Time for the Queerty weekend post with FIVE of the most compelling, thought-provoking (or just down-right bitchy) comments that came directly from you!
1. Damn, what will we have left!? I like to identify as “queer” because it fits more of a culture and feels more transgressive. If we get rid of all this stuff we might as well be straight. If you get offended by these things, especially when gay people use them, you are probably struggling with your own internal homophobia. God forbid some one refers to you with the female pronoun! Some one might think you are gay!
–Tim embraces the term on 8 More Queer Terms That Need to Go Right Now
2. I’m behind Dan on this one. Any relationship that I’ve been in has been monogamous, but couples should have the ability to openly negotiate the level of monogamy they want in their relationship. Any victories won on the basis of parading out the well-groomed coached heteronormative gay couples and hiding away non-heteronormative partnerships like Dan’s are no victories at all.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
–Paul wants marriage to be a negotiation on David Badash: Dan Savage’s Open Marriage Will Set Back The Entire Marriage-Equality Movement
3. Alright, I’m an Asian male… it doesn’t make me an expert by any means, but I do have some insight to some of the ugly truths about the situation.
It’s a simple fact that, of people who hold a bias in their preferences. Race wise, non-whites tend to get a shitty deal because we do sometimes get lumped together. But, you know what the good thing is? The amount of people who “aren’t into asians” has decreased by an immense amount, at least from what I have experienced. I can’t speak for any of the other minorities because I don’t have that first hand experience but I’m 27 now and things have drastically changed since I was 18. And it’s not just based on my own perception. People are getting more open minded as time goes on, isn’t that the good news we should focus on? It sucks we can’t get what we want sometimes, but to become enraged over that fact seems a little pointless to me. Yes, the media has its bias. We’ve all seen the Abercrombie ads with the hot white boys and their friends: the freckled girl and the black guy.
In media, things have been progressing at a pace that can’t really be called progression. And yet, society is the one that drives what the media shows. Like I said before, I’ve noticed that things have been getting better for my asian brothers and I where I am. Of all of them, I’m the only one in a committed relationship (Polish, Native American and Spanish… hell fucking yeah) the rest of them are single and, trust me, it’s by choice. Life doesn’t reflect media and it never has. Whether it’s body type, hair color or race, it’s never been an accurate cross-section of the population or even the desires of the population. It’s becoming less and less so, we all know this.
So seriously, relax. Take a breath. And when Friday comes, put on that shirt you know you look hot in and go find yourself a man who thinks you’re sexy as hell. There are too many out there to bother with the few who see things only in black and white.
–Jon does not waste his time with racists on Now There’s A Place To Publicly Humiliate Grindr Douchebags
4. DOMA and DADT are conjoined like Siamese Twins. Both may survive the legal scalpel of judicial surgery, but one or both might die in the process as well.
If DADT appeal goes forth, that could negatively impact and set a very bad precedent in DOMA if the Supreme Court finds that the Gay and Lesbian community is not entitled to “heightened scrutiny” and 14th Amendment equal protection or even Fifth Amendment due process protections in DADT. In view of those consequences, DOMA should have gone first as the Supreme Court has historically sided with the military on administrative proceedings.
By the way, Justice Kagan (for all you Democratic loyalists who think that Democratic federal court appointees are referable to Republicans appointed judges such as Anthony Kennedy who wrote the majority decisions in Lawrence -v- Texas (striking down the sodomy laws) and in Romer -v- Evans (striking down anti-gay Amendment 2 in Colorado) …just remember what Kagan stupidly said during her confirmation hearing about DOMA, “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”
–Rainfish gives us a legal breakdown on BREAKING: Obama Supports DOMA Repeal
5. OK, I can see you guys need some lessons in Prostitution-101.
– Be smart in avoiding legal entanglements: do your homework (Google, dudes) to find out how things work in the state where you’re living or visiting. Most pros can come to an agreement without saying/doing anything that could later be used against you or them. I learned from one guy that he goes for a deep wet kiss and mutual-hands-down-pants groping at the front door, because cops won’t get physical like that.
– No guys under 30. This helps avoid kids/guys who are selling sex because they have no other alternatives. If you do meet a sad case, young or old, be human and remember how lucky you are. Decline the sex and pay them the $ for showing up.
– For safety, let someone know what you’re up to. I usually let my husband know (of course, that also means I’m then expected to provide details after the fact!)
– Trust your gut. If someone shows up and you get a bad vibe, just tell them you changed your mind, pay them, and send them on their way. $200-400 is a small price to pay to avoid a bad scene, a mugging, and/or a bashing.
– Lock valuables up in hotel safe, if possible. If not, then put into locked or closed luggage. If I don’t know a guy, I don’t leave him alone with my stuff or my shaving kit (prescription drugs, “herbal” remedies.) If this is at your home, keep ‘em close.
– Sorry, but no porn stars. Generally, but not always, porn stars are just not as fun. They’re used to being ogled, chased, and worshipped. You’re the guy who’s paying, you should be the star of the show.
– Regulars. When you and the guy get along and have fun in bed, repeat performances can be spectacular. They learn how to push your buttons, and you learn what gets them engaged/excited. I always ask the generic question, “do you like repeat clients or do you prefer one-timers?” This gives the guy a graceful way of out if he’s not into you as a client.
– Don’t be an effing cheapskate. A great non-sexual massage can easily run a $100, so getting naked and wet ought to go for a significant premium. And tips! Just as you would tip the wait-staff at a great restaurant for great service, give a great tip to the guy who just rocked your world.
As to comments about the johns and prostitutes being lowlifes, breaking the law, exploiting people, etc.? I find those attitudes naive and provincial. There are bad johns, bad hustlers, bad cops, bad judges, bad politicians, bad preachers, and bad meter maids, to name a few. Exploitive lowlifes exist in every form, in every profession, and are simply a part of our world.
The “it’s illegal” argument holds no sway. Gay sex was illegal – the laws were on the books even if they were not enforced – in the majority of the US until Lawrence v. Texas, 2003, but I’ve been rolling around naked with guys since the 80?s. I was also known to drive 60 in 55mph zones on flat straight middle-of-nowhere freeways. Sometimes the law is stupid and deserves no respect.
–JohnJohn breaks the law on If You’ve Ever Paid For A Prostitute, You’ll Probably Commit A Felony At Some Point
Don't forget to share:
RealityCheck
I question people who believe monogamy is a characteristic of heteronormativity. Open heterosexual relationships are less uncommon in some countries. And if we’re speaking in historical terms, bigamy and concubinage were, and continue to be in some places, fairly common. The truth is that monogamy has nothing to do with heterosexuality or heteronormativity. Anyone who speaks about monogamy with disdain (such as referring to monogamous couples as “coached”) are no better than people who speak about open relationships with disgust. You don’t have to approve of it or participate it in, but at least respect the humanity of the couple and their freedom to choose how to live their own lives.
Also, I agree that “queer” should be here to stay. Reclaim it from homophobes and make it our own.
delurker
Rainfish is a conservoqueer. Who cares what he says? When the DOMA case is before the SC, it will be upheld by the USSC by a vote of 5-4, with all the Repub appointees voting to uphold it and all the Dem appointees voting to strike it down. If the make up the court does not change before the case is heard, you can take this prediction to the bank.
And Rainfish is kinda dumb. Don’t feature his idiotic comments anymore. Ok?
TheRealMannequinAdam
The selections here just reflect the biases of this blog. It’s the reason I’ve being going elsewhere and stopped coming here. This biases are just too much.
Don Gaudard
Excuse me, but Justice Kagan is right. I am a retired law professor who wrote the first gay rights ordinance to pass in the US in 1972 in East Lansing, Michigan.
There is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. However, there is a constitutional right to marriage by same-sex couples. Those 2 sentences are not inconsistent.
Chitown Kev
@Don Gaudard:
But assuming that we are talking about the federal Constitution, there isn’t a right to opposite sex marriage either, right?
J. Bocca
WTF why is someone considered racist if they have a preference for thier sexual partners???? Isn’t that the whole reason gay people fight for their rights? To have the freedom to choose their sexual partners? I mean if im not sexually attracted to someone should I just sleep with them just so that it won’t make me look “racist”? Someone please explain this to me. Also why just stop at race, what about fat, old, or just plain ugly people?
Brian Miller
There is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. However, there is a constitutional right to marriage by same-sex couples. Those 2 sentences are not inconsistent.
ROFL, this is the kind of meaningless pedantic parsing that only a lawyer could love. 😉
Steve
@Chitown Kev: Exactly. And hopefully, if it comes to that, said point will be made. There is no constitutional right to any kind of marriage. However, if you are going to offer a public institution, you must offer it to all of the public (to a reasonable extent.)
TJ
I have to agree that Rainfish’s comment is, in general, very uninformed. First of all, the DADT repeal is now dead in the courts– the issue is moot. No court would ever decide to hear a case where relief cannot be issued. That’s not opinion, that’s just what happens.
Next, anybody who thinks that anything said in a confirmation hearing reflects real-life beliefs, sentiments, or jurisprudence isn’t paying any attention. Alito and Roberts were asked about Roe v. Wade and back then they pretended to be preeeetttyyy cool with “precedent”. Would they hesitate, even for a moment, to strike it down? I think we know the answer to that question. (Hint: they wouldn’t). Same applies with Kagan on the question of SSM– she was facing a GOP filibuster if she answered anything but what she did at the time. You can’t take that answer seriously.
For the record, Kennedy and O’Connor TOGETHER were great Republican centrists, and lead the court to issue some great decisions. However, Connor’s influence on Kennedy is now gone, and Kennedy has swung rightwards with the rest of his GOP colleagues. However, none of the court’s left have ever voted against gay and lesbian rights (if you ignore the Hurley, which could be argued was a first amendment case). So yea, I think our faith is fairly well placed in regards to court appointees.
Rainfish
I have to agree that TJs’s comment is, in general, very uninformed. If the LCR presses the 9th circuit on the constitutionality of DADT, which is still technically in effect until the end of September (remember there are still more hearings scheduled in the 9th Circuit regarding it), it could go to the Supreme Court for a definitive decision on whether DADT could ever again be enforced or reactivated by a gay unfriendly congress or whether it was ever constitution in the first place.
For example: A store puts up a sign (pre-1964) that says:”No Blacks Allowed in restaurants in our city”. It goes to court to determine if that is constitutional, but during the hearing a Race-friendly city council passes an ordinance that says “Ok, Blacks are allowed in restaurants in our city”. Even with that, there is no reliable assurance that a Race-unfriendly city council could come back into power and reverse the non-discrimination ordinance previously passed without a definitive court ruling from a federal court, especially from the Supreme Court. And yes, even an act of Congress can be reversed.
Besides, Gay and Lesbian civil rights protections were removed from the Bill, at Obama’s insistence. Meaning, if one does face discrimination because one is Gay or Lesbian in the Armed Services there is no place to turn for equal justice. That may be a separate litigation, but, if a non-discrimination policy is not enacted, the ol’ “Gays in the Military” thing is sure to go to the Supreme Court one way or another.
“…Patrick Murphy (D-PA) tried to explain why advocates of DADT repeal ultimately bargained away the requirement that the Pentagon implement a new nondiscrimination policy after lifting the ban against open-service. The provision — which would specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation — was part of Murphy’s initial amendment but was later removed to improve the chances of passage, as the former Congressman described it. Gay rights leaders are now pressuring President Obama to issue an executive order instituting a nondiscrimination policy to ensure that gay troops have the same rights and protections as straight service members.”
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/02/14/177256/discrimination-murphy/
taylorL
what’s grindr?
Rainfish
@delurker:who moronically wrote:
“Rainfish is a conservoqueer.”
Wrong. I never voted once in my life for a Republican.
——————————
delurker: “Who cares what he says? When the DOMA case is before the SC, it will be upheld by the USSC by a vote of 5-4, with all the Repub appointees voting to uphold it and all the Dem appointees voting to strike it down. If the make up the court does not change before the case is heard, you can take this prediction to the bank.”
——————————
What, did you pull those tea leaves out of your ass to read them? You have no idea. Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion striking down the nation’s sodomy laws and the anti-gay Amendment 2 in Colorado, and he is a Republican — try reading a book once in while. Besides, Kagan (Obama’s appointee) has indicated she might recuse herself from DOMA and/or DADT should/if they ever reach the court because of her role as solicitor general in the Obama administration which defended both of those human rights violating laws.
So, if that was the case and it was a split decision (4 to 4), then it would revert back to the lower federal court and its last ruling — pro or con. In most instances, like in Prop 8, that would limit the court’s ruling to that particular federal district.
—————-
delurker:“And Rainfish is kinda dumb. Don’t feature his idiotic comments anymore. Ok?”
————-
Yes, of course, my opinions should be banned because you are intellectually incapable of comprehending them.
Uh huh…
Rainfish
@TJ: who wrote: “However, none of the court’s left have ever voted against gay and lesbian rights.”
—————
…Oh, Really?
“The majority opinion in Bowers, written by Justice Byron White, framed the legal question as whether the constitution confers “a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.” Justice White’s opinion for the majority answered this question in the negative, stating that “to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ is, at best, facetious.”
Byron Raymond “Whizzer” White (June 8, 1917 – April 15, 2002). Appointed to the court by President John F. Kennedy in 1962.
Later, in 2003, Republican appointee, Anthony Kennedy, wrote the majority decision in Lawrence v. Texas (striking down the nation’s sodomy laws) reversing the Democratic appointee, Justice White’s previous majority decision (Bowers v. Hardwick) which upheld sodomy laws as constitutional.
Supreme Court Anthony Kennedy wrote: “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.”
Oh, and I think that Justice Kennedy, even without your alleged “influence” of his Svengali, Justice O’Connor, will still be fair considering his past favorable rulings for the Gay community. By the way, Justice O’Connor originally voted for upholding the Sodomy laws with White, before she later voted against them with Kennedy when it was later revisited. So, I wonder who really influenced whom? Maybe Kennedy was the moderating influence on O’Connor, instead of the other way around.
delurker
@Rainfish: you’re gonna have egg on your face when your gay rights hero Kennedy votes with the 4 other conservative Republican goons to uphold DOMA haha
Rainfish
@delurker: We’ll see…
By the way, he should be your “gay rights” hero too. Read his pro-gay rights decisions sometime. They are inspiring.
==============
Colorado’s Amendment 2
The case was argued on October 10, 1995. On May 20, 1996, the court ruled 6-3 that Colorado’s Amendment 2 was unconstitutional, though on different reasoning than the Colorado courts.
Justice Anthony Kennedy (Republican Appointee) wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by John Paul Stevens (Republican Appointee – one of the most liberal members of the Supreme Court), Sandra Day O’Connor (Republican Appointee), David Souter (Republican Appointee), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Democratic Appointee), and Stephen Breyer (Democratic Appointee).
“Rejecting the state’s argument that Amendment 2 merely blocked gay people from receiving “special rights”, Kennedy wrote:
“To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.”
Kennedy argued that protection offered by antidiscrimination laws was not a “special right” because they protected fundamental rights already enjoyed by all other citizens.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans
(hmmmmmm….is my math off or were four of the six pro-gay rights justices…uh…should I said it…REPUBLICAN?)
——————–
Also, a gay Republican appointee, you might have heard of him, Judge Walker (nominated to the federal bench in 1989 by George H.W. Bush) was the federal judge who struck down Prop 8. in California.
I reiterate, I have voted for Democrats all of my life (I’ve since switched my registration to Independent after the Democrats’ foot-dragging on DADT, ENDA, DOMA and the Uniting American Families Act, etc…and, of course, Obama’s stupid remark about “Gawd is in the mix” at only heterosexual weddings, and not at GLBT weddings…well, I could not in good conscience vote for him because that is something McCain didn’t even say…although, I would never vote for ol’ Grampa Munster McCain either.)
Still, to the point, I hate it when Obots insist that no Republican had ever done a damn thing for the GLBT community. I hate lies. Sure, most of them are hate-mongering cretins, but every once in a while, a good one slips through.
delurker
@Rainfish: Ok, you are really stupid. The queerty editors better be regretting featuring your asinine comment.
The CURRENT court, you moron, will be deciding the DOMA case, not a bunch of retired justices. Souter (liberal), O’Connor (moderate), and Stevens (liberal) are retired. Two far right anti-gay conservatives are now on the court (Alito and Roberts) and along with Thomas (conservative) and Scalia (utlraconservative).
There are four liberal Democrats on the bench. Kennedy will vote with the ultraconservatives this time. He’s gone that far to the right.
Yeah, Souter and Steven were nominated by Republicans but they were solidly liberal justices. Republicans hated them for that reason. Republicans/conservatives still hate George Bush for nominating Souter, as they do Eisenhower for nominating Earl Warren (pro civil rights and defendants rights).
delurker
Oh, I get it you are disgruntled PUMA who’s mad Hilldawg didn’t get the nomination. Still nursing that butthurt, I see. LOL.
delurker's brain
@delurker: Oh, hang it up already, imbecile. I ask you “delurker” (fitting handle for a troll) did any of your mother’s children live? Apparently, anyone who tries to educate a moron like you is “stupid”. Go flame somewhere else troll.
delurker
@delurker’s brain: I don’t know what the hell Rainfish is trying to do, but I certainly wouldn’t called it “educating”!
delurker's brain
@delurker: That is because you (delurker) are a hopeless cause.
Sebizzar
I’m not sure why but i’m finding this really funny lol xD
delurker
@delurker’s brain: you’re as big a dumbass as he is. back on topic, do you really think the kennedy of 2011 will rule to strike down DOMA? hah, you are deluded if you think that. he’s firmly in the conservo-goon squad with the other four cavemen on the right side.
delurker's brain
@delurker:
“delurker” dumbassedly wrote: “The CURRENT court, you moron, will be deciding the DOMA case, not a bunch of retired justices.”
=================
Well, duuuuuhhh! You were never the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree were you, pus-buckets? I believe “Rainfish” made it perfectly clear that he was talking about how really stupid Obots like you drop a load in your breeches every time you “think” and….here it comes… a Republican…oh, lordy!…might be nominated to the Supreme Court. It was a history lesson for others who know how to keep a discussion civil, and even for illiterates such as you. He mentioned the current court makeup in the original post and possible outcomes regarding that and DOMA. Get someone to read it for you sometime, so you don’t have to chap your lips.
Kagan was ALSO mentioned as possibly not a reliable vote (in the original post by “Rainfish” in Queerty’s shout-out) – she IS on the current court, moron.
So, take remedial reading lessons next time, “delurker”, before you are tempted to dump on your betters, you half-wit.
delurker's brain
@delurker: Hey, and by the way, stop arguing with your “Brain”. You only have two neurons left, don’t abuse them!
delurker
@delurker’s brain: lol another disguntled hilltard. she will never be president haha! kagan will rule to strike down DOMA. your and rainfish’s shit-for-brains “analysis” (trig palin has a better handle on these issues that both of you! maybe he can explain it to you) doesn’t change that. you pea-brained queers are soo funny. 🙂
delurker's brain
@delurker: Ok, you are now down to one single Obot neuron. Please! I implore you to stop, “delurker”! Get your head out of your ass, the fumes are killing your brain!
…And you kiss your mother/sister/cousin with THAT mouth back down in the trailer-park in Arkansas? Well, at least you stopped frenching your Dad.