Among the Flutterers

August 14, 2010 11:04 AM

Among the Flutterers: In this long, thoughtful essay for the LRB, Irish novelist Colm Tóibín examines the relationship between the Catholic church and homosexuality.
posted by puny human (38 comments total)

Catholic parish priests still control the majority of primary schools: they appoint the teachers and chair the boards of management.
I didn't know this.
posted by unliteral at 11:17 AM on August 14, 2010

Grrrrr.

Great article, very thoughtful and thought provoking. Full of insights which I didn't really know (not being Catholic and watching most of this from the outside). I was right along with him up until this point near the end:

When I listed the reasons homosexuals might be attracted to the Church and might want to become priests, I did not mention the most obvious one: you get to wear funny bright clothes; you get to dress up all the time in what are essentially women’s clothes. As part of the training to be an altar boy I had to learn, and still remember, what a priest puts on to say Mass: the amice, the alb, the girdle, the stole, the maniple and the chasuble. Watching them robing themselves was like watching Mary Queen of Scots getting ready for her execution.

I'm eternally weary of the idea that homosexuality = wanting to wear women's clothing. Or that it means really giving a shit about clothes in general. It isn't about that at all. It's about who you fuck. Everything else is cultural trappings, stereotyping, and creating a discernible "other" to make it easier for the majority to identify and prosecute queers. We have to get beyond the equation of "gay = drag" before we're going to move into a healthy picture of same-sex relationships in general.
posted by hippybear at 11:44 AM on August 14, 2010 [8 favorites]

This seems to boil down to “The Catholic Church has a bad case of cognitive dissonance about homosexuality”. Didn’t we already know this?

I mean, really. Give confused, closeted gay teenagers, living in a culture that tells them they are morally degenerate because of whom they love, a way out through externally-enforced celibacy and it’s no surprise that they’ll take it and then create a moral quandary for that organization.
posted by spitefulcrow at 11:57 AM on August 14, 2010

It's about who you fuck.

No, no it isn’t. Stop reducing something that encompasses the entire range of human interpersonal relationships into a single element of those relationships.
posted by spitefulcrow at 12:02 PM on August 14, 2010 [7 favorites]

I've said it before in these threads, but violations of the vow of celibacy are widespread among both straight and gay priests. Other than those gay men who enter the priesthood to escape the "pressure to be married" (which is obviously far less widespread than it used to be), there's no reason to believe that the priesthood is disproportionately gay, and plenty of reasons (not the least of which is the church's misguided and tragic attitude to homosexuality) to believe it's actually disproportionately straight.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 12:09 PM on August 14, 2010 [2 favorites]

This seems to boil down to “The Catholic Church has a bad case of cognitive dissonance about homosexuality”. Didn’t we already know this?

Well, yes, we knew that. But me, at least, I didn't know anything about what it was like to be a teenaged Colm Tóibín. The guy's got an interesting point of view, even if his political position is nothing new.
posted by nebulawindphone at 12:14 PM on August 14, 2010

Stop reducing something that encompasses the entire range of human interpersonal relationships into a single element of those relationships.

If you can give quality evidence about how homosexual relationships are different from heterosexual relationships other than "I go 'ping' with people of the same gender as me rather than with people of the opposite gender" that doesn't boil down into drawing from stereotypes and cultural assumptions, I'll be happy to do so. I don't see my relationships as being any different from heterosexual ones other than in the gender with whom I want to engage. Everything else is trappings.
posted by hippybear at 12:21 PM on August 14, 2010

I don't see my relationships as being any different from heterosexual ones other than in the gender with whom I want to engage. Everything else is trappings.

Just curious -- does this imply that you don't think there's such a thing as "queer subjectivity"?
posted by treepour at 12:40 PM on August 14, 2010

If you can give quality evidence about how homosexual relationships are different from heterosexual relationships

Be careful you don't bring your own cultural baggage to this. American culture might be all about "who you fuck", but other cultures (like, say, Irish Catholicism) might have other definitions of gayness. Like, say, maybe it correlates more strongly with transvestism there.

(I don't know for sure, I'm just wary of universal pronouncements when it comes to human sexuality).
posted by Leon at 12:51 PM on August 14, 2010

If you can give quality evidence about how homosexual relationships are different from heterosexual relationships other than "I go 'ping' with people of the same gender as me rather than with people of the opposite gender" that doesn't boil down into drawing from stereotypes and cultural assumptions, I'll be happy to do so. I don't see my relationships as being any different from heterosexual ones other than in the gender with whom I want to engage. Everything else is trappings.

I wasn’t implying that there’s a difference outside of “I go ‘ping’”, as you put it. I meant that saying “who you fuck” reduces the argument to sex, which is not the entirety of an intimate relationship.

Putting it in terms of who you fuck puts the debate on the level of “Ew, those people like putting that piece of anatomy somewhere I don’t”, which, unfortunately, is going to take a lot of time to erase from the straight male persona. As cheesy as it sounds, saying it’s about “who you love” probably makes it easier for us to get our point across without hitting that knee-jerk reaction.

I completely support getting rid of that reaction, but it means doing a lot of work to get rid of sex-negative language and debate. Until we accomplish that, this is a place where accommodating boundaries will help further the cause.
posted by spitefulcrow at 1:33 PM on August 14, 2010 [1 favorite]

Hippybear -- Besides who I want to fuck, being gay also means which gender I want cuddle with or have a longterm relationship with. So I think it's a bit more than just fucking; perhaps that is what spitefulcrow is getting at (although you'll have to ask him).

Spitefulcrow -- Perhaps what hippybear is suggesting is that if you take a straight couple, change the genders of who they are fucking, and -- poof -- you get a straight couple. So this is the only difference between the two types of couples (although you'll have to ask him).
posted by Peter Petridish at 1:36 PM on August 14, 2010

does this imply that you don't think there's such a thing as "queer subjectivity"?

Well, wow, big question. I think it's a difficult one to answer because "queer" has a lot of baggage to unpack to begin with. If you are asking, do I think that homosexual men and women have an identity and sensibility which interprets the world differently because of their sexuality, I would say that I think a lot of that "otherness" is something which is going to disappear over time as homosexuality is mainstreamed. I sort of touch on my reasons behind acknowledging the differences and why I think it will disappear in this comment.

If you're asking, do I believe that there are individuals of any gender and sexuality who approach the world from broader view than the dominant culture and are more willing to explore and express themselves within their wider understanding of what can be expressed, possibly going against the grain as to what others say SHOULD be expressed, then absolutely I agree with that. But is that broader understanding necessarily tied into the sexual preference of that individual? I would think not. I can see where, in today's world and years previous, the necessary process of realization which gay men and women undergo as part of their own path can lead to that (see my linked comment above), but I don't think that it's anything which comes natively by being born gay.

So, I guess the short answer would be, I do think there is such a thing as "queer sensibility", but I don't think the word "queer" in that statement has anything to do intrinsically with a given person's homosexuality, and more has to do with "queer" meaning "moving outside the mainstream".

It's a difficult answer to give because our culture has deeply entangled the outward expression of that non-mainstream sensibility with the roles into which we seem to want to push gay men and lesbians. If you're a male and you have interest in interior design, or theater, or female impersonation, or cake decorating, or fashion, or whatever-the-next-thing-that-pops-into-your-head... there's a cultural assumption that 1) you must be gay, and 2) if you're gay, you must be interested in these things. Never mind the fact that there is a long long list of heterosexual men who have done any of these things across the years and centuries. Ditto with women. If you are interested in [insert stereotyped "butch" female job here], then 1) you have to be a lesbian, and 2) if you're a lesbian, you have to be interested.

The thing is, all of these assumptions are really culture based, and not necessarily contingent on sexuality at all. Nobody these days makes remarks about Eddie Izzard being homosexual, despite his transvestitism. (Even my use of the word "despite" there shows how deeply these assumptions run.) There are legions of heterosexual men who like women's clothing. But in the article linked above, there is an inherent belief that "the most obvious reason" that gay men are attracted to the priesthood is because they get to play dress-up. Lawrence Llewelyn Bowen, flamboyant BBC personality best known for his work on Changing Rooms, is straight with two children. But he's best known for being an interior designer with a great deal of what one can reasonably call queer subjectivity.

Ultimately, I think the linking of queer subjectivity with homosexuality really hinders the process of self-realization for men who are attracted to men but who don't have that worldview. (I really cannot speak cogently about women's experience, but I would imagine there is some of the same going on for them, too.) I've met many men in their late 30s and early 40s who struggled their entire lives with their same-sex attraction, but who couldn't really come to terms with it in any really healthy way because they couldn't possibly be gay! They like football! They ride motorcycles! They suck at cooking! They don't care about hardcore personal grooming! Etc, etc, etc. The list goes on and on as to why they spent years confused about their inner lives, but since they don't fit the mold of what being gay is, according to the culture, they end up living lives of quiet misery and despair.

As I said before, homosexuality is what makes you go "ping". Everything else is cultural trappings. Even queer subjectivity, which has little to do with one's orientation about sex, and everything to do with one's orientation toward the culture at large.
posted by hippybear at 1:42 PM on August 14, 2010 [12 favorites]

At the age of 18, I entered the seminary of the Dyslexic Order of St. Barthelmollusc in Northumbria, and immediately took a vow of celery.

For many years I suppered with temptation, but I never broke my holey vowels. But in a dart hower, I lost my face. With a heavy harp I confessed my skinful desires to my colleague Farter Johannes - who toad me that celery is a git from God, and wode bee hee that reluses Gort's gilt.

So fuck you, Santa, and prise Jesus. Amen.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 2:08 PM on August 14, 2010 [3 favorites]

Let's get back to the Catholic church. Hippybear has taken the whole vestaments=drag thing out of the discussion (although I have anecdotes ... ) Let's just talk about celibacy and monasticism. I'm currently reading Diarmaid MacColloch's "Christianity: the First 3,000 Years" and am seeing the rising power of monasticism and celibacy in the early days of the Church. It's all power and politics, of course. The rise of monasticism and celibacy included. MacLolloch doesn't go into it, but the willingness to forgo sex and the company of women gives these parties a stronghold on the extreme left wing of any political and theological contest. Once they managed to establish celibacy and the exclusion of women as proof of holiness, they outflank any rivals who aren't willing to make such an extreme "sacrifice."

But of course, it's no sacrifice whatsoever if you're homosexual. (I can tell you that no group of heterosexual men, however much they love the Lord, are not going to form a club that forbids intercourse with women. That's just not going to happen. Ever.) So it was that the Church became a great refuge for the homosexually inclined (as well as the sexually confused), a thing that does not exclude it from being a holy institution, full of saintly people who perform valuable works of charity. I'm just saying that the church -- like much of our society -- has what is probably a deeply suppressed homosexual history that will someday make a fascinating story.
posted by Faze at 2:16 PM on August 14, 2010

there's no reason to believe that the priesthood is disproportionately gay, and plenty of reasons (not the least of which is the church's misguided and tragic attitude to homosexuality) to believe it's actually disproportionately straight.

Not according to "Carlo".

Ridiculous anecdotal attestations aside, is it unreasonable to believe that in very Catholic places, where homophobia runs thick, a clerical life offers a way to sidestep the hetero expectations of your family and community? Granted, this is essentially the "pressure to be married" at work, but it may also be thought of as a way to never come out. I don't think we always fully appreciate how difficult it might be to do this in a village in County Cork or Campania. These days kids generally take off to the cities, but Catholicism still has a great power in many places. The attractiveness of the priesthood for queer men must also be augmented by the phenomenon of very lonely and conflicted boys finding solace and forgiveness in the Church. The Church's "tragic and misguided attitude" may not be so repellent to gay boys/men who can barely acknowledge their own desire.

l33tpolicywonk, I guess I'm curious to know what your other reasons for thinking of the Catholic clergy as "disproportionately straight" are. I realize determining the incidence of homosexuality in the general populace is a statistical (and ethical) nightmare for various reasons, but do you mean that the percentage of priests who are gay is lower than the percentage of men who are gay?
posted by Roachbeard at 2:22 PM on August 14, 2010 [1 favorite]

For some reason, the LRB has some of the smartest and most nuanced writing about religion being published today--last week's essay by Eagleton on Newman, for example--combine that with Tolbin's brilliance on both his queerness and his irshness, and it's an excellent read.
posted by PinkMoose at 2:38 PM on August 14, 2010

Gänswein is remarkably handsome, a cross between George Clooney and Hugh Grant, but, in a way, more beautiful than either.

I'd say he's more like Redford crossed with Fonda, though I do see the hint of Grant in there.
posted by Jimmy Havok at 2:53 PM on August 14, 2010

(I can tell you that no group of heterosexual men, however much they love the Lord, are not going to form a club that forbids intercourse with women. That's just not going to happen. Ever.)

So all celibate monastic traditions are based on homosexuality? Buddhists or jains who forgo sex are also all repressing homosexual desires?

I mean, how would you, one individual man, possibly be able to tell with certainty how any potential group of men on earth would ever choose to behave? It seems entirely in keeping with other religious traditions that they would give up something they most desired, rather than something they didn't care for at all.
posted by mdn at 3:12 PM on August 14, 2010 [1 favorite]

It isn't about that at all. It's about who you fuck. Everything else is cultural trappings, stereotyping, and creating a discernible "other" to make it easier for the majority to identify and prosecute queers.

Sorry to continue the derail, but... how about situations where people, um, as you say, ping the same sex, but are not "born gay", i.e. prisons, Asmat men, spartans, that time in (band camp, college, drunkeness...)
posted by 445supermag at 3:19 PM on August 14, 2010

I'm in agreement with those who see the Catholic orders as a refuge for homosexuals in cultures that were hostile to them. In fact, I suspect that "the calling" was, for the most part, a metaphor for homosexuality. Priests would take confession from boys who admitted to homosexual desires and recruit them into the secret brotherhood. This was a structure that worked well at perpetuating itself up until homosexuality became socially acceptable.

One of the side effects of adult priests recruiting teen-aged boys into the fold was that it also provided a safe place for pedophiles to operate. I suspect that they formed a deeper secret cabal within or parallel to the homosexual secret society that was the backbone of the priesthood. With the reduction of the stigma against homosexuality, pedophiles became the major source of "the called," and the evidence of how the church's hierarchy has not just protected pedophiles but facilitated them leads to the conclusion that there is a strong, perhaps even dominant, pedophilic presence within that hierarchy.

Benedict's homophobic pronouncements are natural from the leader of an organization that depended on homophobia in order to perpetuate itself. He is fighting the tide, but I doubt that he can see any other path. The only population that is really suited to the overt life of a priest are asexuals, and they are not common, nor are they likely to reveal themselves in confession. Neither are they likely to be racked with the guilt that is such a central component of Catholic life, and so they are entirely unsuitable.

It strikes me that the whole structure built on concealed sexuality and secret corruption is no longer tenable in the modern world. The only possible way to rebuild the Catholic Church would be for it to honestly become what it has portrayed itself as, a spiritual cloister in a sinful world. But that is the kind of thing that will take generations to achieve, and the church probably does not have generations left to it.
posted by Jimmy Havok at 3:20 PM on August 14, 2010 [4 favorites]

last week's essay by Eagleton on Newman

Hey, thanks for mentioning that (link). If anyone's interested, Radio 4's recent Afternoon Play, Gerontius, with Derek Jacobi as Newman, was pretty damn good and is probably available on a torrent site near you.
posted by Leon at 3:30 PM on August 14, 2010

In fact, I suspect that "the calling" was, for the most part, a metaphor for homosexuality. Priests would take confession from boys who admitted to homosexual desires and recruit them into the secret brotherhood

With the reduction of the stigma against homosexuality, pedophiles became the major source of "the called," and the evidence of how the church's hierarchy has not just protected pedophiles but facilitated them leads to the conclusion that there is a strong, perhaps even dominant, pedophilic presence within that hierarchy

Do you have any, you know, actual data or evidence to back this up? I mean, this stuff would make a great new Dan Brown novel, certainly, but....
posted by AdamCSnider at 3:49 PM on August 14, 2010 [2 favorites]

Roachbeard: " do you mean that the percentage of priests who are gay is lower than the percentage of men who are gay?"

I haven't really seen evidence on it - admittedly, I'm engaged in somewhat radical explanation. Still, celibate or not, the church affirms the existence of straight sexual identity and rejects / actively screens for gay sexual identity among seminarians and current priests. If they're at all successful at that, some gay men have been kicked out of seminary essentially for being gay.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 4:49 PM on August 14, 2010

Faze: "I can tell you that no group of heterosexual men, however much they love the Lord, are not going to form a club that forbids intercourse with women. That's just not going to happen. Ever."

You really believe that people of any sexual orientation can never voluntarily choose to not have sex for ideological or spiritual reasons?
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 4:51 PM on August 14, 2010

how about situations where people, um, as you say, ping the same sex, but are not "born gay", i.e. prisons, Asmat men, spartans, that time in (band camp, college, drunkeness...)

You are mistaking my use of "ping"... by it I mean, that is what turns you on, what you seek out, what turns your head on the street. I'm not using "ping" as a TV-G dub-in for the word "fuck". I don't think any of your examples really fit the bill for homosexual interest, except for perhaps when people closer to the middle of the bell curve of the Kinsey scale have "that time in..." that you mention.

/derail
posted by hippybear at 5:01 PM on August 14, 2010 [1 favorite]

133policywonk -- I believe that there are many people who are not especially sexual and I respect them and their right to be free of criticism or ridicule like "The 40-year-old Virgin". There are probably not many of them, and as Jimmy Havok points out in his brilliant four paragraphs up above (four of the most amazing paragraphs of have ever read), "The only population that is really suited to the overt life of a priest are asexuals, and they are not common, nor are they likely to reveal themselves in confession. Neither are they likely to be racked with the guilt that is such a central component of Catholic life, and so they are entirely unsuitable."

You are not going to be able to assemble the critical mass of heterosexual or asexual men who are willing to forgo intercourse with women you would need to gain the upper hand in the Catholic Church. You need lots of men who prefer living with other men and the only place to recruit such numbers is out of the set of homosexual men. Listen to Jimmy Havok. The whole history of the Church is right there, right down to the last, crusty chausible.

Jimmy, write the book.
posted by Faze at 5:21 PM on August 14, 2010

The JimmyH theory gets a little weak if any amount of altruism - initial or aquired - is assumed to be the motivating factor towards priesthood. The job description and duties are pretty clear at the outset and it doesn't seem reasonable to spend a life faking them in order to gain some sort of sexual camouflage. Not sure about others, but my sense of do-goodery is pretty far removed from my sexuality.
posted by klarck at 7:12 PM on August 14, 2010

I use "ping" in the same way hippybear :) And not just sexually, but in the sense that I ping on this writer, or I ping on this website. Like a radar blip, or sonar. I guess it would be less confusing to people if we said "schwing" instead of ping.

also, I wish people wouldn't be so quick to use the term derail. Mefi is a conversational place, and conversations in my experience take many twists and turns, and run up the occasional blind alley. It's all good, and I appreciate the intelligent comments from everyone in this thread.
posted by puny human at 8:13 PM on August 14, 2010

I don't want to spent this thread about an article which has a lot of really good points to be discussed about the Catholic church and its policies, inward and outward, regarding homosexuality... talking about theories of whether homosexuality is something which is simply about sexual attraction or whatever because that IS a derail, full and simple. There's not a word in the FPP about it. I understand the conversation idea of the Blue, but getting back On Topic isn't a bad idea. Perhaps a FPP involving that will be posted someday, but I'm not sure this is it.
posted by hippybear at 10:44 PM on August 14, 2010

And yes, I agree that "schwing" is probably better than "ping" in this instance.
posted by hippybear at 10:45 PM on August 14, 2010

The JimmyH theory gets a little weak if any amount of altruism - initial or aquired - is assumed to be the motivating factor towards priesthood.

Do you believe that homosexuals are incapable of altruism? The protective function of the Catholic Church toward homosexuals (within a homophobic society) doesn't destroy its spiritual or humanitarian function, nor does it mean that those who are called for purely spiritual reasons don't exist. But the diminishing number of those who are called to the priesthood parallels social acceptance of open homosexuality.

Priestly homosexuality has been an open secret in the church for a long time. Think about the snickers about altar boys.

It's not uncommon in many cultures for homosexuals of either gender to take roles as shamans. A homosexual Catholic priesthood could be seen as one more expression of that trend.
posted by Jimmy Havok at 11:31 PM on August 14, 2010

actual data or evidence

As far as the incidence of homosexuality in the priesthood, only anecdotal...but how would there be any other type? I doubt that there's a way to survey the priesthood on the subject.

As far as pedophiles within the Catholic hierarchy, there's plenty of evidence that the hierarchy, worldwide, didn't just protect pedophiles, they facilitated their activities by transferring them into identical positions after they had been exposed. If the motive was simply to protect the church, exposed pedophiles would have been put into positions where they didn't have access to children. So that repeated course of action indicates that there's something other than simple protection going on.

Then we have the case of the Canadian bishop who was caught with a laptop full of child porn. He could have been a unique case, and it could be mere coincidence that he was assigned to cover up the pedophilia in Nova Scotia. Or maybe not.
posted by Jimmy Havok at 12:00 AM on August 15, 2010

"Do you believe that homosexuals are incapable of altruism?"
Nope. Not at all. Altruism is independent of sexuality.

I believe vocation to the priesthood (at least from the 6th century or so when the vocation was not longer understood as a call from your community and became some sort of call from God himself or something) is based primarily on altruistic motivation. As such, sexuality can not reliably explain or predict that motivation.

"Priestly homosexuality has been an open secret in the church for a long time. Think about the snickers about altar boys."
Oh. An open secret. Well I guess that's that.

Now Jimmy. Really. A vocation is actually a thinly-veiled invitation to practice one's sexual taboo? The clergy keeps its numbers up by recruiting kids with the fetish dujour and promising them safe haven to indulge? The clergy has really been a seekrit gays-only club for all these centuries? It's just one big Gay Shaman Group - because everyone knows that those who can't go straight go gay; those who can't go gay go religious?

That's some serious Coast-to-Coast shit. I never thought I'd say this in earnest but: There Is No Cabal.

...and Catholic debauchery has always covered the full spectrum of sexuality and fetish. (see Borgia, et al.)
posted by klarck at 12:57 AM on August 15, 2010

I believe vocation to the priesthood (at least from the 6th century or so when the vocation was not longer understood as a call from your community and became some sort of call from God himself or something) is based primarily on altruistic motivation.

Funny, you mention Borgia (Pope Alexander VI) et al. yourself. No doubt he was altruistically drawn to the priesthood. Because that's what a vocation is, a direct call from God Himself to serve all mankind.

A vocation is actually a thinly-veiled invitation to practice one's sexual taboo?

No, it's a safe place to exist in a society that persecutes you. However, since the organization depends on the persecution as a tool for recruitment, it also promotes that same persecution.

There Is No Cabal.

Your confidence is inspiring. On the other hand, there's so much it doesn't explain, just by claiming there's no need to explain.
posted by Jimmy Havok at 3:25 AM on August 15, 2010

Aren't you supposed to deploy your depth charges when you go ping?
posted by XMLicious at 4:03 AM on August 15, 2010

Catholic parish priests still control the majority of primary schools: they appoint the teachers and chair the boards of management.
I didn't know this.

There are people trying to change this at the moment, but it is hugely problematical. There is the issue of who actually owns the schools & the land. Is it the community, the state, or the church? And if it is the church, albeit supported by the state, how do you go about taking it of them. Especially when the government is spending billions bailing out banks at the moment.

There is also the Educate Together system of schools, but so far I don't think they are allowed run any secondary schools, only primary levels, and they are by far in the minority. The fact is that for most people in Ireland the local school is that run by the Catholic Church.
posted by Fence at 7:21 AM on August 15, 2010

there's no reason to believe that the priesthood is disproportionately gay

I doubt that there's a way to survey the priesthood on the subject.

On the contrary. Not that these constitute hard and fast proof, as the page itself readily admits the difficulty of determining any numbers, but the evidence at least goes beyond idle speculation. And in fact there have been at least two such surveys of the priesthood.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:16 PM on August 16, 2010

I was just thinking about Chinese homophobia, and wondering if the Buddhist monastic orders could have served a similar function of protecting homosexuals.

I believe vocation to the priesthood (at least from the 6th century or so when the vocation was not longer understood as a call from your community and became some sort of call from God himself or something) is based primarily on altruistic motivation.

Through most of the Middle Ages, the Church was a place to safely employ the younger sons of influential families. Due to the principle of primogeniture, they were essentially dependent on the generosity of the eldest brother unless they found some non-inherited career path, and the Church was one of those opportunities.

My suspicion is that the role of the Church as protective fold for homosexuals was something that developed as its political power waned with the Protestant Reformation and the rise of the nation-state, possibly even evolved out of that earlier role.
posted by Jimmy Havok at 9:12 PM on August 16, 2010