this inane and practically incoherent contention you’re defending were true, then sexism wouldn’t exist…as we’re not no longer living in the conditions that we were during the stone age, yet sexism thrives globally and has during the bronze and iron age, too…in fact, women had no social power nor status throughout most of human history (e.g., ancient Athenian society) and yet civlization flourished…all the while untold horrors in human conflict persisted… You’d think that if not for the civilizing effects of women on men we’d still be living in grass huts that domestic violence rates in the u.s. wouldn’t be astronomically high…and they are. That’s directly caused by sexism. No one gender is responsible for the “creation of western civlization” or civliziation in general (not just western) because of some inherent “civlization creating” creating characteristics attributable to the largely social construction that is gender…it’s so idiotic that I’m disgusted that I have to lecture you on it.

      May 7, 2009 at 12:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marko
      Marko

      @John Santos: Oh, yeah…I had to look up Watchtower to see what it is. I’ve never read it because I don’t go to church very often. You did a great job of making my point; you’re just throwing around empty words because you don’t have anything legitimate to say.

      May 7, 2009 at 12:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Marko:

      So civilization was a result of itself? LMAO! Stop raping your wife…well, the blowup doll you call the ball and chain.

      So now you’re labeling being against sexism which is responsible for the deaths of three women a day in the united states via domestic violence a product of the “loony left” and political correctness gone wild? This isn’t a political debate. If you think that being a conservative republican means that you have to be a supporter of sexism, then you’re at odds with humanity, not the left.

      May 7, 2009 at 12:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And what is straight society by code for traight [white] male society?

      May 7, 2009 at 12:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      That’s simply not true. Countless tribal societies were far from matriarchies…in fact, most of them weren’t matriarchies.

      May 7, 2009 at 12:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      And how about contemporary tribal societies that are just hanging on to existence…is the yanomamo tribe a matriarchy? LIterally, go see for yourself…lol Most of them aren’t, either…so things haven’t changed.

      May 7, 2009 at 12:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      TANK, you asked for five examples, and I gave you much more than that – examples throughout history including the ancient Egyptians, traditional native societies covering almost all of north america, and others from around the globe, including Europe.
      Many of them were and are highly-sophisticated societies covering large areas.

      At the very least I have given you enough hard evidence that women were not property in all (probably not even most) pre-classical traditional societies. There is evidence that change occured in Sumerian society. Initially it was matriarchal, but was taken over by the men. In much of classical greek society too, women did not have any status.

      While I don’t know first hand about many of the contemporary examples around the world I can tell you that many of the native societies here in Canada are very strong and still matriarchal.

      But I think they could have you over for supper and you’d tell them they didn’t exist. You ask me for evidence and you refuse to believe it when I put it in front of you? Why did you even ask in the first place?

      There is no talking to you man.
      You are a completely closed-minded fool.

      May 7, 2009 at 1:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      FYI:
      http://www.crystalinks.com/egyptianwomen.html

      Please note that while this article says Egypt was an exception, it is in reference to Greece, Rome, Babylon, and Jewish tribes.

      May 7, 2009 at 2:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      TANK, you asked for five examples, and I gave you much more than that – examples throughout history including the ancient Egyptians, traditional native societies covering almost all of north america, and others from around the globe, including Europe.

      Once again, in ancient egypt, women did not have the same social power and status as men, and were property–pharaoh’s or farmer’s.

      Second, I asked for five stone age examples, which you can’t supply.

      Third, the few valid examples you gave (native american tribes, mostly) were the exception to the rule. Most native american tribes were patriarchical.

      Fourth, those few and scattered examples you gave in no way invalidates or is a counterexample to the claim that for most history, women were property and that sexism defined their lives, and that female enfranchisement is an extremely new phenomenon.

      Many of them were and are highly-sophisticated societies covering large areas.

      Once again, the few examples that were the extreme exception to the rule does not invalidate the claim that it is false that women civilized men, nor that sexism has defined the lives of women throughout history, including in most tribal societies then and now. It is simply a gross minimization of sexism, and you sound like a holocaust denier by insisting otherwise with a few exceptions to the rule by no means the norm.

      At the very least I have given you enough hard evidence that women were not property in all

      Not at all. Once again, throughout history, the vast majority of societies were sexist, and defined women as property.

      (probably not even most) pre-classical traditional societies.

      No, you haven’t done anything close erasing sexism’s awful mark on the history of human civilization (Tribal society as well) with a few far flung and eccentric exceptions to the rule. You see, the existence of one pacifist does not mean that pacifism is the predominant view…this is your position, and you are a fool.

      There is evidence that change occured in Sumerian society. Initially it was matriarchal, but was taken over by the men.

      LOL! YOu’re simply desperate. The existence of on matriarchical society does not mean that sexism didn’t exist, and wasn’t the predominant ideology that defined the lives of women in the vast majority societies throughout history. You haven’t shown that, and you cannot show. And I will repeat this until give up. You will not minimize and distort the truth, and give marko a pass for his sexist and false beliefs which you have fully and completely embraced.

      While I don’t know first hand about many of the contemporary examples around the world I can tell you that many of the native societies here in Canada are very strong and still matriarchal.

      Once again, the vast majority of all human societies were and continue to be virulently sexist, and bringing up an anomally or two (and those examples–the very few that you provided that were accurate…not many) does not render the claim that women civilized men (a general society acontextual claim) because, you contend, they weren’t property, true. You complete moron. Throughout human history, women were defined as property, and in many societies to this day, women are defined as property. And in just about all extant societies today (including canada and the united states) women are the victims of sexism (e.g., the wage gap). I’m not going to allow you to get away with spreading your lies and ignorance because you’re a disturbed sexist scumbag.

      But I think they could have you over for supper and you’d tell them they didn’t exist.

      How does the existence of one or a handful of small matriarchical societies (not egyptian and not etruscan, keep in mind) mean that women weren’t defined as property for the overwhelming majority of human history (an acontextual claim which is indisputably true)? It simply doesn’t line up. That was the status of women, and thus, having no social status, they could not have achieved YOUR THESIS that they civilized men (having the power to control them) to create society. Do you think that the existence of a nazi who was not antisemitic, for example, means that nazism is not an antisemitic ideology? You are an absurd, ignorant fool.

      You ask me for evidence and you refuse to believe it when I put it in front of you? Why did you even ask in the first place?

      I asked for evidence for five large homogeneous cultures and societies (greek, persian, mongolian, incan, mayan, etc, etc) in which sexism did not exist. The existence of one small matriarchical tribe (or large one, even) does not mean that most tribes were not patriarchies. Most tribes were, just as most large homogeneous cultures and societies were and are. There is no evidence you can provide or have provided the stone age societies were not similarly sexist, and that women were not considered property…in fact, there is a lot of evidence (most tribal cultures and societies did and to this day DO treat women as property) to suggest that they were property, which undermines your idiotic…moronic assertion that women “civilized men” because they had the real social power to do so…you are a fool.

      May 7, 2009 at 2:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MommaM
      MommaM

      @Marko: Just sending you support! I too, have been the target of the very same jerks. The comment about your wife, was totally uncalled for! BTW, if you haven’t figured it out, we are not entitled to have a different opinion.

      BTW, don’t respond to me or you’ll face the wrath of Tank and John again!

      May 7, 2009 at 2:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      I’m glad the article you linked to said “at least in theory,” because there are literally…all eyptologists who would educate you about the reality of female status in ancient egypt which was far from egalitarian…and was a male centered culture.

      May 7, 2009 at 2:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777190170/

      Interesting article. I was aware that egyptian women had nearly the same legal status as men, but an exerpt will educate you about the sexism in egyptian society.

      “But in the legal arena both women and men could act on their own and were responsible for their own actions. This is in sharp contrast with some other ancient societies, e.g., ancient Greece, where women did not have their own legal identity, were not allowed to own (real) property and, in order to participate in the legal system, always had to work through a male, usually their closest male relative (father, brother, husband, son) who was called their “lord.”

      Egyptian women were able to acquire, to own, and to dispose of property (both real and personal) in their own name. They could enter into contracts in their own name; they could initiate civil court cases and could, likewise, be sued; they could serve as witnesses in court cases; they could serve on juries; and they could witness legal documents. That women very rarely did serve on juries or as witnesses to legal documents is a result of social factors, not legal ones.

      The great disparity between the social and legal status of women can be observed in both documentary and literary materials.

      Now this is what I meant.

      For instance, in the literary text entitled “The Instructions of the (Vizier) Ptahhotep,” preserved in Middle Kingdom and later copies, a man’s wife is seen basically as a dependent, of whom it behooves him to take good, and loving, care:

      When you prosper and found your house and love your wife with ardor, fill her belly, clothe her back; ointment soothes her body. Gladden her heart as long as you live; she is a fertile field for her lord.
      But next comes a jarring statement,
      Do not contend with her in court. Keep her from power, restrain her–her eye is her storm when she gazes. Thus will you make her stay in your house.
      This reference to contending with one’s wife in court clearly indicates that women had legal rights and were willing to fight for them. This distinction between the legal status of women in ancient Egypt and their public or social status is of major importance in understanding how the Egyptian system actually worked.

      Do you still contend that sexism did not exist in ancient egypt? Do you still contend that egypt was a matriarchy? Sexist zealot.

      May 7, 2009 at 2:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John Santos
      John Santos

      @Marko:

      The only one put in their place was you. Your place is the loony left, where if someone disgrees with you, you pointedly misunderstand them, then argue with your own illogic.

      I haded you your weak ass to go along with your weak arguments. You belong on the specious right, where all your arguments are based on “feelings” and opinions not supported by facts. People like you expect everyone to accept your facile opinions and when you are challenged you cry “freedom of speech” or intolerance.

      If you were able to follow a thought, you would be able to see that the agrarian society was a result of civilization, not a precursor. Fool.

      The Agrarian culture followed from the homesteading efforts of tribes who stopped being nomadic and started–homesteading. It did not follow from a “civilizing” factor as you incorrectly claim.

      If more of you on here would actually engage in an intellegent discourse, instead of tagging people with made-up labels, your point of view might actually get some traction.

      And you provided some facts to back up your absurd claims, you might be taken more seriously. Instead, you’re just aloud-mouth, the type of which you denounced repeatedly.

      I wasn’t anti-gay until seeing what bile some of you here can spew.

      You were anti-gay when you came here. You came looking to put us gays in our places with your high and mighty heterosexuality. When your foolishness was challenged, you reverted to the outwardly bigot that you really are. You didn’t need to read a gay blog to hate us–you brought that in your heart from the beginning.

      One would think that people that had once been under the bus wouldn’t be so quick to throw someone else under it.

      And one would think that someone who brags about his education, would be more thoughtful in presenting his arguments, rather than just using stereotypes, attacks and childish name calling.

      And yes, straight society does own marriage.

      No you don’t. The government owns marriage. The church owns religious ceremonies.

      The fact that we live in an age of unprecedented political-correctness-gone-wild is not an endorsement of anything.

      Claiming everything is PC is the new PC, Marko. Your white heterosexual privilege is showing, cupcake.

      That 6% of the population can re-order the world of the other 94% is just a bizzare fluke. Consider yourself lucky.

      That almost 60% of voting Americans support some kind of recognition for marriage equality shows that you are in the minority, Marko, not us.

      As for my career, you just sound jealous that someone else can do something positive for the world.

      I have done many things to help better the world. I don’t need to boast about them on a blog. You’re a child in a man’s world, marko. You’re so busy tooting your own horn, that you don’t have time to hear other people’s songs.

      So many of you are so panicked at the idea that women are worth something.

      We know women are worth something, that is shy gay men are some of the best friends women can ever have. We love them respect and them treat them with dignity, when they do the same. We don’t treat them as property and we don’t abuse them. We don’t beat them, rape them, or exploit them. You could learn a thing or two from gay men. And that is why you fear us–we are the perfect males. Something you will never be.

      As far as me raping my wife, fuck you.

      I’m sure you’d like to, Marko.

      Oh, yeah…I had to look up Watchtower to see what it is.

      Which shows your ignorance. I do what I can to learn about different people. You wallow in your ignorance and wrap yourself in it like a warm, comforting blanket.

      I’ve never read it because I don’t go to church very often.

      You’re proud of that? As I told MommaM, if you aren’t raised to believe in something, you’ll believe anything.

      You did a great job of making my point; you’re just throwing around empty words because you don’t have anything legitimate to say.

      And you’ve proven my point–you haven’t provided any facts to back up your ridiculous claims here. Please provide a link to evidence demonstrating that those 6 fossilized foot prints were of a man, woman and child.

      May 7, 2009 at 8:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John Santos
      John Santos

      @MommaM:

      Just sending you support!

      Why don’t you two go over the Free Republic and have a love in?

      I too, have been the target of the very same jerks.

      You attract what you are.

      The comment about your wife, was totally uncalled for!

      No one said anything about his wife. Maybe you should read all the posts before responding.

      BTW, if you haven’t figured it out, we are not entitled to have a different opinion.

      You’re not entitled invade a gay blog and post anti-gay comments denouncing the very people who read that blog.

      BTW, don’t respond to me or you’ll face the wrath of Tank and John again!

      “The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.”
      –William Blake

      May 7, 2009 at 8:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      TANK, you are an idiot. You would deny the sun was shining in your face just for the sake of an argument.

      Egypt had several prominent women rulers, and most importantly women had legal status. Finding a couple of sexist references during a period in the course of a 3,000-year history does not change the fact: Your assertion that women were owned property is completely false.

      And as I said, the later classical societies (babylon, greece, Rome were instrumental in turning the tide toward partiarchy).

      And most native tribes were matriarchal. Get a map; look at the territory covered by the tribes I mention and you will see it covers most of north america. Look up the history of the most advanced of these – the Iroquois/Huron, in whose society violence against women was virtually unheard of. Same thing for the northern west coast tribes. These are not a few dwindling tribes, but societies which are still alive.
      A number of Mayan societies were matriarchal, and even the largest empire, the Inca, did not lean either toward patriarchy or matriarchy.

      The plains and northern tribes I mentioned WERE stoneage before conquest, and more importantly, tribal societies (which this whole theory of civilization concerns – NOT urban societies) do tend toward matriarchy and matrilineal structure. it is a fair assumption that it was so in prehistory as well.

      But I started out by pointing out that the theory does exist that civilizing technology (agriculture, animal husbandry, teaching, midwifery, and a cohesive camp structure) may have been largely driven by womem, because of the natural division of labour in tribal societies. That theory DOES exist, as does the division of labour, because women had the babies.

      I should have expected you would take my pointing out a simple fact and turn it into an excuse to dig your heels in and grandstand.

      May 7, 2009 at 11:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      You’re simply pathetic, strumpet. It’s always sad when an elderly gay man is such a sexist pig, because he’s working against me, too…being gay…and himself. Now, I couldn’t care less about your own self loathing (and that’s what it is…and that’s why you’re constantly being accused of it by several people…) or if you were to blow your fucking brains out tomorrow (in fact, given how sexist you are, it’d probably be a good thing), but when you start to interfere with mine, then you got a problem, piggy.

      Egypt had several prominent women rulers, and most importantly women had legal status.

      That was the exception, not the rule. And does the existence of queen elizabeth render moot sexism in england? Does the existence of joan of arc elminate male privilege in france? You need a feminism 101 badly. Your outdated and primitive understanding of sexism and its impact on women throughout history is embarrassing for a gay man. As the article by the egyptologist I linked to said, their social status and legal status (they didn’t really hold jobs like men did in egyptian society, and were granted social status through their husband’s work–and the husband controled the property) were completely distinct and very different…and their lives were shaped by the interests of men, who primarily controlled egyptian society.

      Finding a couple of sexist references during a period in the course of a 3,000-year history

      A couple? No, this was the norm.

      does not change the fact: Your assertion that women were owned property is completely false.

      Not at all. Women were bought and paid for with a present to the father. That’s called property transaction.

      And most native tribes were matriarchal.

      Prove it. Most native tribes that exist today are patriarchies, and most native tribes existed throughout history have been patriarchies. You’re lying by taking the exceptions, and make them the rule.

      Get a map; look at the territory covered by the tribes I mention and you will see it covers most of north america.

      Oh no, that’s not true. the tribes you mentioned were not the dominant tribes in north america (iriquois, for example). They were situated primarily in upstate new york and surrounding territory. And further, they were not the longest lasting native american tribes, either. You’re a desperate liar at the service of sexism and homophobia…because it’s apparent to me that you despise yourself.

      Look up the history of the most advanced of these – the Iroquois/Huron, in whose society violence against women was virtually unheard of.

      That’s simply not true either. Domestic violence was not unheard of in these tribes, but women did have a special place and were allowed much of the same rights as men. Now, FOR MOST OF HUMAN HISTORY, THE VAST MAJORITY OF WOMEN WERE CONSIDERED MALE PROPERTY, HAD NO RIGHTS, AND NO SOCIAL STANDING AND NO SOCIAL POWER. This is irrefutable. This applies to most ALL tribal societies that currently exist and have existed throughout history. Read a book, and take a class on feminism.

      Same thing for the northern west coast tribes.

      Absolutely not. This is vile lie at the service of your hatred of women and your own deep self loathing. Most of the northern and west coast native american tribes were patriarchies.

      These are not a few dwindling tribes, but societies which are still alive.

      Patriarchies.

      A number of Mayan societies were matriarchal,

      Mayan culture and civlization was patriarchical. Patriarchy, not matriarchy.

      and even the largest empire, the Inca, did not lean either toward patriarchy or matriarchy.

      lie after lie after lie. You need to read a history book. Incan society was a patriarchy.

      The plains and northern tribes I mentioned WERE stoneage before conquest, and more importantly, tribal societies (which this whole theory of civilization concerns – NOT urban societies) do tend toward matriarchy and matrilineal structure.

      The few tribes you mentioned were the exception to the ruel, and were not stone age, as the stone age precedes the bronze age and the iron age in chronological order. So you automatically fail in another distortion and lie that they were stone age tribes. They were not, and you prove your historical illiteracy yet again.

      it is a fair assumption that it was so in prehistory as well.

      That those tribes existed during hte stone age is not a fair assumption. LOL! They did not. You ignorant troll.

      But I started out by pointing out that the theory does exist that civilizing technology (agriculture, animal husbandry, teaching, midwifery, and a cohesive camp structure) may have been largely driven by womem,

      No, this isn’t true, either. And it’s verifiable cross culturally. Women were not responsible for farming technology as women weren’t generally farmers during the agricultural revolutions….that was a profession, and women were barred from having professions in most tribal societies and in most cultures throughout human history. Animal husbandry was a farmer’s job.

      because of the natural division of labour in tribal societies.

      The division of labor in tribal societies was created by men to serve men’s interests given that men held the social power and determined who was going to do, and the social status of everyone else. The division of labor was not natural, as sexism is not innate, and people are not born sexist, but as you prove, learn it along the way.

      That theory DOES exist, as does the division of labour, because women had the babies.

      Is the wage gap also justified because women have babies? For women that don’t ,too? LOL! You sound like such an outdated sexist beast. Grunting and clicking your way through the comments section.

      May 7, 2009 at 12:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Don’t think for a second I’m going to let you get away with these primitive historical fictions of yours because you’re a deeply sexist pig, strumpet…and hate women and gay people. Each time you post your lies and distortions, you will be contradicted…as you deserve nothing better than to have your outdated primitive beliefs and understandings ridiculed. You are no better than the virulent homophobes who visit this site and comment every day.

      May 7, 2009 at 12:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MommaM
      MommaM

      @TANK: All our past arguements aside, why do you feel it necessary to be disrespectful to so many people?

      This is so very uncalled for shit!

      “if you were to blow your fucking brains out tomorrow (in fact, given how sexist you are, it’d probably be a good thing), but when you start to interfere with mine, then you got a problem, piggy.”

      Is it possible for you to disagree with someone without resorting to this childish shit, or are you in first grade?

      May 7, 2009 at 1:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      Isn’t that a bit hypocritical considering just every comment you make on a gay blog is homophobic and borders on hate speech? And it’s intentional, too…at this point. You want everyone to know how homophobic you are by deliberately telling everyone you don’t think of them as worthy of equal rights. There’s no difference between you and the guy who screams faggot, though you delude yourself by thinking you’re superior. I’m glad you are defending strumpet, though…the only defense he really gets are from homophobic and sexist straight people, it seems. I’m sure he’ll appreciate it coming from you.

      It just occurred to me that there’s a mistake there…and it’s funny…what I meant was when you interfere with my rights by acting against them and my interests, strumpet, by being a counteproductive sexist homophobe who…might be gay (I don’t even know if that’s true), then you’ve got a problem.

      May 7, 2009 at 1:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dr Shrink
      Dr Shrink

      My apologies to all readers on behalf of my patient who goes by the name TANK. He has a split personality disorder and loves to argue with himself using various other aliases. DO NOT encourage his pathological behavior. Just tell him to shut up and ignore him. His medication is not working and I fear there are only weeks left before a complete meltdown.

      May 7, 2009 at 1:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sparkle obama
      sparkle obama

      yes, the gays are in first grade (they stayed back voluntarily) and now it’s past time to grow up.
      some of us are so bratty and entitled that we can’t internalize the lesson that we must lead by example and be Better Than our “enemies”.
      show some class, girls!
      it’s the only way.

      May 7, 2009 at 1:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      I mean, there’s no such thing as polite bigotry… The white or protestant only clubs are equal in message and belief to the roving groups of neo nazis. You’re not even polite. So just because you think that there’s an acceptable way to be a homophobic asshat doesn’t mean that there is…

      May 7, 2009 at 1:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Dr Shrink:

      Yeah, because denying sexism is popular even amongst gay men.

      May 7, 2009 at 1:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      In contemporary American society, just to refute another lie–women have the same legal status as men (moreso than in ancient egypt and at any other time in human history), yet are victimized by sexism through the wage gap and domestic violence. If we were to infer that domestic violence is unheard of merely because of the legal status of women being equal to that of men in a society, then that would mean that domestic violence isn’t a problem in the united states or that it primarily impacts women (85% of the time, it’s a man being abusive to a woman) and around the world (in canada, too)…but it is…it’s an pandemic; in fact, in the u.s., it’s the leading cause of ER visits for women. Feminism 101…

      May 7, 2009 at 1:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bain
      Bain

      @Smokey Martini:
      That`s how to do it, just wash away all those that do not agree with you. Adolf JR. you need to find a rock and live under it if you do not and can not stand for any opinion but your own. Here is a tissue to wipe away those tears of superiority.

      May 7, 2009 at 1:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MommaM
      MommaM

      @TANK: I don’t think anyone is agrueing with you on that one and you did it in a respectful way!

      May 7, 2009 at 1:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:

      ‘scuse me my dear. Sorry to interrupt you in the middle of your playing the feminists’ best friend.

      But the last person I recall screaming “faggot” in here was you.

      … along with a few other choice homophobic epithets line “Limp sicked tranny whore”, and “nellie”.

      Scroll thorough this thread:
      http://www.queerty.com/but-what-do-famous-lesbians-cynthia-nixon-rosie-think-about-carrie-prejean-20090429/#comments

      Do a bit of research and you’ll will see that what I am saying is true. But then you have never been one to let reality get in the way of a good insult.

      May 7, 2009 at 2:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      That’s right. And Patty had it coming because she’s a toxic FAGGOT! And no, the antifeminist theory that stone age tribes were matriarchies, or even that a significant number of them were–is an outdated 19th century theory that has been refuted by anthropologists since the fifties. Your contention that women civilized men and are responsible for the creation of organized society just doesn’t hold up against the truth that it wasn’t women–who had no social power to CONTROL MEN–but agricultural revolutions, domestication of livestock, and farm tech that made food sources more plentiful and easier to distribute. It’s like you’re impaired or something to fail to understand that.

      Egyptian society wasn’t a matriarchy, and women didn’t have anywhere near the same social status as men. Historical facts vindicate the mass subjugation of women by men throughout human history–their property status, and lack of social power. Legal status does not invalidate sexism, dunce.

      Gender is a social construct, too, strumpet. Aware of that, old timer? And gender roles are enforced by those that benefit from them–men, particularly straight men who defined them.

      May 7, 2009 at 2:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      And nice of you to try to label me sexist while you argue that women couldn’t possibly have discovered anything because they were just possessions.

      You may not be the sharpest knife when it comes to logical arguments (or recognizing facts when they are put in front of you), but you’re quite adept at talking out of both sides of your mouth.

      And long before gender roles became a social construct they were the product of some practical social realities – like not chasing down animals when you are nine months pregnant, or fighting off enemies when you needed all your food energy to nurse babies.

      But go ahead and call me sexist for pointing out that superfluous fact.

      May 7, 2009 at 3:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      And the fact that most tribal societies were matriarchies is antifeminist, you say?

      Please…. I want to hear how you explain that steaming pile of shit you are trying to pass of as a logical fact.

      May 7, 2009 at 3:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      Oh please, you’re an ass. I thoroughly refuted your contention that women are responsible for the creation of civlization and civlized men (whateverthefuck that means…got them to stop raping and warring? That it? Settle down and create society? Naaaaaa, that was, once gain dope, the domestication of livestock and improvements in farming that occurred with the agricultural revolutions) as we understand it, and that women had social power over men in creating the gendered division of labor in stone age tribal societies…men created that division of labor to benefit men. Your desperate attempts to defend sexism have all failed…the facts you speak of don’t eradicate sexism (which you probably think doesn’t exist, and are informed by the likes of rush limbaugh).

      And now you’re saying that gender roles are innate. Well, sorry, women as property is not innate…and many tribal societies had women doing what other tribal societies only reserved for men. So your practical realities bullshit has a limit.

      Once again, most tribal societies in human history were not matriarchies, but patriarchies. That means that the social power was reserved for the males…do you even understand that much? Paternity was rarely if ever ignored, and conferred status upon the children in tribal societies.

      May 7, 2009 at 3:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      What’s a logical fact? Oh, you mean a fact! don’t use words like “logic”. You don’t know what it means, and it’s offensive to me. For that matter, stay away from “mathematics” and “mathematical”, “economics”, “history,” and “philosophy,” too…and if you could limit “physics” to physical…that’d be helpful.

      May 7, 2009 at 3:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      But I’m not arguing that women were property in most tribal societies. Please don’t try to hold me responsible for your arguments.

      @TANK:
      You just said that the theory that stone age tribes were matriarchal is anti-feminist.

      Never mind that a great number of tribal societies ARE matriarchal and matrilineal (even if you do not recognize the truth).

      Please explain the so-called logic behind your claim.

      May 7, 2009 at 3:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      But I’m not arguing that women were property in most tribal societies. Please don’t try to hold me responsible for your arguments.

      Right, I am. And I’m not arguing it; it’s a fact.

      You just said that the theory that stone age tribes were matriarchal is anti-feminist.

      It’s false, and it’s antifeminist. It’s a meme that’s been circulating since the nineteenth century…thoroughly refuted.

      Never mind that a great number of tribal societies ARE matriarchal and matrilineal (even if you do not recognize the truth).

      I disagree. Most tribal societies that exist today are not matriarchical or matrilineal. They’re patrilineal and patriarchies–from the societies in the amazon river basin to those tribes in papua new guinea (which I wish you’d go visit actually…to verify whether or not you taste like chicken). Most tribal societies were patriarchies, too…there’s no reason to believe that they weren’t by offering a small handful of matriarchies that are also tribal societies.

      May 7, 2009 at 3:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @TANK:
      Too bad. I was really hoping to hear how you intended to spin that one.

      You don’t back up any of your arguments, and you refuse to even consider evidence or recognize facts when they are put in front of you.

      All I can say is for anyone else reading this to go back and evaluate what I have presented for themselves, because there is no talking sense to you whatsoever.

      May 7, 2009 at 4:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marko
      Marko

      @John Santos: It is just toooo funny when someone blast another for not checking facts, and then has to eat shit over it….santo, go back and look at #113 from Tank The Loose Cannon, and you’ll see that your rebuttal to Mommam …”No one said anything about his wife. Maybe you should read all the posts before responding”… is just pure stupid. Maybe you should read all the posts before responding.

      Everyone knows that insulting someone you’ve never met is a great way to make a point, but, really…

      In #123 you said gay men are the perfect males? Mother nature isn’t about to creat a “perfect” creature that refuses to procreate.

      May 7, 2009 at 4:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @Marko:

      Marko, you know that is not what he meant. And that argument about procreation is a bit silly when you consider that many of the churches that use it have celibate clergy, and assume the fellow they worship also did not have any children.

      Sorry, but “go forth and multiply” is not one of your 10 commandments, and it does not mean breed like rats until you kill your entire species and take half the earth with you.

      If there is a god I think s/he expects slightly more mature accomplishments from us – unless we’re just being raised to make soylent green.

      May 7, 2009 at 5:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John Santos
      John Santos

      @Marko:

      It is just toooo funny when someone blast another for not checking facts, and then has to eat shit over it….

      Get your knife and fork ready, then.

      santo, go back and look at #113 from Tank The Loose Cannon, and you’ll see that your rebuttal to Mommam …”No one said anything about his wife. Maybe you should read all the posts before responding”… is just pure stupid. Maybe you should read all the posts before responding.

      Please show me where I wrote anything about your wife. You claimed I said you raped your wife. Pleas provide the comment number, or post the words that you claim I wrote.

      Everyone knows that insulting someone you’ve never met is a great way to make a point, but, really…

      You should know, Marko, all you’ve done is insult and malign since you got here.

      In #123 you said gay men are the perfect males?

      Yep. And we are. We are nurturing; compassionate; capable of feeling empathy; and not afraid to take on what your society has deemed “womanly” functions such as care giving; child raising; nursing; not to mention a number of fashion related occupations.

      Mother nature isn’t about to creat a “perfect” creature that refuses to procreate.

      Mother nature? Really? Mr. 2 college degrees actually used the phrase, “mother nature”? What are you, like 9? This isn’t romper room and there is no such thing as a “mother nature.”

      Using your failed logic, “mother nature” wouldn’t create heterosexuals who refuse procreate–nor heterosexuals who CANNOT procreate. Yet it happens every day.

      How’s that shit taste, Marko?

      And I’m still waiting for your proof that those 6 fossilized footprints belonged to a man, woman and child as you claimed.

      May 7, 2009 at 5:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @strumpetwindsock:

      Yes, they can. And hopefully, they will…to see how you’re denying sexism, and trying to make gender and gender roles which perpetuate it innate.

      May 7, 2009 at 5:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John Santos
      John Santos

      @Marko:

      Marko, You addressed me in comment number:

      No. 109 · Marko

      That I had said you raped your wife:

      @John Santos…As far as me raping my wife, fuck you.

      You posted this comment on:

      Posted: May 6, 2009 at 11:45 pm · @Reply · [Flag?]

      And I pointed out to MommaM after she wrote in comment number:

      No. 120 · MommaM

      @Marko…The comment about your wife, was totally uncalled for!

      You both claimed I made the comment that you raped your wife. I pointed out in my reply to MommaM:

      No. 124 · John Santos

      @MommaM…The comment about your wife, was totally uncalled for!

      No one said anything about his wife. Maybe you should read all the posts before responding.

      And I stand by that reply. Both you and MommaM claimed I said you raped your wife. And I stated that no one said anything about your wife. I speak for myself. If TANK cares to reiterate what he wrote, that is his prerogative. But I never wrote anything about your wife.

      You’re trying to tie my comments with TANK either because you are willfully ignorant, or you are simply too lazy to hit the @Reply button more often than once. Either way, you made an accusation that I said you raped your wife, which is patently false.

      May 7, 2009 at 5:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      ha ha ha, marko contrived the accusation that he raped his wife. Got it out of thin air. I said, to his accusation “stop raping your wife”–I didn’t accuse him of it…

      That’s interesting, though.

      May 7, 2009 at 5:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marko
      Marko

      @John Santos: Your comment was “No one said anything about his wife”. yes, tank did. She is a very fine person, and such a cheap shot only speaks to his miserable, dark character for saying it, and yours for backing him up.

      What is so odd to me is that I know several openly gay people, and probably few that aren’t so open, and none of them display the hypocrisy, vulgarity, and complete lack of class that you do. I guess I’ll just have to wonder if those people are just acting nice when someone unlike them is around. I’ve never seen such an intolerant bunch.

      I guess that I shouldn’t have used the phrase “mother nature” with someone with so little imagination. It’s a figure of speech referring to the totality of evolution / biology / nature / nurture and anything else that adds up to what we are.

      The footprints came from a Scientific American article several years ago about the 1978 discovery by Mary Leaky of fossilized homind footprints, at Laetoli in Tanzania, that were about 3.5 million years old.

      May 7, 2009 at 6:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marko
      Marko

      @TANK: Telling someone to stop doing something IS an accusation that they were doing it in the first place.

      Santos -Let’s go with your buddy tanks’ thinking from 151; I never directly said that you said it, inference doesn’t count. ha ha ha.

      May 7, 2009 at 6:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Marko:

      But it was in response (which means it was AFTER) to your false accusation that john santos accused you of raping your wife.

      May 7, 2009 at 6:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      mother nature=skydaddy.

      May 7, 2009 at 6:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      but it’s a guilty conscience that causes one to think that others are accusing one of things one may be guilty of…when no accusation was made…hmmmm…

      May 7, 2009 at 6:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John Santos
      John Santos

      @Marko:

      Your comment was “No one said anything about his wife”. yes, tank did.

      Yes; TANK, not I as you claimed in comment number 109

      She is a very fine person,

      How’d she end up with you? Did she lose a bet?

      and such a cheap shot only speaks to his miserable, dark character for saying it, and yours for backing him up.

      Again, where did I say you rape your wife and where did I back up anyone’s assertion that you do?

      What is so odd to me is that I know several openly gay people, and probably few that aren’t so open,

      Of course you do, Marko. People like you always have lots of gay friends. The problem is no one ever sees you with your friends.

      and none of them display the hypocrisy, vulgarity, and complete lack of class that you do.

      Do you treat them like second class citizens the way you have the people on this blog? Do you say to them,

      You people are so fu^cked-up…the intolerance you show for her opinion (which most Americans share) makes you all sound like a gang of bigoted and hypocritical fools…spreading your bile around on a website populated mostly with similar-minded idiots…Too bad so many of you hate women…Maybe you need a woman to teach you some manners.

      Of course you don’t. You’re a coward who hides behind a nic on a blog and talks trash. You wouldn’t have the balls to say anything to someone’s face, like the garbage you write here.

      I guess I’ll just have to wonder if those people are just acting nice when someone unlike them is around.

      Much like they have to wonder if you’re just acting nice when someone unlike you is around. The only difference is, we have evidence of what you really think of all your gay “friends”.

      I’ve never seen such an intolerant bunch.

      Since I’m sure you hang around like minded people, I’m sure you believe your anti-gay attitudes are normal. Now that your bias has been exposed to the world and yourself, you’re starting to see that you are in th minority here and it makes you angry and so you lash out.

      I guess that I shouldn’t have used the phrase “mother nature” with someone with so little imagination.

      You shouldn’t use the phrase mother nature when discussing something such as the topic at hand. Especially after you spent paragraphs bragging about how smart, well degreed and accomplished you are. It takes very little imagination to use infantile phrases, but a heap more to talk like an adult. You’ve proven which group you fall into, Marko.

      It’s a figure of speech referring to the totality of evolution / biology / nature / nurture and anything else that adds up to what we are.

      It’s absurd and shows how lazy your thinking process is. There is no such thing as “mother nature.” Don’t speak in intangibles an expect to be taken seriously as an adult.

      The footprints came from a Scientific American article several years ago about the 1978 discovery by Mary Leaky of fossilized homind footprints, at Laetoli in Tanzania, that were about 3.5 million years old.

      So in other words, a decades old article that cannot be substantiated, or readily viewed by anyone?

      Fortunately, we have Google:

      Mary Leaky made an assumption about the owners of the footprints based on the fossilized bones lying near the place of the prints:

      I can only assume that the prints were left by the hominids whose fossils we also found in the beds. In addition to part of a child’s skeleton, we uncovered adult remains—two lower jaws, a section of upper jaw, and a number of teeth.

      Nothing there about finding a man, woman and child’s prints in tandem, as you claimed, Marko. Adult remains. Not male and female remains. For all we know they could have been the first family with two mommies.

      The only place where she mentioned gender, was in discussing baboon foot prints:

      But the footprints are visible in their plenitude. Countless hares have pocked the ash with their distinctive hopping pattern. Baboon prints lie in profusion; all we have found possess a narrow heel similar to those of smaller present-day females.

      National Geographic, April 1979.

      http://tinyurl.com/c5p6pp

      It was later that Mary Leaky imparted a “family” structure on those prints, but only because she wanted to see it as such:

      In 1978 Mary Leakey found a trail of clear ancient hominid footprints of two adults and a child – some 3.5 million years old – impressed and preserved in volcanic ash from a site in Tanzania called Laetoli. They belonged to a new hominid species, best represented by the 3.2 million-year-old Lucy skeleton, which was found at Hadar, Ethiopia, by Donald Johanson . “It is tempting to see them as a man, a woman and a child,” Mary Leakey later wrote.

      There was no evidence that that was a mod, dad and child as you so arrogantly proclaimed. Then again, any man who throws around the phrase “mother nature” can’t be expected to have rational thought.

      May 7, 2009 at 7:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andramata
      Andramata

      The honor the sanctity of marriage, the honorable institution of marriage. Meanwhile, Her parents got divorced! Her mother thinks her father is gay! Los Vagas and brittney getting married and divorced in a day! but it’s an honorable institution! She is a mess! it’s not even her talking someone is writing all this stuff for her. She is mad cause her father is gay! According to her mother! So she doesn’t want to see that in her family cause she is hurt! Poor putty kat.

      May 8, 2009 at 5:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marko
      Marko

      @John Santos: WOW. That is really impressive! You can actually take a writing, break out each sentence to completely remove context, spin it to mean whatever you wish, and then reply to your own mean-spirited interpretation. That is a fine talent! I’m sure your mother would be very proud! Plus, its’ a real energy saver; you don’t have to burn any calories producing an actually intelligent thought. Just nag away! Very clever. I mean it. Really.

      You keep harping on me and my life, and so far you are 100% wrong. The really funny thing is that I have nothing against gay people, or any other group for that matter. I only care about a persons character, unlike you.

      Carrie has the same right to her beliefs that you have to yours, but I guess you can never open your mind enough to understand that. I’m just glad that all gay people aren’t straight-haters like you.

      A.M.F

      May 8, 2009 at 10:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John Santos
      John Santos

      @Marko:

      WOW. That is really impressive! You can actually take a writing, break out each sentence to completely remove context, spin it to mean whatever you wish, and then reply to your own mean-spirited interpretation.

      What I love about your replies, Marko, is how you can present a weak argument, provide zero facts to back up your argument; side-step questions put to you directly and still claim you presented a coherent argument.

      What you call spin, I call providing facts. What you call context, I call childish meandering, useless analogies and hopelessly outdated ideas.

      Provide some facts! Provide some context–please!

      As far as mean-spirited, have another look at your words, Marko:

      You people are so fu^cked-up…the intolerance you show for her opinion (which most Americans share) makes you all sound like a gang of bigoted and hypocritical fools…spreading your bile around on a website populated mostly with similar-minded idiots…Too bad so many of you hate women…Maybe you need a woman to teach you some manners.

      That is a fine talent! I’m sure your mother would be very proud!

      And she didn’t even have to waste money getting me 2 college degrees.

      Plus, its’ a real energy saver; you don’t have to burn any calories

      Your method expends even fewer calories, Marko! You don’t bother to reply to any questions, or provide a logical argument. You just keep replying in your whiny victim voice.

      producing an actually intelligent thought. Just nag away! Very clever. I mean it. Really.

      Until you provide one shred of fact to back up your opinions, your opinion won’t matter.

      You keep harping on me and my life,

      Hey, college boy, you bragged about how smart, and educated, and well rounded you are. I merely pointed out that clearly, yours was a wasted education if this is the only level of discourse you’re capable of providing.

      and so far you are 100% wrong.

      No. It’s quite apparent that I’ve hit a raw nerve. Clearly I’m right.

      The really funny thing is that I have nothing against gay people,

      Of course you do. If you didn’t you would not have written this:

      You people are so fu^cked-up.

      You came here looking to denigrate gay people and when we didn’t back down, you turned into a petulant child having a temper tantrum.

      or any other group for that matter. I only care about a persons character, unlike you.

      You know nothing of character, lacking it in yourself, Marko.

      Carrie has the same right to her beliefs that you have to yours,

      And just as Ms. Prejean has a right to air her beliefs, I do too. If you can tolerate her comments, you sure as hell better tolerate mine–as I have yours.

      but I guess you can never open your mind enough to understand that.

      I’ve debated you endlessly. Clearly my mind is wide open. You however have dug your heels in and refuse to see a side that you disagree with.

      I’m just glad that all gay people aren’t straight-haters like you.

      And I’m glad that all straights are not ignorant, biased, bigots like you. Fortunately you are in the minority and the side of right will win the day.

      May 9, 2009 at 12:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Carl
      Carl

      “It doesn’t make sense for conservative groups to hire her to speak when she’s a web a hypocrisies: traditional values good and gay marriage bad, but posing for naked photos … good? ”

      it’s not fair for people to call her action hypocritical. First of, expecting a Christian to be free of fault and sin is unreasonable. yes, she did fall short of what’s expected of her as a Christian but that does not mean she cannot stand up for her moral beliefs.

      May 9, 2009 at 4:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Me
      Me

      You people are such hypocrites. I am not gonna comment on the thing about her pictures or any of that. I am simply saying that this country is built on simple freedoms, like oh i don’t know freedom of speech. Everytime anyone says anything about liberal ideals the first reply is always freedom of speech. The woman spoke her mind and honestly answered the question. She is entitled to her opinion. She should not be crucified for using this freedom. This country is going downhill faster than i like to think, and the most of the people that have commented on this post are the problem. You only want freedoms and rights when they benefit your view point and noone is allowed to differ in opinion. HYPOCRITES

      May 11, 2009 at 3:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TANK
      TANK

      @Carl:

      But carl, why is she such a whore? I mean, what next? Gangbang videos where she’s the star? Bukkake? I mean this is simply unbefitting of a christian woman…but more to the point, it’s probably in violation of the pageant rules, as others have been STRIPPED for similar offenses before who weren’t…dirty little christian whores.

      May 11, 2009 at 8:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BYINTRIGUE
      BYINTRIGUE

      Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos.
      Some models are famous for their lingerie and swimwear photos.

      May 11, 2011 at 7:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

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



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    !-- Sailthru Horizon -->
    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.