Tag Archives: sexuality

On Jodie Foster and ‘privacy’ vs. shame

This image released by NBC shows Jodie Foster, recipient of the Cecil B. Demille Award, during the 70th Annual Golden Globe Awards at the Beverly Hilton Hotel on Jan. 13, 2013, in Beverly Hills, Calif. (AP Photo/NBC, Paul Drinkwater)

NBC/Associated Press photo

Actress Jodie Foster kind of officially, publicly came out of the closet the other night when she accepted an award at the Golden Globe Awards. Thankfully, the 50-year-old Foster’s apparent shame over her sexual orientation is rarer in our youthful non-heterosexuals today — no thanks to Foster, of course.

I don’t want this to be a repeat of what I wrote about lesbian astronaut Sally Ride’s posthumous outing in July, so I’ll quote what others have said about actress Jodie Foster’s recent quasi-coming out.

Matthew Breen, the probably-too-pretty editor of The Advocate, wrote this about Foster:

… Everyone should come out in her own time, but Foster was angry last night. One reason could be embarrassment at not having come out publicly (at least in her own estimation) until 2013. Last night’s speech clearly took a lot of guts for Foster to undertake. But too much anger was directed at a straw man of her own creation.

“But now apparently I’m told that every celebrity is expected to honor the details of their private life with a press conference, a fragrance, and a prime-time reality show. You guys might be surprised, but I am not Honey Boo Boo child. No, I’m sorry, that’s just not me, never was, and it never will be,” she said.

There’s where she’s got it wrong. By referencing Honey Boo Boo, a stand-in for all that is shamelessly confessional about celebrity in 2013, Foster’s implication was that the choices she faces as a public figure are few: (1) stay closeted, never acknowledge your sexual orientation in public, or (2) tell the world every sordid detail of your intimate life.

That’s a bogus comparison, and it’s one that reinforces the idea that being LGBT is shameful, worthy of being hidden, and that saying you’re LGBT is an invitation to the whole world to come into your bedroom. That’s patently wrong. There are numerous out celebrities who guard their personal lives: David Hyde Pierce, Anna Paquin, Zachary Quinto, Amber Heard, Anderson Cooper, just to name a few. … [Emphasis is all mine.]

Breen states in his piece on Foster that The Advocate’s policy on outing is this: “While we encourage everyone who doesn’t risk his or her own safety by coming out to do so, The Advocate has a policy of not outing people who are not actively doing harm to LGBTs through word or deed.”

That’s pretty much my personal view on outing, too. Those who can be out should be out, in my book. You can’t assert that someone who might face real physical danger and/or who might be tossed out of his or her home (or maybe even his or her job) should come out if you’re not the one who would have to face the consequences — but often closeted individuals exaggerate how awful it might be should they come out.

Still, that said, even if I strongly think that an individual should be out, in the end, in many if not most cases it’s up to the individual as to whether or not he or she should be out (assuming that everyone doesn’t already know or strongly surmise the individual’s orientation anyway — there are so many closet cases whose self-awareness is so low that they seem to think that no one knows that they’re not heterosexual when pretty much everyone does).

In my book, the individual deserves the “protection” of the closet until and unless he or she does not deserve it, such as if it’s a closeted guy who is not keeping to himself but is sexually harassing others at the workplace (as happened to me) or, of course, if it’s a closet case who actively is working against the “LGBT community,” such as a “Christo”fascist “leader” or a politician. No traitor deserves the “protection” of the closet.

Most people agree on that point, but there remains a sticking point — that of “privacy.”

I like what LGBT writer Nathaniel Frank has to say on this:

… It’s true that hiding [one’s sexual orientation] hurts. Research shows mental health consequences to holding major secrets over time. And yes, it’s absolutely a wasted opportunity for powerful, visible people who probably could come out unscathed to deny young LGBT people the nurturance of knowing that an admired public figure is gay.

Privacy and shame are closely connected. Adam and Eve covered their “privates” the moment they gained moral consciousness, an awareness of good and evil, setting the tone for a truism ever since: You don’t cover up stuff if there ain’t something wrong with it.

Any step a gay person takes to hide their identity that they wouldn’t take to hide the fact that they’re, say, Irish, vegetarian or left-handed is probably not a neutral quest for privacy but reflects their own doubt about just how OK it is to be gay. Foster’s reluctance to just pull an Ellen (“Yep, I’m gay”), and her tortured speech, with its resentful tone and its ultimate avoidance of the “L” word, made being gay and coming out seem tortured things in themselves. … [Emphasis mine.]

And that’s the deep and profound problem that I have with the widespread argument that one’s sexual orientation (if it is not heterosexual, and only if it is not heterosexual, of course) is “private”: The vast majority of heterosexuals don’t go around asserting that their attraction to members of the opposite sex is “private,” do they? And why is that? Because they’re not fucking ashamed of their sexual orientation, that’s why.

So to assert that one’s non-heterosexuality — not one’s specific sex acts, but one’s basic sexual orientation — is “private” is to keep alive the toxic, ignorant, bigoted, harmful belief that to be attracted to members of one’s own sex is shameful, abnormal, “sinful,” etc.

And to contribute to that toxic, heterosexist and homophobic environment — and yes, all of us are responsible for the environment, since all of us make up the environment — is only to add to the number of non-heterosexual people who become addicted to drugs and alcohol, who contemplate or commit suicide, who don’t protect themselves from STDs because (in their low self-esteem) they don’t find themselves to be worth protecting, and who are the victims of hate crimes, since they exist in such a heterosexist, homophobic environment that encourages such hate crimes.

You are contributing to the problem or you are contributing to the solution.

Lying that your basic sexual orientation is a matter of “privacy” — and lying that what others really want to know are the “dirty” details of your sex life when, in fact, no one is inquiring as to such details — is to try to excuse yourself for your own laziness, selfishness and cowardice for which there is no fucking excuse.

That is the problem that I have with Jodie Foster and with others like her who toss out the red herring of “privacy” instead of manning the fuck up already and working to make things better for everyone.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Cooper tarnishes his coming out with ‘no one else’s business’ business

Anderson Cooper arrives at the 39th Daytime Emmy Awards in Beverly Hills

Reuters photo

“The fact is, I’m gay, always have been, always will be, and I couldn’t be any more happy, comfortable with myself, and proud,” CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, who long had been rumored to be gay, proclaimed in his official coming-out e-mail that was released today. Cooper’s explanation for why it took him so long to come out, however, indicates some degree of internalized homophobia that perhaps even he isn’t aware of. (Cooper is photographed above at last month’s Daytime Emmy Awards in Beverly Hills.)

While I’m pleased that CNN anchor Anderson Cooper finally came out of the closet — and pleased with most of what he has stated in regards to his coming out, such as that “visibility [for non-heterosexuals] is important, more important than preserving my reporter’s shield of privacy” — damn, he just had to say just one “little” thing that, for me, tarnished it.

“In a perfect world, I don’t think it’s anyone else’s business, but I do think there is value in standing up and being counted,” he stated in his coming-out e-mail to his long-time friend the right-wing gay blogger Andrew Sullivan, who published the e-mail with Cooper’s approval.

While I agree with that latter part — that there is value in standing up and being counted as non-heterosexual, because otherwise some (presumably heterosexual) people might otherwise think that there really aren’t that many of us non-heterosexuals — what the fuck is “In a perfect world, I don’t think it’s anyone else’s business”?

Heterosexuals generally don’t assert that their sexual orientation is no one else’s business. Heterosexual celebrities (actors and other artists, politicians, TV news/“news” anchors, et. al.) generally have no problem being seen in public with and/or talking publicly about their opposite-sexed mates, if they have an opposite-sexed mate, whether they are married or not. They generally don’t take the stance that their heterosexuality is no one else’s business — because they aren’t ashamed of their heterosexuality.

Heterosexual journalists aren’t seen as violating some journalistic ethic if they let the world in on the “secret” that they are heterosexual, so why does Anderson Cooper essentially state, in his apparent justification for his having dragged his feet for so long in coming out of the closet, that he had thought that to do otherwise would have been unprofessional?

Why would a gay man assert that his homosexuality is no one else’s business, and why would a gay male journalist act as though divulging his sexual orientation would be unprofessional, unless, at least on some level and to some degree, he is ashamed of his sexual orientation?

True, whatever the silver fox Coop likes to do sexually (or whether he even has an active sex life at all) is none of our business. It’s none of our business if he’s a top or a bottom, if he spits or if he swallows or if he won’t allow a dick inside of his mouth at all, if he’s ever done anal or if he’s anal-phobic, if he’s chocolate or if he’s vanilla, whether he masturbates (of course he does) and if so, how and how often, etc., etc.

But if there is nothing wrong with being gay, as Cooper says he believes — he proclaimed in his coming-out e-mail:

It’s become clear to me that by remaining silent on certain aspects of my personal life for so long, I have given some the mistaken impression that I am trying to hide something —something that makes me uncomfortable, ashamed or even afraid. This is distressing because it is simply not true.

— why, then, the rather revealing counter-statement that “In a perfect world, I don’t think it’s anyone else’s business”?

Cooper has, I suspect, residual shame over his homosexuality, which, in such a homophobic and sex-shaming society, I can’t entirely blame him for — neither he nor none of us exists in a vacuum — but I would hope that all of us gay men and lesbians and other assorted non-heterosexuals and non-gender-conforming individuals do the self-examination that is necessary for us to identify the homophobia that we all too often carry, to some degree, within ourselves.

Most of us non-heterosexuals, I believe, have some degree of internalized homophobia, and it is worth it for us to identify it and to work to dig it up by its roots. But until we first identify it, we can’t eradicate it.

Yes, our sexual orientation is everyone else’s business. It is an important and a basic part of ourselves, of who and what we are.

To assert otherwise is to lie — to lie to others, and worse, to ourselves.

Man up, Coop — your sexual orientation, as mine and everyone else’s, always was, is, and always will be our business.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Save us from the new ‘feminists’!

Nancy Pelosi

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Associated Press photos

“Democratic” U.S. Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz are coming for your balls (or ovaries…) next!

U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner wisely has decided to take a timeout from “Weinergate,” requesting a leave of absence from the U.S. House of Representatives.

He claims that he is going into treatment, although for what, exactly, I am not sure. Treatment for sex addiction, that is, for sexually compulsive behavior that has disrupted his life? Treatment for the 46-year-old’s apparent midlife crisis, as evidenced by the fact that he even took a picture of his toned and depilated chest — and by the fact that he even depilated his chest in the first place? 

In any event, whether Weiner truly believes that he needs treatment for something or not, it’s a great political move, whether it was intended to be a great political move or not, because now those who are calling for his resignation appear to be self-righteous assbites who are attacking a man who only wants to overcome his problem(s).

Sadly and pathetically, these self-righteous assbites aren’t only members of the treasonous Repugnican Tea Party.

The other day I remarked that

… I don’t expect the spineless Democrats in D.C. to support the now-politically-radioactive Weiner — and that’s how most politicians are, of course: they’re your “friends” only if they perceive it still to be in their best personal political interests — and without the support of his fellow Democrats in D.C., I don’t know if Weiner can politically survive being frozen out of his own party, even if he strives to survive politically.

and

… for the Democrats to cave into this kind of sexual blackmail — instead of fighting back and changing the game instead of playing along with the wingnuts’ game – is yet another example of the spectacular spinelessness and political ineptitude that we’ve come to know and loathe about the Democratic Party.

Am I prophetic or what?

I wrote those words before Democratic Party House leader Nancy Pelosi — whom all of us everywhere on the political spectrum are pretty fucking sick and tired of, I think — and new Democratic National Committee chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (who, up to now, I’ve kinda liked) both publicly expressed their belief that Weiner should resign.

Problem is, in a recent poll, 56 percent of Weiner’s constituents said that he should not resign.

So whose best interests are the likes of Pelosi and Wasserman Schultz looking out for? Their own, perhaps?

Is this the new “feminism,” in which self-proclaimed “feminists” cooperate with and enable the hypocritical right wing in its attempt to shame others over the fact that they are sexual beings?

By just giving the likes of wingnut Andrew Breitbart what he wants (Weiner’s head on a silver platter for Breitbart’s own petty ego), are “feminists” like Pelosi and Wasserman Schultz helping the cause of sexual liberation for everyone, for men as well as for women, or are they only aiding and abetting the sexually hypocritical right wing because they are lazy, self-serving cowards who just want to do the most politically expedient thing, which is to excommunicate Weiner?

Perhaps more to the point: Does Nancy Pelosi want every American male to be castrated? I mean, I generally have opposed the right wing’s attacks on her as being misogynist in spirit, but now I’m starting to wonder about the woman.

This is the deal: Anthony Weiner has not been accused of sexual harassment, sexual assault or sexual battery. He has not been accused of having sexually forced himself on anyone, in person or via cyberspace. He has acknowledged that he has had some consensually sexually oriented communications with several women, even after he got married. He claims that he has not had physical sexual contact with these women, and there is no evidence to contradict this claim.

What has happened is that some of these sexually oriented communications of his were made public for some petty wingnuts’ petty political gain. In my book, his privacy has been violated. (I reject the claim that elected officials are not entitled to any privacy. Perhaps legally their right to privacy is diminished, but morally and ethically, in my view, they have as much a right to privacy as does anyone else.)

If Weiner has wronged anyone, I suppose, he has wronged his wife — but that’s between him and his wife. And for all we know, they have an open marriage. We don’t know. It’s their marriage. Not ours. Not any of our fucking business.

But sanctimonious types like Pelosi and Wasserman Schultz, by stupidly calling for Weiner’s resignation instead of just keeping their mouths shut — which almost always is an option, by the way — are only making it not only possible, but more likely that bottom-feeders like the blackmailing Andrew Breitbart will try to destroy the careers of progressive politicians by searching everywhere and anywhere for any salacious dirt on them.

We owe it, in fairness, to Weiner and to everyone accused of sexual impropriety to look at exactly what the allegations are and to proceed only from such a careful examination. To recap some fairly recent U.S. House of Representatives sex scandals that resulted in resignations:

  • Repugnican Rep. Mark Foley resigned in September 2006 after it was alleged that he had sent sexually explicit messages to underaged male congressional pages. So the main problem here (besides Foley’s apparent then-closetedness [he reportedly is out of the closet now, by the way]) is that the alleged victims were underaged and that a U.S. representative apparently was greatly abusing his power over his much less powerful staffers. It is reasonable to expect a U.S. representative who has sexually harassed any of his or her staffers to resign or to be expelled from the House.
  • Democratic Rep. Eric Massa resigned in March 2010 after it was alleged that he had sexually harrassed at least one male staffer. Massa reportedly used sexually charged language with his male staffer or staffers (he copped to having used “salty” language from his Navy days) and apparently he thought it appropriate to continuously tickle at least one male staffer on at least one occasion. (A supervisor just doesn’t tickle or otherwise prolongedly touch his or her supervisees.) The problem here, again, is that of (apparent/alleged) sexual harassment, compounded by the fact of the power differential between the accused and his alleged victim(s).
  • Repugnican Rep. Christopher Lee resigned in February 2011 after it was revealed that he’d sent a shirtless pic of himself to a woman (a male-to-female transsexual?) whom he was trying to pick up on Craigslist. (The woman [MTF?] herself outed Lee to the sleazy website Gawker, and Lee resigned the same day that Gawker ran the story.) Besides sending the sexually charged (but not X-rated) image of himself, the heterosexually married Lee apparently also lied about his marital status. While creepy, as I noted at the time, Lee apparently was guilty of no more than attempted infidelity and being in the grip of a midlife crisis. He was not accused of sexual harassment, sexual assault or sexual battery. Therefore, as I noted at the time, I don’t see that his resignation was called for, and I still see the matter as having been between him and his wife.

So the dog-piling upon Weiner seems to come primarily from the belief that a member of the U.S. House of Representatives may not be sexual outside of (heterosexual, of course) marriage — because sex is dirty, sex is wrong, sex is sinful, etc., and a member of the “lofty” U.S. House of Representatives just should not be acting in any way that is sexual, because sex is only for animals — and for unhappily but dutifilly married heterosexual couples.

Meanwhile, it’s widely considered perfectly OK for fucktarded, wingnutty U.S. representatives like Repugnican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher to do such things as to announce in Iraq that Iraq should repay the United States for the cost of the unelected Bush regime’s illegal, immoral, unjust and unprovoked Vietraq War.* (Of course, “unelected,” “illegal,” “immoral,” etc. are my words, not his.)

Now, I find it much more reprehensible that a textbook stupid white man like Dana Rohrabacher would be in another nation making foreign-policy pronouncements for the United States of America as though he had been elected fucking president than I find it reprehensible that Anthony Weiner apparently is going through a midlife crisis a la former Rep. Christopher Lee.

The actions of Rohrabacher and his ilk at least border on treason if they don’t actually cross the line into treasonous territory, yet they are not so much as slapped on the wrist. Weiner has only offended some sexually repressed hypocrites’ sensibilities — boo fucking hoo! — and yet there are calls for his resignation.

And it’s sad and pathetic to hear those calls coming from self-professed feminists**, who spit on the grave of the actual feminists who actually fought for sexual freedom for women. Because the so-called “feminists” who are calling for Weiner’s resignation aren’t advancing the sexual freedom of women, but are diminishing the sexual freedom of all of us because they enable the sexually hypocritical right wing to use our sexuality against us.

Shame on them.

P.S. My defense of Weiner as of late extends only to “Weinergate.” I do not agree with him on every issue, such as his ass-licking of Israel. Like way too many Jewish (and non-Jewish) members of Congress, he is unable to be anything even remotely like fair and evenhanded where it comes to Israel, which can do no wrong and is never guilty of terrorism or any other crime against humanity, even though the angelic Israelis have slaughtered far more innocent Arabs than vice-versa since the state of Israel woefully misguidedly was imposed upon the Middle East in the aftermath of World War II.

*Iraq asked Rohrabacher and his contingent to leave because of Rohrabacher’s incredibly fucktarded remarks, which reportedly included, “Once Iraq becomes a very rich and prosperous country… we would hope that some consideration be given to repaying the United States some of the mega-dollars that we have spent here in the last eight years.”

Gee, I don’t recall that Iraqis ever asked for the March 2003 invasion of their soverign nation that the United Nations Security Council had refused to rubber stamp for the Bush regime and that has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

**Not just to pick on Pelosi and Wasserman Schultz (and some other “feminist” women in Congress, such as Rep. Allyson Schwartz of Pennsylvania, the very first House “Democrat” to stupidly publicly call for Weiner’s resignation), because I’ve also seen so-called “progressive”/“feminist” women writers also dog-pile upon Weiner, including one who apparently believes that it’s up to her to decide whether or not another woman has been sexually harassed (novel!).

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Coitus interruptus

There is controversy in Montana over a proposal to teach public-school first-graders that homosexuality exists and to teach fifth-graders, in sex education, about vaginal, oral and anal intercourse.

Fuck.

I remember sex ed in sixth grade. We were shown chainsaw views (cross-section depictions) of the female and male reproductive systems, and we were informed that males produce sperm and that females produce ova, and that the sperm and the ovum meet and that this results in a baby.

A tiny detail that they omitted, however, was how, exactly, the sperm and the ovum come to unite.

They dared not tell us back then, in Arizona circa 1980, that the erect penis repeatedly thrusts inside of the vagina and eventually ejaculates, delivering the sperm, swimming around in semen, to the waiting ovum. We didn’t get to see visual aids such as these:

I mean, hell, that last one is a drawing of Leonard da Vinci’s — that’s art, no? And the image above that supposedly is an MRI of coitus — that’s science, yes?

Lacking this explicit instruction, my sixth-grade mind filled in the gap (so to speak…): I figured that the scary-looking female anatomy, with all of those tubes, must send a tube inside of the penis, like a ridiculously long earthworm, and collect the sperm itself. (Please don’t laugh. I was young.)

This idea was not appealing, having my sperm taken from me by a wormlike appendage from inside of an already-scary-enough-looking vagina.

That’s probably not why I turned out gay, but still, I would like to have had received a full instruction in how it all works.

Showing kids diagrams of parts and neglecting to tell them how it all comes together isn’t of much help to them — and, such as in my case, might cause even more confusion than enlightenment — and I see no problem with teaching kids about things they’re going to discover at some point anyway, such as oral sex and anal sex.

And homosexuality, too, of course.

I don’t recall a mention of that when I had sex ed back in the day. If memory serves, dudes get with chicks, and that’s the only possible permutation that was presented to us.

(Speaking of ’mosexuality, wasn’t Leonardo da Vinci gay? Is that why in his diagram, only the man is fully depicted, with the woman being little more than a semen receptacle?)

Anyway, sex ed in the public schools always has been and long will be a touchy subject. Perhaps the best approach is for parents to teach their kids about sex.

But if we’re going to present sex ed at all in the public schools, we should do it right — uncut and unedited — or not at all.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

I join the cat fight over Kagan

“So is she gay?” — asks gay pundit Andrew Sullivan of Elena Kagan.

“Elena Kagan is not gay,” answers gay pundit Richard Kim of The Nation. (Um, I think he’s gay, that is. Not that there’s anything wrong with that!)

Sullivan and Kim exemplify the two camps on this question — this question that I would answer with another question: “Is Johnny Weir gay? Duh!”

Concludes Kim:

Gay isn’t some genetic or soulful essence; it’s a name you call yourself –and Kagan has not done that. So in my book, case closed. Elena Kagan is not gay. Is she straight? I don’t know, and again, I don’t care. Why does she have to have a sexuality at all?

Wow. I wholeheartedly disagree.

Gay is not just “a name you call yourself.” A straight guy can call himself gay and that doesn’t make him gay. Gay indeed is a “soulful essence,” and it’s probably genetic, too, at least in many if not in most cases.

What is Kim smoking? (Shit, maybe it shouldn’t be legalized…)

Why does Kagan have to have a sexuality at all? Um, because she’s a human fucking being?

Why is it so important for Kim and his ilk to strip Kagan (and some others) of all sexuality? (I mean, who is she, Jesus or Mary?)

The straw man that Kim and the others of his camp put out there is that people want the salacious details of Kagan’s (and other public figures’) sex lives. The very last sentence of Kim’s piece is: “The Senate and the press have the right and responsibility to interrogate [Kagan] about her legal opinions—not about her sex life.”

Oh, puhfuckinglease.

Like anyone (besides a “tea party” dipshit, perhaps) actually is going to ask Kagan if she engages in cunnilingus (receptively and/or administratively) and/or whether she has worn and/or been the recipient of a strap-on.

No one, to my knowledge, has much, if any, interest about any of Kagan’s actual sexual practices (or whether she even engages in any sexual activity at all).

However, to assert that her sexual orientationa basic part of herself (and perhaps I should write that as “her self”) — is irrelevant is pure, raw, unadulterated bullshit.

Sullivan writes of the question of Kagan’s sexual orientation:

It is no more of an empirical question than whether she is Jewish. We know she is Jewish, and it is a fact simply and rightly put in the public square. If she were to hide her Jewishness, it would seem rightly odd, bizarre, anachronistic, even arguably self-critical or self-loathing. And yet we have been told by many that she is gay … and no one will ask directly if this is true and no one in the [Obama] administration will tell us definitively.

He continues:

In a word, this is preposterous — a function of liberal cowardice and conservative discomfort. It should mean nothing either way. Since the issue of this tiny minority — and the right of the huge majority to determine its rights and equality — is a live issue for the court in the next generation, and since it would be bizarre to argue that a justice’s sexual orientation will not in some way affect his or her judgment of the issue, it is only logical that this question should be clarified…. Are we ever going to know one way or the other? Does she have a spouse? Is this spouse going to be forced into the background in a way no heterosexual spouse ever would be?

Yup. Excellent fucking points.

Sure, I would rather focus on Kagan’s record (what there is of it) and how she might perform for the plethora of progressive causes as a U.S. Supreme Court justice.

But, truth be told, there is plenty of that discussion already, and as a blogger, I prefer to discuss what people aren’t discussing but should be; there is no reason for me to regurgitate what plenty of others already are saying.

And I’m with Andrew Sullivan on this one.

The fact that no one — on the uncomfortable right or on the cowardly left — wants to address Kagan’s sexual orientation — when one’s sexual orientation is as basic to oneself one’s self as is one’s race, age, biological sex, and political and spiritual/religious beliefs and values — and that addressing her sexual orientation at all is considered by so many to be “inappropriate” — demonstrates how far the United States of America needs to go on the issue of equal human and civil rights for those who are not heterosexual and/or not gender-conforming.

Frankly, I don’t want to see Elena Kagan seated on the U.S. Supreme Court until I know whether or not she is heterosexual or homosexual or somewhere in between, and whether or not she has a significant other, and if so, whether her partner is a he or a she. (We would find it awfully odd for a heterosexually coupled U.S. Supreme Court justice to try to hide his or her partner, so why wouldn’t we find it equally odd for a gay or lesbian justice to hide his or hers?)

You know, as a member of the court that will rule on my equal human and civil rights, Kagan’s business indeed is my business.

Duh!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Elton says that Jesus was a poof

Thank Goddess that Elton John has created a tempest in a teacup by proclaiming that Jesus Christ was gay.

Otherwise, I might have to write about the annual Conservative Action Political Conference, which began yesterday and concludes tomorrow.

What the fuck do the conservatives have to say that is new, since by fucking definition they represent the old, cold, dead hand of the past? They still have us stuck in the 1950s, accusing their opponents of being Commies when Communism pretty much died in the early 1990s, for fuck’s sake.

It’s much more interesting to write about Elton’s assertion that Jesus was a fag.

Reports AFP:

British pop superstar Elton John stirred controversy in a magazine interview [today] when he claimed that Jesus Christ was “gay.”

“I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems,” John said in an interview posted on the website of U.S. celebrity news magazine Parade.

“On the cross, he forgave the people who crucified him. Jesus wanted us to be loving and forgiving. I don’t know what makes people so cruel. Try being a gay woman in the Middle East — you’re as good as dead,” said John, who is gay.

The Catholic League, the largest U.S. Catholic rights group, condemned the comments.

“Jesus was certainly compassionate, but to say he was ‘super-intelligent’ is to compare the son of God to a successful game-show contestant,” league president Bill Donohue said in a statement.

“More seriously, to call Jesus a homosexual is to label him a sexual deviant. But what else would we expect from a man who previously said, ‘From my point of view, I would ban religion completely’?”

The self-anointed “Christians” really need to get over their hangups over sex. To hate sex is to hate the human race, since the human race is impossible without sex.

However, making the masses feel guilty about sexual urges — which are as innate to human beings as are such other biological impulses as hunger and thirst and sleepiness — sure the fuck is a great way to (try to) control the masses, which is all that the fucking Catholick church and the other “Christo”fascist institutions, such as the Mormon cult and the plethora of right-wing Protestant sects, want to do.

“To call Jesus a homosexual is to label him a sexual deviant,” the Catholick League’s president asserted.

Because the anti-sex Catholick and other “Christian” cults have portrayed Jesus Christ as having been entirely asexual — to the insane degree that they assert that he was not even the product of sex, but was “immaculately” conceived — of course the assertion that he was gay, or even might have been gay, is modern-day heresy.

But to those of us who live in the world of reality, we have to assume that the historical Jesus, if he did exist (I tend to believe that he did), was a human being, and that as a human being, he most likely was not asexual.

To the question as to whether or not Jesus was gay (or bisexual, if bisexuality in men truly exists), if we are sane, rational and honest, we can only answer: Who knows?

Jesus certainly might have been. He lived more than two millenia ago and we just don’t know anything about his actual sexual practices (or unlikely lack thereof). I find it highly unlikely that he never had at least one orgasm in his entire life.

What the “Christians” say about Jesus’ life certainly doesn’t point to heterosexuality: He never married and he surrounded himself with 12 other dudes… Let’s face it: the “Christian” account of Jesus’ life does not exactly paint him as a pussy hound. (Even the Buddha is said to have married and fathered a child before he went off and became enlightened.)

Jesus’ reputed verbal skills, compassion, sensitivity and wisdom (including his being a huge proponent of forgiveness and of cooperation over competition) — and his penchant toward teaching and healing — all point to the feminine, which, when strong in males, usually indicates homosexuality. Although people like Joe the Plumber have come to represent “Christians,” Jesus Christ is not portrayed as anything like Joe the Plumber, either in the New Testament or even in the twisted versions of the New Testament that the “Christians” love to propagate.

Indeed, it was ignorant, fearful people like Joe the Plumber who crucified Jesus, so yeah, it’s plausible that Jesus Christ indeed was queer.

While Jesus’ sexual orientation is debatable, what is not debatable is that he was a socialist, advocating that we take care of everyone and proclaiming that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. He was a pacifist, too. He said to pay your taxes, not to charge interest on loans (indeed, he even taught not to even expect your loan to be repaid!), and not to hoard worldly wealth, but to lay your treasures up in heaven (that is, to work on your spirituality instead of your materiality). And he certainly would have opposed the death penalty, having been a victim of it himself.

Yet today’s “Christians” worship the golden calf and are bitterly opposed to helping the poor (unless they “convert” them first, of course; their “help” almost never comes without strings attached), hate paying their fair share of taxes,* love war and bloodshed — especially in Jesus’ name — and cherish the death penalty. 

If Jesus ever does come back in his promised second coming, he’d better be careful, because his “followers” will crucify him.

*On the issue of taxes, let me say that the middle class — what is left of the middle class — is way overtaxed and that the plutocrats and the corporatocrats are way under-taxed. They benefit from what tax revenues give them, but they do everything in their power to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, while the little guy, like Joe the Kamikaze, have to keep the nation fiscally afloat. (Well, not that we are fiscally afloat now, but you know what I mean…)  

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized