The store clerk, who had talked with Curtis, referred to him as “The Cross-Dresser” ...
October 31, 2007 9:07 PM   Subscribe

Closeted gay GOP elected official with an anti-gay voting record #756,394 --(Special Halloween Edition!) GOP Washington State Representative Richard Curtis says he’s not gay, but police reports and court records indicate the Republican lawmaker from southwestern Washington dressed up in women’s lingerie and met a Medical Lake man in a local erotic video store which led to consensual sex at a downtown hotel and a threat to expose Curtis’ activities publicly…. He resigned today.--Curtis is the third conservative lawmaker in just as many months to resign amid allegations of soliciting gay sex.
Bubbling up--and being sat on--by the DC Press Corps is a potentially devastating sexual scandal involving a leading Presidential candidate.
posted by amberglow (143 comments total) 6 users marked this as a favorite

 
Gay Old Party indeed...
posted by nightchrome at 9:10 PM on October 31, 2007


I mean the John Edwards adultery rumor is just... so what? I mean Giuliani is an avowed adulterer, so is Newt. It's not that the "MSM" is sitting on the story, it's that even if it is true it's a yawn-fest.
posted by wfrgms at 9:13 PM on October 31, 2007


This guy thinks he knows what the suppressed scandal is. He sez, Hillary is actually bi and is having an affair with a woman aide.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 9:14 PM on October 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


In other words it takes dirty, oh so dirty, gay bathroom sex to get us even half way turned out nowadays...
posted by wfrgms at 9:14 PM on October 31, 2007


REPUBLICAN AFTER DEBATE ORGY!!!

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!
posted by Kattullus at 9:15 PM on October 31, 2007


So what, the American Flag lapel pin is now the new pink triangle?
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 9:15 PM on October 31, 2007 [3 favorites]


Last time I posted something about another gay-anti-gay Republican it was deleted. Hope this doesn't go the same way, but i suspect otherwise.

This is my 1000th post. I was holding off making it to pick a special time. You're it.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:15 PM on October 31, 2007 [5 favorites]


This guy thinks he knows what the suppressed scandal is. He sez, Hillary is actually bi and is having an affair with a woman aide.
It can't be --- they wouldn't sit on that. Clintons and sex go together and they love nothing better than talking about it all the time--even on the front pages. And there have been Hillary lesbian stories out for decades now.

I think it's far far far more likely a Thompson or Rudy gay scandal--Which means they will never report it at all unless someone comes forward to get smeared for daring to talk.
posted by amberglow at 9:19 PM on October 31, 2007


Christ, what an asshole!

Really, it's quite lovely!
posted by loquacious at 9:20 PM on October 31, 2007 [5 favorites]



This guy thinks he knows what the suppressed scandal is.


Did you click on those pictures of Huma Abedin? This is only gonna help Hillary's campaign. Hubba hubba!
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 9:20 PM on October 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


Yea, I don't think they're hinting at the Edwards thing, only because a, news of an affair, while juicy, is not devastating (IMO), and b, he's not really a "leading" Presidential candidate.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:20 PM on October 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


State Rep. Richard Curtis, a Republican from the Vancouver, Wash., area, met Cody Castagna at Hollywood Erotic Boutique on East Sprague Avenue at 12:45 a.m. Friday before the two went to Curtis’ room at the Davenport Tower in downtown Spokane, the documents say. Castagna told investigators Curtis agreed to pay him $1,000 for sex, the documents allege.

First of all, $1,000 is alot of money for some tweaker gym bunny to show you a good time.

Secondly, this is why I'm a completely unpretentious libertine. "In a completely un-shocking development, Mr. Avenger was found in bed today with another man! According to the police report, alcohol and trace amounts of marijuana were found in the room as well. When asked for comment, Mr. Avenger replied "Yeah, so what?'"

See how easy that is? If you really enjoy some vaguely illicit activity, just don't pretend that you really hate it. It's not that difficult, people.
posted by Avenger at 9:21 PM on October 31, 2007 [3 favorites]


This is my 1000th post. I was holding off making it to pick a special time. You're it.

: >

It's not Edwards and it can't be Bill or Hillary. Maybe Obama if not Rudy or Thompson? My money's on Rudy.
posted by amberglow at 9:22 PM on October 31, 2007


IF a major candidate is gay/bi/lesbian/crossdresser/whatever the story should break now. This goddamned country needs to fucking face its ridiculous attraction/repulsion complex regarding anything non-heterosexual/non-missionary position and vomit up said complex toot sweet and once and for all.

Then maybe we'll finally get around to addressing the problems that really affect us all.

BALLS! BIG HAIRY BONERS!
posted by WolfDaddy at 9:23 PM on October 31, 2007 [13 favorites]


I've actually shared a locker-room shower with Hillary Clinton. True story.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 9:24 PM on October 31, 2007


I think it's far far far more likely a Thompson or Rudy gay scandal

Oh come on, if Romney's not a closeted gay, I know nothing about Republicans, presidential politics, or teh gay.

Come to think of it, there are few things I know less about than being Republican, presidential, or gay.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 9:24 PM on October 31, 2007 [3 favorites]


Did you click on those pictures of Huma Abedin? This is only gonna help Hillary's campaign. Hubba hubba!

Stephen Colbert is right, there will be a hot First Lady.
posted by Chuckles at 9:25 PM on October 31, 2007


First of all, $1,000 is alot of money for some tweaker gym bunny to show you a good time.

The $1,000 was for barebacking.
posted by amberglow at 9:27 PM on October 31, 2007


Does anyone else think that all these closeted gay Republicans just want to make everything they engage in illegal because then it's naughtier?

You know like how drinking was more fun before you were 21, because half the thrill was just getting away with it.

I mean you have to admit, it must be pretty damn exhilarating to give a speech condemning the "gay lifestyle" and preaching for "family values" in front of a thousand people, only to sneak into the men's bathroom half an hour later to do a line of coke off the toilet seat while getting fucked by a 25 year old call boy, knowing the whole time you are this close to the who charade falling apart.
posted by whoaali at 9:28 PM on October 31, 2007 [3 favorites]


Oh come on, if Romney's not a closeted gay, I know nothing about Republicans, presidential politics, or teh gay.
Nope--Romney could be caught for incest or pedophilia or bestiality or something like that, but not gay stuff.
posted by amberglow at 9:32 PM on October 31, 2007


Washington State Rep. Richard Curtis's Alleged Extorter Has a Porn Past?
posted by ericb at 9:32 PM on October 31, 2007


Dan Savage was plugging some encyclopedia of Republican sex scandals on his podcast yesterday. It's not even out yet and it's already dated.
posted by Weebot at 9:32 PM on October 31, 2007 [3 favorites]


Know what? I was so sure this post would get nuked that I just posted the first thing that came to mind. Now I'm starting to worry I'll have to live with "REPUBLICAN AFTER DEBATE ORGY!!!" in my comment history. Also, having to live with a comment where I admit that "REPUBLICAN AFTER DEBATE ORGY!!!" was the first thing that came to mind.
posted by Kattullus at 9:33 PM on October 31, 2007 [6 favorites]


The $1,000 was for barebacking.

If this is true, I'm hanging up my irony meter and going home.
posted by Avenger at 9:37 PM on October 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


Consider the source, folks. This reeks of a rightwing smear being spread as Internet rumor. They've always suggested that Hillary was gay or bi. If that's what they're continuing to hint--and that's where the links seem to go--I'm suspicious.
posted by etaoin at 9:37 PM on October 31, 2007


In related news -- from "Down Under" -- Australia's Family First Party Candidate Dropped Over Porn Photos on Gay Websites.

Also, in related ("I'm not gay!") news -- Twenty Men Arrested in New York Rest Stop 'Man-on-Man Sex' Sting.

All of the men are married, with the exception of one Catholic priest.
posted by ericb at 9:38 PM on October 31, 2007


This reeks of a rightwing smear being spread as Internet rumor.

Smear? Against Hillary? She's the one who might be getting some hot chick-on-chick action -- and thats a smear? I honestly don't think that anybody who would normally vote for "Straight Hillary is no longer going to vote for "Bi Hillary".
posted by Avenger at 9:43 PM on October 31, 2007


Interesting that the paper named as purportedly sitting on the story would be the L.A. Times, which printed en exhaustive investigative report detailing serious sexual harassment allegations against Arnold Schwarzenegger just days before the California recall election four years ago.
posted by donpedro at 9:43 PM on October 31, 2007


Yea, I don't think they're hinting at the Edwards thing

what was your clue? the part where he said "By the way, t’s not the Edwards rumor, it’s something else" in the third para?
posted by Hat Maui at 9:48 PM on October 31, 2007


Jesus, it's like there's some kind of compulsion to come out *now* with these closeted conservative pols. Either they're all suddenly acting stupid for some strange reason or (my current theory) it's some kind of copycat thing where a part of them watches the previous scandals play out and starts ramping up the risk-taking in secret hope that they'll be caught. They'll have to ride out the horrible embarrassment, sure, but at least when it's over they can end the life of lies and move on.

I'm seriously starting to think that's what's going on here.
posted by mediareport at 9:51 PM on October 31, 2007


Meet the New Gay Stereotype!
posted by brain_drain at 9:52 PM on October 31, 2007 [11 favorites]


So... wait, there are already rumors about Fred Thompson?, Giuliani, H. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards? Christ, you can't swig a dead cat without accusations of being gay, bi, a cheater etc...
Perhaps Ralph Nader buggered them all one at a time, now THAT I'd like to read about.
seriously, Fred Thompson?
posted by edgeways at 9:52 PM on October 31, 2007 [2 favorites]


I KNOW, Clinton is a cross dresser, wait that doesn't work too well, no wonder they are sitting on it.
posted by edgeways at 9:54 PM on October 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


*takes another swig of dead cat and wipes mouth*
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 9:56 PM on October 31, 2007


Oh come on people, think about it. You can't open a car door in LA without hitting a gay Theatre major. It has to be someone with Hollywood connections (if you know what I mean). And if logic doesn't work for you, try Goo gle.
posted by spock at 9:58 PM on October 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


I'm going to assume that if a pyjamas-media-affiliated site is going to hem and haw over the ethics of publicising such a juicy rumour, then that rumour is going to be about a Republican candidate.

Where it comes to rumours about liberals, it's obvious that the public has a right to know what the elite media isn't telling them.
posted by bicyclefish at 9:59 PM on October 31, 2007 [2 favorites]


you know that was a stupid typo, but I kind of like it, less swinging, more swigging.
posted by edgeways at 10:00 PM on October 31, 2007


Vociferously homosexual blogger Andrew Sullivan, aka Andrianna Sullington, has hit a new low by attempting to spread the rumor that Fred Thompson shares his perverse "orientation": [Moonbattery]
posted by Poolio at 10:05 PM on October 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


Rumors swirling, rumors swelling. The rumors are downright turgid things aren't they. Seems like this stuff has been swirling in certain circles for some time now. Seems to me that might have been one of the factors for him taking so long to get in the race.
posted by spock at 10:06 PM on October 31, 2007


It's Thompson.

It's not a story about about someone having an affair, because if it was the media would run with it immediately, those things are fair game.

If it's a gay rumor, it's obviously about something in someone's past, that's why they're hesitating.

And anyway, Pajama's Media is completely full of crap of course, so for all we know there may not be an 'everyone knows' story at all, just crap.

If there is, it's Fried Thompson, who I think has spent a lot of time in LA and that's why the LAT would be the paper to uncover it.
posted by delmoi at 10:07 PM on October 31, 2007 [4 favorites]


This reeks of a rightwing smear being spread as Internet rumor.

Smear? Against Hillary? She's the one who might be getting some hot chick-on-chick action -- and thats a smear? I honestly don't think that anybody who would normally vote for "Straight Hillary is no longer going to vote for "Bi Hillary".
posted by Avenger at 12:43 AM on November 1


Seriously, I wonder, Avenger what impact that would have. Would it not tilt some votes? I really don't know. But I also think the rightwing machine is setting up to continue its spewing of hatred from the outside against the Democrat who will move into the White House. It would be interesting as hell to start tracking the establishment of blogs that then go on the attack once the White House changes hands.

Interesting that the paper named as purportedly sitting on the story would be the L.A. Times, which printed en exhaustive investigative report detailing serious sexual harassment allegations against Arnold Schwarzenegger just days before the California recall election four years ago.
posted by donpedro at 12:43 AM on November 1


It's an entirely different crowd running the LA paper now, with the Chicago Tribune--"we've never endorsed a Democrat for President!" fully in control. The Tribune people are not likely to hold off on a story about a Democrat. Unless it's because it involves their local guy, Obama and they aren't comfortable with the local AND the potential race fallout.

As far as the thing with Arnie, some of the editors who dealt with that story are known to be unable to push a story out until time has nearly run out. I don't think there was anything else to the timing.
posted by etaoin at 10:07 PM on October 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


Fred Thompson is probably as inattentive and fumbly in bed as he is in public. Most likely, this has remained under wraps because nobody will admit to sleeping with grampa lazybones.
posted by allen.spaulding at 10:10 PM on October 31, 2007 [12 favorites]


it all fits for Thompson--LA Times especially. What a horror he is tho--bad plastic surgery scars and all.
posted by amberglow at 10:10 PM on October 31, 2007


Perhaps he was tied into the Foley thing? That would just about sink any change the GOP has with congress
posted by edgeways at 10:18 PM on October 31, 2007


it all fits for Thompson--LA Times especially.

How does that coincide with your postwar commie conspiracy, huh?
posted by Poolio at 10:18 PM on October 31, 2007


If there is a suppressed story (and I have serious doubts about that) and if the LA Times is sitting on it, then it isn't about a Republican.

If they had a juicy story about a Republican, it would have hit the front page as soon as it was ready, if not five minutes before that.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 10:20 PM on October 31, 2007


If they had a juicy story about a Republican, it would have hit the front page as soon as it was ready, if not five minutes before that.

Politics 101 -- if you have "a juicy story about a Republican," wait to release such info days before a "primary" (i.e. N.H., Iowa, etc.) vote -- or, a wider, general one!
posted by ericb at 10:25 PM on October 31, 2007


Matt Welch, formerly a blogger, is now the LA Times Editorial page editor. He says, "No, there is no suppressed scandal story as far as I know."
I can tell you the following — I have never, ever, ever, never, ever, ever, ever heard anything about this. And I spent last week in Washington DC, worked in the LAT bureau, went to parties with LAT muckety-mucks, and gossiped with dozens of people who cover presidential politics; none of whom ever so much as mentioned anything about it. Rosenbaum’s single, anonymous source is most certainly wrong, at least about the “everyone knows” part. He also most certainly is wrong that the same “everyone” apparently “doesn’t know what to do with it” — seasoned political journalists are not helpless bystanders in the face of juicy rumors, they are specifically trained to go out and investigate them, and report when relevant.

As for Rosenbaum’s agonizing over “reporting” such a thing, I don’t have much respect for it. Either report or don’t; save us the handwringing about stooping to “Web 2.0″ whateverthehell.

You can quote me on all of that.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 10:34 PM on October 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


The writer on the pajamas media site is not any old blogger. Its Ron Rosenbaum, who is a great old-style investigative reporter for Esquire and others. He wrote "The Little Blue Box" among other articles, and his book The Secret Parts of Fortune is superb. I'd trust his sources.
posted by blahblahblah at 10:36 PM on October 31, 2007


What's Larry Flynt been up to lately?
posted by trondant at 10:39 PM on October 31, 2007


Steven, the fact remains that there are actually many many "damaging scandals" that the DC press corps knows about and never ever reports at all. It's been true since FDR and his wheelchair-- if not before.
posted by amberglow at 10:40 PM on October 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


SCDB: You are echoing all of the deep-thinking commenters on the original link's post. But I don't think that is as likely if it was a member of the Screen Actors' Guild, and if it was a story on the gay issue. Right now, on the OpEd page of the LATimes web site is a piece by an openly gay writer who has a problem with Obama trying to have it both ways on gay issues in the black community."

I doubt if I'm going out on much of a limb to guess that the LA Times also has a higher than your average Wyoming businesses' percentage of employees who are openly gay.
posted by spock at 10:40 PM on October 31, 2007


What's Larry Flynt been up to lately?

Funny you should ask--Flynt Teases New “Huge” GOP Senate Sex Scandal (last week, on FOX)
posted by amberglow at 10:44 PM on October 31, 2007


I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you that hillaryisbisexual.com is still available.
posted by spock at 10:46 PM on October 31, 2007


So everyone in Washington knows about a sex scandal involving a leading presidential candidate and Matt Drudge hasn't touched it?

Bullshit. He'd be all over a Democratic candidate, and frankly, there are no leading Republican candidates, just five guys clawing each other in the hopes that one will be on top by next summer.
posted by Epenthesis at 10:50 PM on October 31, 2007


If there is, it's Fried Thompson...

The media will have him on a stick! And then shake some powered sugar on top...mmmm fried Thompson on a stick.
posted by mullacc at 10:54 PM on October 31, 2007 [4 favorites]


seasoned political journalists are not helpless bystanders in the face of juicy rumors

Steven, you don't really believe that part of the quote, do you? amberglow's right; just look at the way "seasoned political journalists" sat on the "juicy rumors" about Foley, Ken Mehlman, et al ad nauseum, for years. I've watched "seasoned political journalists" here in Raleigh deliberately avoid, if not outright cover for, closeted gay Republican state reps. "Helpless bystanders" describes *exactly* how they treat "juicy rumors" about politicians' sexuality.
posted by mediareport at 11:04 PM on October 31, 2007 [3 favorites]


What I believe is that Matt Welch wouldn't lie when he says he doesn't know about any suppressed scandal story being sat on by the LA Times.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:28 PM on October 31, 2007


He's the editorial page editor, though, Steven. I'd feel better hearing it from someone who actually oversees investigations, you know? Still room for a story to be sat on without his knowledge, anyway, is all I'm saying. And that "we don't run from juicy rumors!" is such patent bullshit, in my past experience as a journalist and media columnist, that the rest of what he's claiming is immediately kinda suspect.
posted by mediareport at 11:36 PM on October 31, 2007 [1 favorite]


Why?
posted by amberglow at 11:38 PM on October 31, 2007


(asking Steve)
posted by amberglow at 11:39 PM on October 31, 2007


Welch is a pretty well-established web journalist, amberglow; he's been around for a while. But Steven has grossly exaggerated Welch's position at the LAT; he's not "the LA Times Editorial page editor" but rather an "assistant editorial pages editor...which at the moment means I oversee what the Opinion section does on the Web (including the Opinion L.A. blog, write a regular online column, plus the occasional editorial and Op-Ed."

We're a little bit lower on the scale than "the LA Times Editorial page editor" here.
posted by mediareport at 11:51 PM on October 31, 2007


Steven, you don't really believe that part of the quote, do you?

Categorical statement about everything: Just because I link to something, or quote it, doesn't mean I believe it 100% and support every single word of it. I link/quote it because I think it contributes to the conversation, not because it's an expression of what I myself think.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:59 PM on October 31, 2007


Hell, Steven, I'd be happy if you accurately represented what you link to. But ok, now that we've established that you may or may not endorse all of what you link, it's time to go ahead and answer the question: Do you agree with Welch that "seasoned political journalists" do not often shy away from "juicy rumors"?
posted by mediareport at 12:02 AM on November 1, 2007


(Actually, he says they don't shy away at all, whereas I say they not only shy away, they often run screaming in the other direction.)
posted by mediareport at 12:02 AM on November 1, 2007


I think that historically reporters had more of a sense of decorum when it came to publicizing the private lives of top politicians than they do now. I think it's possible that there are reporters who would look at such a story and decide not to report it -- but it only takes one who is willing to, and in this era of "gotcha", where every cub reporter out there wants to be the next Woodward/Bernstein who brings down the government, any scandal is eventually going to come out.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:15 AM on November 1, 2007


But the person who told me said it offhandedly as if everyone in his world knew about it.

"his world" says Fred Thompson to me.
posted by stavrogin at 12:18 AM on November 1, 2007


Or I could have misread that. [reporter] world or [entertainment] world.
posted by stavrogin at 12:22 AM on November 1, 2007


in this era of "gotcha", where every cub reporter out there wants to be the next Woodward/Bernstein who brings down the government, any scandal is eventually going to come out.

Your faith in the press is cute, but misplaced. Can you show me which of the recent "private life" scandals have been broken by mainstream reporters? Maybe it's because I'm way past my bedtime, but I'm having trouble recalling any one of them whose exposure was the result of, you know, actual journalism.
posted by mediareport at 12:27 AM on November 1, 2007 [2 favorites]


actual journalism

By which I mean investigative journalism that broke the news, rather than wait to join the fray until it became public through other means.
posted by mediareport at 12:28 AM on November 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


And if you look close enough you can find hints of something impending, something potentially derailing to this candidate in the reporting of the campaign. Which could mean that something unspoken, unwritten about is influencing what is written, what we read.

Hmm, anyone else seen this? In the thread above that compiled a bunch of rumors I only remember one with specifics of some candidate's media coverage being warped:

From a post on Datalounge: "On the Chris Matthews show he does on the weekends with a roundtable, 2 of the journalists kept dropping hints that a story or stories about Bill Clinton might surface. It was in reference to how well Hillary has put the Monica incident behind her and how the country is now respecting her decision; but 2 of them stated that if another story was to come out in the next few months about Bill and an another affair, Hillary’s sunk. Again, it was very, very veiled, but it was alluded to several times and I remember thinking, "what do they know"?"
posted by salvia at 12:48 AM on November 1, 2007


That doesn't make any sense at all. Hillary would be sunk because her husband had affairs? But Rudy Giuliani is a-ok and he is a serial adulterer?

What the fuck, over?
posted by Justinian at 12:53 AM on November 1, 2007


Justinian, perhaps their logic is: "Hillary can't control her husband / is undersirable, whereas Giuliani is virile."
posted by sebastienbailard at 3:05 AM on November 1, 2007


I, for one, welcome our new gay, in the closet, serial adulterer, beastialty-practicing, cross-dressing, Republican overlords...
posted by paddbear at 3:10 AM on November 1, 2007 [3 favorites]


At lest the revelation of massive hypocrisy still has the power to cause politicians to resign. It's just about the only thing left short of actual felonies.
posted by JHarris at 4:00 AM on November 1, 2007 [2 favorites]


in re: scandal involving a leading presidential candidate, logically, Obama seems to make the most sense. I don't think any publication wants to be accused of sabotaging the African American candidate - purely out of self-concern, if nothing else.

I can't imagine that it's Hillary; she's been under the microscope for decades now, and if there was the teeniest sexual scandal there, I just can't imagine it not having been dredged up. Giuliani would almost be ho-hum in this regard, wouldn't he? At least I can't really imagine a publication having some "crisis of conscience" about reporting more dirt on him... and anyway, because of the language used to frame the situation, I get the very strong feeling it's a democrat. So, OB is my bet, if I had to bet.
posted by taz at 4:03 AM on November 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


I love it how the Desperate Right hates Hillary so much that they're now collectively jerking off to an insane "Al Qaeda infiltrates leading Presidential campaign through hot lesbian Pakistani young women in Prada" theory -- desperation is now slowly descending into madness; the racist crap about Obama being a closeted Muslim and possible Manchurian Candidate (well, Indonesian Candidate, to be fair)

whenever you think they've reached a new low, they surprise you. I'm just sorry Obama won't get nominated because I would have loved to hear the depraved talk radio cavemen confronting the actual possibility of a black man running their country -- watermelon/fried chicken jokes galore, probably.

and speaking of extreme kinks, after years of having reality (Iraq, Katrina, the list is long) shit in their mouths on a daily basis, one has to wonder whether American conservatives have actually started to like it -- they wouldn't keep lamely defending their team otherwise.

at least they should always keep breath mints with them at all times.
posted by matteo at 4:31 AM on November 1, 2007 [3 favorites]


Epenthesis, do you really want to describe the current crop of GOP candidates this way?

...just five guys clawing each other in the hopes that one will be on top by next summer.

Isn't that taking the whole "GOP=Gay" thing to a disturbing new level?

It's remarkable how close to the gutter my mind can be this early in the day.
posted by mmahaffie at 4:34 AM on November 1, 2007 [2 favorites]


Dennis Kucinich is a masochist.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:00 AM on November 1, 2007


As are Kucinich supporters, it would seem.
posted by spock at 5:41 AM on November 1, 2007 [4 favorites]


It's Ron Paul. I know because he raped me.
posted by billysumday at 5:58 AM on November 1, 2007 [2 favorites]


If this is going to have anything to do with Law & Order and closeted homosexuals, why can't it be Chris Meloni and Chris Noth getting it on? With video, of course.
posted by desjardins at 6:11 AM on November 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


I sort of feel sorry for Fred Thompson. It really seemed like there were those in the Republican establishment who were saying "Don't worry, if you run we'll give you the nomination."

So eventually he ends up half-heartedly running only to realize he was lied to.

If it is revealed that he's involved in some sex scandal, I want the newspaper that breaks the story to put the reveal inside the paper, and to make the Law and Order "DUN DUN" chunking sound when you realize that Fred Thompson sleeps with the fishes.
posted by drezdn at 6:18 AM on November 1, 2007 [2 favorites]


My dad, who lives in a town of 250 (in the summer, when the migrants are in) in Indiana farmcountry, and with whom I do NOT talk politics, told me he thinks Thompson will get the nomination. I really don't get it.

But I do agree with drezdn, he seems to be totally going through the motions and surprised that SECURITY, UNITY, PROSPERITY hasn't already handed him the nomination.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 6:37 AM on November 1, 2007


it all fits for Thompson--LA Times especially.

A friend of mine--an actor in LA--assures me that this is true. Fred Thompson once blew Arthur Branch.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:48 AM on November 1, 2007


The Krazy Kill Klintons Kult just depresses the shit out of me. They are such crazy, vile whackos. The methods they use are so under-handed, so manifestly dishonest. What with BushJunior's Daily and Rambunctious sodomizing of our Constitution (and in the Oval Office, generally, not even in some back corridor) I forgot all about the horror of having to listen to them day in and day out. They're like your junky cousin who asks to borrow your car and promises, promises he won't sell it this time, only to return it with vomit all over the (now) slashed-to-bits interior and who then gets offended when you don't thank him for returning it at all.

They are poisonous and should have unfortunate accidents that lead them, each and every one, to retire to hospice to nurture their excrutiating pain until the end of their bitter, manipulative, dis-honest and all-but-worthless lives.

Where-upon I will set up a service offering a tour around the country in a half-wrecked school bus to each of their gravesites, affording my customers the opportunity to pay their respects to each and every member of this insane Krush Klinton Kabal in the form of liberal micturation upon their tombstones. I will become rich off this enterprise and will then use this money to set up a PAC to guard the citizens of the US against their like and their Democracy-destroying venom.

Alright, maybe I'm being a little soft...
posted by From Bklyn at 7:07 AM on November 1, 2007 [2 favorites]


in this era of "gotcha", where every cub reporter out there wants to be the next Woodward/Bernstein who brings down the government, any scandal is eventually going to come out.

Your faith in the press is cute, but misplaced.


It doesn't even come down to faith or lack thereof in the press when it comes to the impact of an enthusiastic "cub reporter." Reporters have editors who have a board above them - they don't decide what gets into the paper. Editors have an interest in keeping their jobs by keeping the boards happy and the boards suffer from the true bias of the media. It's not liberalism or conservatism that pervades the media, it's statism. The media outlets are giant for-profit corporations who have an interest in keeping the apple cart upright.
posted by phearlez at 7:29 AM on November 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


I'd like to talk with you about some something I'm not prepared to talk about.

[Discuss amongst yourselves]

For the sarcastically deaf, this might be the stupidest pol-blog post ever.
posted by Fupped Duck at 7:50 AM on November 1, 2007


No argument from me, phearlez, but the point remains: There hasn't been a single one of these many gay sex scandals I can remember that was first uncovered by an enthusiastic reporter digging for dirt, and in many, if not most, cases there were persistent rumors of the scandal for years that mainstream reporters consistently ignored. Welch is being silly if he really expects us to overlook that evidence and believe that fearless investigations of juicy rumors by the mainstream press is the norm. It's certainly not the norm with these gay sex scandals, anyway.
posted by mediareport at 7:54 AM on November 1, 2007 [2 favorites]


Steven C. Den Beste writes "This guy thinks he knows what the suppressed scandal is. He sez, Hillary is actually bi and is having an affair with a woman aide."

I don't think (Hillary) Clinton is that stupid, politically speaking, of course. This is her last big chance, and she's not gambling at all.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:05 AM on November 1, 2007


It's Clinton. Salvia has it.

Real or not, some new Gennifer Flowers or Paula What's-her-name will surface in the last weeks before the election. Denials would ensue, etc.

If I were a Republican of the stripe we see in office now, I'd do it. Hell, even the second-order effect of implying that there is another affair, post-Lewinsky, in Bill Clinton's closet could cause serious damage.
posted by atchafalaya at 8:09 AM on November 1, 2007


...there are no leading Republican candidates, just five guys clawing each other in the hopes that one will be on top by next summer.

Hawt!
posted by ericb at 8:54 AM on November 1, 2007


Oooh, some hint of maybe a sexual scandal involving a presidential candidate. I know, let's all speculate about it and imagine our least favourite politicians and their personal scandal downfall. It's blogirific! I bet it was Giuliani in Gracie Mansion with the Candlestick.

(Thanks for the Curtis story, though. That's actual journalism, compared to this petty blogcrap rumourmongering).
posted by Nelson at 9:10 AM on November 1, 2007


Dennis Kucinich is a masochist.

Sez you.
posted by The Bellman at 9:13 AM on November 1, 2007


Obama.

I was completely unaware of any rumors until amberglow's post, but two stills of Obama (sorry, can't find 'em) brought me up short months ago, and I've been waiting to hear about it since.

Just as an aside: after looking over a few hundred pictures of him, he's astonishing-- he would certainly be the best-looking President we've ever had.
posted by jamjam at 9:22 AM on November 1, 2007


I hope it's not Fred Thompson. If a scandal's going to take out a Republican hopeful, I'd rather have it happen to a viable candidate (Giuliani, for example).
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:39 AM on November 1, 2007


"Funny you should ask--Flynt Teases New “Huge” GOP Senate Sex Scandal (last week, on FOX)"

Umm… No.

At least, not anything we've run through the fact-checkers at Hustler yet. Flynt could know something, but my guess would be that predicting an impending gay sex scandal for the GOP is the safe bet now.

And for the folks talking about how the media sits on stories—There are all sorts of things that reporters sit on. Usually, it's because they can't PROVE it. You get bits of rumor and gut feeling, you dig and dig and you can almost prove something, but you have to be sure to run it. Which means that it doesn't run.
posted by klangklangston at 10:19 AM on November 1, 2007


sorry, can't find 'em

Meaning, the links to the photos, or the words to describe them?
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 10:22 AM on November 1, 2007


If they had a juicy story about a Republican, it would have hit the front page as soon as it was ready, if not five minutes before that.

I love the smell of persecution fantasies in the morning. Smells like... Republican.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:28 AM on November 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


You get bits of rumor and gut feeling, you dig and dig and you can almost prove something, but you have to be sure to run it. Which means that it doesn't run.

Which is a good thing. Sometimes I hate blogs.
posted by Nelson at 10:32 AM on November 1, 2007


Pope Guilty, we're talking about the newspaper which tried to smear Schwarzenegger. They do not have a history of restraint.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 10:48 AM on November 1, 2007


Neither does Schwarzenegger.
posted by klangklangston at 10:56 AM on November 1, 2007 [3 favorites]


this thread is useless without nude pictures of ms. abedin.
posted by bruce at 11:04 AM on November 1, 2007


seriously, Fred Thompson?

He's got the grampy porn Horned Toad scaly vote tied up, for sure.
posted by y2karl at 11:14 AM on November 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


Pope Guilty, we're talking about the newspaper which tried to smear Schwarzenegger. They do not have a history of restraint.

Is this over pointing out the numerous incidents of him groping people?
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:15 AM on November 1, 2007


That scaly = furry should go without saying, but just in case...
posted by y2karl at 11:17 AM on November 1, 2007


Mr. Kucinich and that reporter from the Daily Show who impressed her by day-dreaming about her "titian" hair?

God bless them for-ever for giving us the notion of a "FLILF."
posted by mmahaffie at 11:21 AM on November 1, 2007


Oh, for corn's sake... MRS Kucinich. Jeepers. He's not even Republican.
posted by mmahaffie at 11:22 AM on November 1, 2007


FLILF

Only if she keeps her mowf shut.
posted by cillit bang at 12:22 PM on November 1, 2007


Y'know, that whole "Hillary is a lesbian schtupping her gorgeous personal assisstant" thing makes me think that Republicans want Hillary to be the biggest, baddest man that ever was to make them feel better about losing to her.
posted by Kattullus at 12:48 PM on November 1, 2007


There are all sorts of things that reporters sit on.

Apparently that list does not include the laps of presidential candidates or they'd have the proof they'd need to run with this story!
posted by Pollomacho at 1:02 PM on November 1, 2007


This thread needs a comic.
posted by spock at 1:19 PM on November 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


There hasn't been a single one of these many gay sex scandals I can remember that was first uncovered by an enthusiastic reporter digging for dirt, and in many, if not most, cases there were persistent rumors of the scandal for years that mainstream reporters consistently ignored. Welch is being silly if he really expects us to overlook that evidence and believe that fearless investigations of juicy rumors by the mainstream press is the norm. It's certainly not the norm with these gay sex scandals, anyway.
And don't forget the Idaho papers had their investigation all complete with multiple witnesses and everything--and still never ran it until after weeks after Craig got caught and arrested. They totally sat on it.
posted by amberglow at 2:22 PM on November 1, 2007


He said, " It was sex butt not gay sex cause I didn't inhale."
posted by doctorschlock at 2:31 PM on November 1, 2007


"If they had a juicy story about a Republican, it would have hit the front page as soon as it was ready, if not five minutes before that."

The MSM has a very very poor record in printing scandals about Repigs. Take a story I personally worked on -- the device on Bush's back during the debates. I was pretty skeptical when I got involved but there were literally hundreds of photos of it in the MSM, there was image analysis by a respected scientist.

We'd contacted the Times with the evidence. Nothing happened. Later, we learned *from an interview* that they had a story prepared on this topic -- but they never printed it because they thought it was too close to the election (we discovered they spiked some other stories in the same interview).

Do you have a specific example of a scandal with the LA Times that they covered up? Or, let's get more general, some specific Democrat scandal that was covered up by any mainstream newspaper?

Generally, Mr. Steven C. Den Beste, you have a strong tendency to appear early in a political thread, make a lot of things up, and then disappear. As a result, your reputation here has fallen fairly low.

Please try from now on to document your claims. I'd like to be able to take you seriously -- you seem intelligent, if seriously misguided. But until you stop making things up out of whole cloth, I cannot do that.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:33 PM on November 1, 2007 [3 favorites]


There are all sorts of things that reporters sit on. Usually, it's because they can't PROVE it. You get bits of rumor and gut feeling, you dig and dig and you can almost prove something, but you have to be sure to run it. Which means that it doesn't run.
Bullshit. The entire Monica thing disproves your point, and the "suicide" of that guy, and all the other Clinton bullshit. From the day she was on that rope line and even before, they ran stories without proof all the time every single day--using whole forests full of newsprint. The Whitewater "deal" itself was never proven to be a crime-- and that got an independent prosecutor assigned and ran for years and years in the papers and on tv endlessly.

The fact is that nowadays if you're a Republican, your story is sat on and killed, or buried deep in the papers-- if run at all--see this about Giuliani still working at his firm he promised to leave, for instance--page A6, when Edwards haircut stories and Clinton cleavage and their sexlife stories run on the front page.
posted by amberglow at 2:40 PM on November 1, 2007 [2 favorites]


Whitewater investigation: six years, $60 million.

9/11 Commission: one and a half years, $3 million (initial budget; the commission later requested an additional $8 million, which the administration resisted)
posted by kirkaracha at 4:12 PM on November 1, 2007 [2 favorites]


Another Mefite emailed me suggesting I should 'put up or shut up' concerning the images that made me think the rumors were about Obama.

Well, I didn't find those images after considerable searching, and I've decided he's right, so please consider me shut up and not to have said anything in the first place.
posted by jamjam at 5:48 PM on November 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


My dad, who lives in a town of 250 (in the summer, when the migrants are in) in Indiana farmcountry, and with whom I do NOT talk politics, told me he thinks Thompson will get the nomination. I really don't get it.

He may be the only GOP candidate anybody recognizes.
posted by jonmc at 5:50 PM on November 1, 2007


I am beginning to believe the gay movement successfully infiltrated the Republican party, got themselves all voted into House and Senate, and are now deftly executing their plan to blow the whole cockamamie organization to smithereens by outing themselves.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:48 PM on November 1, 2007 [2 favorites]


I am beginning to believe the gay movement successfully infiltrated the Republican party, got themselves all voted into House and Senate, and are now deftly executing their plan to blow the whole cockamamie organization to smithereens by outing themselves.

So that's the gay agenda!
posted by philcliff at 6:51 PM on November 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


Imma hang this buy my computer.
posted by FunkyHelix at 7:37 PM on November 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


"blow the whole cockamamie organization," eh?
posted by kirkaracha at 7:38 PM on November 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


So that's the gay agenda!

Nope.

'Tis the 'Gay Agenda' (previously):
The Republican Gay Agenda
as per Jeff Gannon/Jeff Guckert, Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy Jr., Richard Curtis, etc.

8:00 a.m. Wake up. Wonder where you are.

8:01 a.m. Realize you are laying on 100% Egyptian cotton sheets of at least ‘300-count,’ so don’t panic; you’re not slumming.

8:02 a.m. Realize you are actually in your own bed in Dupont Circle (for a change). Wake stranger next to you and tell him you are late for work, so you won’t be able to cook breakfast for him. Mutter ‘sorry’ as you help him look for his far-flung underwear. You realize that you tore his boxers off him last night, so you ‘loan’ him a pair of tighty-white briefs, but not the new 2Xist ones because you never intend to see him again.

8:05 a.m. Tell the stranger, whose name eludes you, ‘It was fun. I’ll give you a call,’ as you usher him out the door, avoiding his egregious morning-breath.

8:06 a.m. Crumple and dispose of the piece of paper with his telephone number on it when you get to the kitchen.

8:07 a.m. Make a high-protein breakfast shake while watching CNN. Wonder if the stories you’ve heard about Anderson Cooper are true. Decide they must be.

8:30 a.m. Black or grey suit? Decide to go with black, the only shirt that is clean and the ubiquitous red-striped rep tie.

8:45 a.m. Climb into BMW, trying not to look too much like Barbie driving one of her accessories, as you pull out of your underground parking. Chanel or Armani sunglasses? Go with Armani. Save the Chanel for Rehobeth this weekend.

9:35 a.m. Stroll into The Russell Senate Office Building.

9:36 a.m. Close door to office and call best friend and laugh about the guy who spent the night at your condo. Point out something annoying about best friend’s boyfriend but quickly add ‘It doesn’t matter what everyone else thinks, just as long as you love him.’

10:15 a.m. Leave office, telling your secretary you are ‘meeting with some of your boss’s constituents.’ Pretend not to notice her insubordinate roll of the eyes (or the cloying ‘poem’ she has tacked to her cubicle wall).

10:30 a.m. Hair appointment for highlights and trim. Purchase Aveda anti-humectant pomade.

11:30 a.m. Run into personal trainer at gym. Pester him about getting you ‘Human Growth Hormones.’ Spend 30-minutes talking to friends on your cell phone. Cardio for 30-minutes; lift weights for 20.

12:50 p.m. Tan. Schedule back-waxing in time for Saturday party where you know you will end up shirtless.

1:05 p.m. Pay trainer for anabolic steroids and schedule a workout. Shower, dry and dress while taking ten minutes to knot your red-striped rep tie while you check-out your best friend’s boyfriend undress with the calculation of someone used to wearing a ‘g-string thong’ and having dollars stuffed in his crotch.

1:40 p.m. Meet someone for whom you only know his waist, chest and penis size from Manhunt for lunch at the ‘hot, new restaurant.’ Because the maître d’ recognizes you from the The Crew Club, you are whisked past the Christian heterosexual couples who have been waiting patiently for a table since 1:00 p.m.

2:30 p.m. ‘Dessert at your place.’ Find out, once again, people lie on Manhunt.

3:33 p.m. Make your way to Capitol Hill. Make sure the senator for whom you are an aide votes ‘lock-step’ against your personal interests.

5:00 p.m. Take a disco-nap to prevent facial wrinkles from being so ‘terribly witty.’

6:00 p.m. Open a fabulous new bottle of Pinot Grigio.

6:47 P.M. Bake Ketamine for the weekend. Test recipe. Call ‘Juan’ to score some ‘X’ and ‘White Lady’ (really, just for friends) tomorrow before heading to Delaware for the weekend.

7:00 P.M. Go to Abercrombie & Fitch and announce in a loud voice, ‘Over! So way over!’

7:40 P.M. Stop looking at the A&F photographic displays and the ‘hottie’ retail-boys and go to ‘cool store’ to shop for a new bathing suit (“Does this make me look fat?”) for the weekend in Rehoboth.

8:30 p.m. Light dinner with ‘catty’ homosexual friends at a restaurant you will be ‘over’ by the time it gets its first review in the ‘Washington Blade.’

10:30 p.m. Cocktails at JR’s, trying to avoid alcoholic queens who can’t navigate a crowd with a Stoli in a cheap plastic cup. Get plastered. Invite one of the alcoholic queens home with you.

12:00 a.m. ‘Nightcap at your place.’ Find out that people lie in bars, too.”

Rinse-and-repeat.*
posted by ericb at 8:33 PM on November 1, 2007


What the Republican apologists so willfully ignore in this kind of discussion is that if a Democrat were to suddenly be outed as gay, it wouldn't frikken matter. Democrats are not the party which demonizes the private sexual proclivities of consenting adults. Democrats are not the party which justifies a blinkered hatred of innocent others based entirely on the some misguided interpretation of the poorly-translated myths of ignorant ancient desert goat-herders.

The intolerant superstitions of 2000 years ago have no place at all in a fair and just society; but Democrats don't argue that they do. It is the Republican Party which encourages their follower to ostracize and humiliate others based on their sexuality. It is the Republican Party which claims that being gay makes you a substandard human being. When a Republican gets "caught", it does matter. It means that they are a willful and mercenary liar. A filthy hypocrite, prepared to sell out the rights of others for whom they would have some empathy, if they had even a smidgen of human compassion.

I'm not gay, but if I were, it would be meaningless in my professional and private life. This is because I don't choose to discriminate against others out of repressed guilt, and I don't associate with or tolerate those that do. These closeted gay Republicans are not only traitors to their own "kind" ( like there is such a simple thing ) but to the bedrock principals that their party is based upon. They are the double agents of the political world, and desreving of utter contempt.

Show me someone overly concerned with the morality of others, and I'll show you someone who harbours a guilty conscience.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 8:40 PM on November 1, 2007 [6 favorites]


PB, that was amazingly said. Bravo.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:55 AM on November 2, 2007


Curtis speaks, sort-of: Curtis said he realizes he needs to explain how he could vote against gay marriage and domestic partnerships and have a secret second life, but he cannot discuss such matters until all legal issues have been resolved.
posted by amberglow at 5:49 PM on November 3, 2007


And another one: Florida politician caught soliciting gay sex in mall restroom
posted by amberglow at 4:25 AM on November 4, 2007


This guy thinks he knows what the suppressed scandal is.

My dad, who lives in a town of 250 (in the summer, when the migrants are in) in Indiana farmcountry, and with whom I do NOT talk politics, told me he thinks Thompson will get the nomination. I really don't get it

'Longtime Friend,' Thompson Adviser Has Rap Sheet
posted by thomcatspike at 2:23 AM on November 5, 2007


i can't believe he's keeping that guy on.

thomcat! where have you been? : >
posted by amberglow at 3:10 PM on November 6, 2007


'Longtime Friend,' Thompson Adviser Has Rap Sheet -- i can't believe he's keeping that guy on.

Yesterday -- Thompson Backer With Criminal Past Resigns.
posted by ericb at 3:23 PM on November 6, 2007


John Waters on Craig, etc: ... Oh, at the airport! I hear that airport is becoming a big tourist attraction. I want to make a movie about it. "The Last Stall on the Left." Sex in a public bathroom? How could you? In every airport bathroom it's very crowded. It's in the main airport, eh? I have to go there. Which stall was it, do you know?
...

posted by amberglow at 4:08 PM on November 6, 2007


You know, this would be funny, if it weren't so frikken tragic. Contemplating the anguish of anyone desperately struggling with their most basic instincts is sad enough. But here's what I'm missing. What the frick is with this public-bathroom deal? It's like they were asking to be caught. I'm no expert, but I was under the impression that members of the gay community were no longer forced to resort to such antediluvian clandestine subterfuge. This certainly seems to be the case here in Canada.

Perhaps I'm wrong though, and I am reading too much into my perception of the degree of tolerance our society seemed to have developed over the last generation? Maybe things aren't as advanced as I've imagined, but the whole idea of anonymous public sex seems somewhat crudely retro; kind of a June Cleaver meets James Ellroy gestalt.

Or possibly therein lies the thrill?
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 11:07 PM on November 7, 2007


It's the thrill. These jackasses have a fetish for public sex.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:39 AM on November 8, 2007


What the frick is with this public-bathroom deal?
They're closeted public figures--they feel they can't risk going to open community places like gay bars. And they don't admit they're gay at all, until after they're caught, and usually not even then.

They are stuck with places like bathrooms and porn store backrooms, and with hustlers like this guy.
posted by amberglow at 12:56 PM on November 8, 2007


Hmmm ... I guess that makes sense amberglow, although to me it seems some-what counter-intuitive

I'd have thought that that risk of exposure in such places would be increased, not diminished. Or is it perhaps possible that the fear of apprehension is part of their thrill, as FFF has suggested?

Around these parts, (admittedly, a petty tolerant place) the distinctions between gay bars and bars in general seems to be dissolving. Places like the Luv Affair have been pretty much mainstream for at last a decade, and I can't really think of gay bars I know of where my presence would be exceptional or resented.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 4:52 PM on November 8, 2007


Public restroom sex lets homosexual men has a lot of benefits for the closeted man. It's anonymous. It's quick and convenient and requires planning. It doesn't feel "gay". I don't think thrill of discovery has anything to do with it; quite the opposite, really. It's like a drive through for sex.
posted by Nelson at 5:06 PM on November 8, 2007


It's risky, of course, but they don't have choices. They're all "family values" Republicans who legislate, fundraise, and demonize about how us gays are evil and out to rape children. They either have to hire hustlers (like Haggard and this guy), or go to bathrooms and take their chances, or be like Foley and come on to people at work. I think Dreier in California is the only unmarried one with a lover, but then he's not a rabid antigay hateful fool like the others. For the married ones, i can't imagine it's acceptable to be out socially in a bar without the wife.

They put themselves in a straitjacket.
posted by amberglow at 5:10 PM on November 8, 2007


They are stuck with places like bathrooms and porn store backrooms, and with hustlers like this guy.

BTW -- KOMO-TV reports on GOP state Rep. Richard Curtis, hustler/porn boy Cody Castagna, and Gay Extortion in Spokane.

Dan Savage, writing for The Stranger took a trip to Spokane to retrace Rep. Richard Curtis' steps.
posted by ericb at 5:15 PM on November 8, 2007


They put themselves in a straitjacket.

Err -- that would be STRAIGHTjacket!
posted by ericb at 5:17 PM on November 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


Wow, I must have been high when I wrote my last comment. Let me try again.

Public restroom sex has a lot of benefits for the closeted man. It's anonymous. It's quick and convenient and requires no planning. It doesn't feel "gay". I don't think thrill of discovery has anything to do with it; quite the opposite, really. It's like a drive through for sex.

A mixed gay/straight bar is the last place you'll see someone so deep in the closet they can't even admit to themselves they may be gay.
posted by Nelson at 8:56 AM on November 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


Right. Makes sense. They are so deeply conflicted that they can't bring themselves to go anywhere near places where they would have to acknowledge their true feelings.

My gay friends also inform me that I am somewhat naive when it comes to the level of social acceptance of sexual differences here in Canada. Vancouver is a pretty progressive place, but is the exception, not the rule. While it's now possible for a gay person living here to go about their daily life and generally encounter little hostility, I'm told it's still a constant struggle, and an emotionally wearing battle. Apparently, my blase attitude about all this is a bit simplistic.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 5:39 PM on November 10, 2007


not naive so much as the result of living in a big, safer city--and maybe a safer/not as nasty country as well? I had to learn just how restricted/dangerous most places were--i grew up here in a giant, mixed, more tolerant place.

In NYC, we have tons of people who escape those terrible enivroments and get themselves here, so we learn just how stinky most places are (most big US cities are full of gay--and straight-- people who got out of whatever lousy/dangerous areas they were brought up in--and even the growth of surburban gay couples and families doesn't mean that those hick towns/counties all over are seeing the effects of that expansion of tolerance)
posted by amberglow at 2:47 AM on November 12, 2007


« Older An excellent resource for connoisseurs of facial h...  |  Joss Whedon announces new Fox ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments