When I took a business trip recently, I scheduled a meeting with my group's higher-ups and reporters at my former newspaper. When I walked through the newsroom, it felt like a ghost town. Vacant desks, offices, and whole floors. There must have been a fifth of the staff that remained after I left several years ago.
There was a sadness to seeing a shell of a former self. I was a lot sadder when I heard about the Washington Blade, the venerable gay newspaper that was a 40-year institution, suddenly ceased production and lay the future of LGBT news in serious doubt.
Its owner Windows Media also shut down the gay newspapers in Atlanta and Miami. And for many employees, they were informed with a padlock on the door. Even here in DC, the staff was given short clipped answers that weren't answers. No reasons why, no severance, no Plan B. Some of the Blade staffers have heroically started a small paper, almost an insert really, to keep things going.
When I first heard of the closing, online in a short news item, I immediately begain to think of the hole left. Who was going to cover hates crimes, gay marriage, and legislation that affected us? With mainstream and independent publications laying off reporters, reducing coverage, closing bureaus, and eliminating beats, we can't depend on established outlets suddenly investing in resources to shine a light on our issues.
We're our own voice and the totality of that has probably been taken for granted by a lot of us until this moment. Even the lighter parts of the Blade - advice columns, arts listings and reviews, ads, home and garden tips, comics - have been sacrificed.
For now, we have the DC Agenda [http://dcagenda.com] that has admirably, and in just a week, been able to restart the former Blade's news and features coverage. They have a long way to go but they recognize the importance of the LGBT voice and have sacrificed time, work, and, undoubtedly, money to get this off the ground.
Check out the site and make a donation, if able. And remember that not many media focus on our community. We can only look out for each other.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The Institution That Dare Not Speak Its Name
Maybe the key in the gay marriage fight is actually not mentioning it by name.
Washington state's voters approved an "everything but marriage" law, expanding rights for gay domestic partners and giving them such benefits as the right to take sick leave to care for a partner, adoptions rights, and child custody and support.
Even though it's not full-fledged marriage, this marks the first time a U.S. state has granted a gay equality measure by ballot initiative, instead of through the courts or the legislature.
It seems that the difference perhaps is that because the controversial m-word wasn't included in the ballot language, voters were able to concentrate on the rights discusses as opposed to their preconceived ideas of an institution they see as only for a man and a woman.
I don't think it's a stretch to theorize that some gay marriage opponents aren't bigoted so much as fearful of change. Marriage is something that has become a religious and cultural institution for heterosexuals, laying down the foundation for family. It's not discussed or rarely evaluated in terms of rights, benefits, and equality given to its participants. But we've upset the apple cart because we've put marriage in those terms.
We've called attention to the fact that marriage laws, at least in this country, are pretty much exclusionary and discriminatory and make gays de facto second-class citizens. I imagine many straights think of the ritual - bridal gowns, nervous grooms in tuxedos, church organs, receptions - and wrinkle their nose at two men or two women adjusting that rosy, traditional picture. For them, it's like having church on Tuesday night or seeing boys playing with Barbies. It's just not how it's supposed to be
After Prop. 8 in California, Elton John remarked that what was making people uncomfortable was the actual word marriage. It seems he was prescient. Would similar wording on other ballot initiatives produce the same results? Is merely changing the framing of it all making the difference? Washington gives a strong argument for a yes.
In a way, it seems insulting. We have to parse words and not mention the unmentionable to persuade minds. Even though we're merely insisting on universal rights, we have to have hat in hand and offer careful arguments that don''t offend sensibilities. We're fighting for marriage but have to couch it in palatable terms because, after all, there are a lot more heterosexual voters than straight ones.
It may be kowtowing, but prejudices and presumptions are very strong. And sometimes the art of language makes a huge difference.
Washington state's voters approved an "everything but marriage" law, expanding rights for gay domestic partners and giving them such benefits as the right to take sick leave to care for a partner, adoptions rights, and child custody and support.
Even though it's not full-fledged marriage, this marks the first time a U.S. state has granted a gay equality measure by ballot initiative, instead of through the courts or the legislature.
It seems that the difference perhaps is that because the controversial m-word wasn't included in the ballot language, voters were able to concentrate on the rights discusses as opposed to their preconceived ideas of an institution they see as only for a man and a woman.
I don't think it's a stretch to theorize that some gay marriage opponents aren't bigoted so much as fearful of change. Marriage is something that has become a religious and cultural institution for heterosexuals, laying down the foundation for family. It's not discussed or rarely evaluated in terms of rights, benefits, and equality given to its participants. But we've upset the apple cart because we've put marriage in those terms.
We've called attention to the fact that marriage laws, at least in this country, are pretty much exclusionary and discriminatory and make gays de facto second-class citizens. I imagine many straights think of the ritual - bridal gowns, nervous grooms in tuxedos, church organs, receptions - and wrinkle their nose at two men or two women adjusting that rosy, traditional picture. For them, it's like having church on Tuesday night or seeing boys playing with Barbies. It's just not how it's supposed to be
After Prop. 8 in California, Elton John remarked that what was making people uncomfortable was the actual word marriage. It seems he was prescient. Would similar wording on other ballot initiatives produce the same results? Is merely changing the framing of it all making the difference? Washington gives a strong argument for a yes.
In a way, it seems insulting. We have to parse words and not mention the unmentionable to persuade minds. Even though we're merely insisting on universal rights, we have to have hat in hand and offer careful arguments that don''t offend sensibilities. We're fighting for marriage but have to couch it in palatable terms because, after all, there are a lot more heterosexual voters than straight ones.
It may be kowtowing, but prejudices and presumptions are very strong. And sometimes the art of language makes a huge difference.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
The Too Late Show
What's the difference between being a defender and an apologist? It may be easier to point you to the supporters of Roman Polanski and David Letterman.
Let's start with the Oscar-winning director first. You surely know that he fled the country more than 30 years ago rather than face sentencing for having sex with a 13-year-old girl. As a consequence, he's never stepped foot on U.S. soil since, for fear of landing in jail.
Well he landed in jail anyway, but just over a month ago in Zurich, and he and his legal team are fighting extradition back to Los Angeles.
Immediately after his arrest, some big Hollywood names - including Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, and Harvey Weinstein - rushed to his defense. But you would have thought a saint was about to be burned at the stake. Many decried this as unfair persecution, pointing to his artistry, the grisly death of his wife to Charles Manson's followers, and his survival of the Holocaust as proof that he's suffered enough.
And then there's Letterman. A blackmail plot of a CBS producer thwarted by federal officials revealed he had several affairs with female staffers over the years. This from a man who joked for years about not getting any.
Quite a few celebrities, media commentators and fans thought there was no harm, no foul. All the sex was consensual, so who cares? And they feel that those who attack Letterman are moonlighting as moral police officers.
Well, I'm not one to shake a moral stick at anyone but I think both men's supporters are ignoring some inconvenient truths.
Let's start with Polanski. Yes, a recent documentary showed the judge in his case loved publicity and seemed ready to renege on a plea bargain. However, there's a powerful central truth. He plied a 13-year-old girl with champagne and Quaaludes and had sex with her over her protests.
The same documentary showed the same girl, all grown up, stating she forgave Polanski, has moved on and thinks everyone else should, too. But she also reminds the viewer that...Polanski had sex with a 13-year-old girl, which is illegal.
As for Letterman, a former female staffer (who did not have sexual relations with that man) recently wrote a piece exposing the environment created from Letterman's dalliances. While the staffer never witness anything she'd categorize as sexual harassment, there was indeed favoritism. Apparently, Letterman's girls, many very young and with negligible experience, got plum assignments. Some others employees were uncomfortable but felt powerless to speak up.
Plus, there's the general folly of sex in the workplace (Grey's Anatomy notwithstanding). Can a boss who chooses certain employees for sex really create a fair environment? At the very least, there's a skewed balance of power at stake. At worst, an emotional fallout could make things messy - and litigious.
Polanski may have been made into a monster by some zealots, but his supporters queasily go to the extreme in the other direction. They rhapsodize about the movie Chinatown but they easily ignore that...he had sex with a 13-year-old girl, which is illegal.
And Letterman supporters point out he's an entertainer, not a politician bound to a moral code. True. But he also crossed the sexual line on the job and humiliated his wife (who has been with him for 20 years) and the mother of his child with his unfaithfulness (Letterman himself has noted this).
The apologists need to realize that the only apologies in these cases need to come from the men who affected people's lives with their reckless actions.
Let's start with the Oscar-winning director first. You surely know that he fled the country more than 30 years ago rather than face sentencing for having sex with a 13-year-old girl. As a consequence, he's never stepped foot on U.S. soil since, for fear of landing in jail.
Well he landed in jail anyway, but just over a month ago in Zurich, and he and his legal team are fighting extradition back to Los Angeles.
Immediately after his arrest, some big Hollywood names - including Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, and Harvey Weinstein - rushed to his defense. But you would have thought a saint was about to be burned at the stake. Many decried this as unfair persecution, pointing to his artistry, the grisly death of his wife to Charles Manson's followers, and his survival of the Holocaust as proof that he's suffered enough.
And then there's Letterman. A blackmail plot of a CBS producer thwarted by federal officials revealed he had several affairs with female staffers over the years. This from a man who joked for years about not getting any.
Quite a few celebrities, media commentators and fans thought there was no harm, no foul. All the sex was consensual, so who cares? And they feel that those who attack Letterman are moonlighting as moral police officers.
Well, I'm not one to shake a moral stick at anyone but I think both men's supporters are ignoring some inconvenient truths.
Let's start with Polanski. Yes, a recent documentary showed the judge in his case loved publicity and seemed ready to renege on a plea bargain. However, there's a powerful central truth. He plied a 13-year-old girl with champagne and Quaaludes and had sex with her over her protests.
The same documentary showed the same girl, all grown up, stating she forgave Polanski, has moved on and thinks everyone else should, too. But she also reminds the viewer that...Polanski had sex with a 13-year-old girl, which is illegal.
As for Letterman, a former female staffer (who did not have sexual relations with that man) recently wrote a piece exposing the environment created from Letterman's dalliances. While the staffer never witness anything she'd categorize as sexual harassment, there was indeed favoritism. Apparently, Letterman's girls, many very young and with negligible experience, got plum assignments. Some others employees were uncomfortable but felt powerless to speak up.
Plus, there's the general folly of sex in the workplace (Grey's Anatomy notwithstanding). Can a boss who chooses certain employees for sex really create a fair environment? At the very least, there's a skewed balance of power at stake. At worst, an emotional fallout could make things messy - and litigious.
Polanski may have been made into a monster by some zealots, but his supporters queasily go to the extreme in the other direction. They rhapsodize about the movie Chinatown but they easily ignore that...he had sex with a 13-year-old girl, which is illegal.
And Letterman supporters point out he's an entertainer, not a politician bound to a moral code. True. But he also crossed the sexual line on the job and humiliated his wife (who has been with him for 20 years) and the mother of his child with his unfaithfulness (Letterman himself has noted this).
The apologists need to realize that the only apologies in these cases need to come from the men who affected people's lives with their reckless actions.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Men Behaving Badly
Well, it seems our political husbands have been behaving badly lately. And it makes you wonder. Why are so many policymakers intent on blocking strides to legalize gay marriage when they’re doing such a poor job with marriage themselves?
We have John Edwards, whom I thought was as scalded as he could be in the hot water he brewed for his affair with Rielle Hunter. Remember the good old days when it was only an issue that Edwards merely had an affair with the women in charge of making videos for his presidential campaign and maybe the baby she had was really his?
This past week, a book proposal leaked to the media from a former Edwards campaign worker who claimed that his admission of being the father of the baby was a lie to protect Edwards, the real father. Oh, and apparently Edwards told Hunter that when his cancer-stricken wife Elizabeth dies, they will get married in New York and be serenaded by the Dave Matthews Band.
And of course, you recalled South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford’s moronic dance this summer. He was found to have an Argentine mistress, whom he visited on the taxpayers’ dime. I loved how he called his mistress the love of his life but said he would try to fall in love again with his wife, who bore him four sons. Apparently, she is shopping a book of her own.
Lump those jokers in with fellow adulterous (and Republicans) David Vitter and John Ensign – and throw in Elliot Spitzer’s romp with hookers and his resignation of the New York governorship - and you have a peanut gallery of men behaving badly.
And all of this behavior has made my blood boil, as I think about the gay marriage fight, especially as Washington, DC seems poised to approve gay marriage and is bound to face legal opposition. Let’s not talk about if some members of Congress intervene to kill it.
Why don’t these anti-gay conservatives who are trying to protect the “sanctimony” of marriage throw some criticism at married, straight politicians who don’t seem too concerned about respecting their own marriages?
Inevitably, we will have policymakers at the local and national level like Sanford and Ensign who oppose gay marriage and would deny a right to citizens on “moral grounds,” even while they act immorally in their private lives.
It isn’t merely about hypocrisy. It’s the diehard American tendency to uphold ideals that we don’t always follow personally as part of this idea of creating the greater good for larger society. So even if a politician has a dalliance, he likes to think of himself as protecting the family and moral landscape for the good of the country when he votes to strike down a gay marriage initiative or inhibit a woman’s right to an abortion because it offends his vision of right and wrong.
So when there’s another inevitable scandal, I can’t wait to see if the next stooge has gone on record fighting gay marriage and otherwise preaching moral standards. And he’d better be careful walking to avoid the shards from his glass house.
We have John Edwards, whom I thought was as scalded as he could be in the hot water he brewed for his affair with Rielle Hunter. Remember the good old days when it was only an issue that Edwards merely had an affair with the women in charge of making videos for his presidential campaign and maybe the baby she had was really his?
This past week, a book proposal leaked to the media from a former Edwards campaign worker who claimed that his admission of being the father of the baby was a lie to protect Edwards, the real father. Oh, and apparently Edwards told Hunter that when his cancer-stricken wife Elizabeth dies, they will get married in New York and be serenaded by the Dave Matthews Band.
And of course, you recalled South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford’s moronic dance this summer. He was found to have an Argentine mistress, whom he visited on the taxpayers’ dime. I loved how he called his mistress the love of his life but said he would try to fall in love again with his wife, who bore him four sons. Apparently, she is shopping a book of her own.
Lump those jokers in with fellow adulterous (and Republicans) David Vitter and John Ensign – and throw in Elliot Spitzer’s romp with hookers and his resignation of the New York governorship - and you have a peanut gallery of men behaving badly.
And all of this behavior has made my blood boil, as I think about the gay marriage fight, especially as Washington, DC seems poised to approve gay marriage and is bound to face legal opposition. Let’s not talk about if some members of Congress intervene to kill it.
Why don’t these anti-gay conservatives who are trying to protect the “sanctimony” of marriage throw some criticism at married, straight politicians who don’t seem too concerned about respecting their own marriages?
Inevitably, we will have policymakers at the local and national level like Sanford and Ensign who oppose gay marriage and would deny a right to citizens on “moral grounds,” even while they act immorally in their private lives.
It isn’t merely about hypocrisy. It’s the diehard American tendency to uphold ideals that we don’t always follow personally as part of this idea of creating the greater good for larger society. So even if a politician has a dalliance, he likes to think of himself as protecting the family and moral landscape for the good of the country when he votes to strike down a gay marriage initiative or inhibit a woman’s right to an abortion because it offends his vision of right and wrong.
So when there’s another inevitable scandal, I can’t wait to see if the next stooge has gone on record fighting gay marriage and otherwise preaching moral standards. And he’d better be careful walking to avoid the shards from his glass house.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
The Enablers
It was supposed to be the moment that Whitney Houston achieved personal, if not career, redemption.
She sat across from Oprah in an empty theater Monday to divulge some unsavory aspects of the last decade of her life when she was at her worst under a haze of drugs and marriage to Bobby Brown. The interview may not have gone as well as Whitney hoped. People have already speculated that she wasn’t completely honest about all the drugs she did. Some thought the whole thing seemed stage-managed for both parties.
But what stayed with me is Whitney as Enabler.
When she was explaining her drug addiction, she said Bobby was the ultimate drug. She was weak with him. He was her addiction. When Oprah asked about abuse, Whitney declared that Bobby was not abusive. But when recounting their life together, she backpedaled.
It seems he “only” slapped her once and shoved her into a wall once (glad that wasn’t a habit, there). Oh and he spit on her – only once. But apparently he belittled her out of professional jealousy and painted evil eyes on their bedroom wall. If that’s not abuse, then what is? But she said everything – the drugs, the appearing very ghetto on Being Bobby Brown – was because she was being the good wife, desperately wanting to please him.
So one of the most popular and powerful women in the history of music didn’t feel empowered enough to leave a bad situation and, what’s more, felt cowed into doing things she supposedly wouldn’t do by a man with a fraction of her talent, wealth, and staying power.
This instantly reminded me of Rihanna another Enabler. After her vicious beatdown by Chris Brown, she was reportedly still seeing him and refused to say a negative thing about him publicly. And did you see Chris Brown’s lame mea culpa on Larry King last week? He was barely apologetic about what he did, refused to give any details of that night or his relationship with Rihanna, and tried to convince America the person that night was not really him.
Now that a judge has forced Chris Brown not to be in contact with Rihanna for five years, I guess she has moved on, if forcibly by law.
Are these women that weak? Are they behaving just as most of us would, convinced our partner “didn’t mean it” and must be supported? But there’s a certain point where accepting certain behavior under the hope of a change or the disillusion of loyalty makes us part of the problem, instead of part of the solution.
A few things have happened in my life personally, where I’ve examined people (formerly) close to me. It’s a battle. One action or even two doesn’t make a whole person. But it’s indicative of character. And there’s a line. Even with forgiveness, there’s a line. These women were clearly dragged over it, although both supposedly are stronger and know better. And one would think the logic they used to choose to stay with their men through the ugliness is faulty.
But I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens again to Whitney, Rihanna, or anyone else. We so easily get sucked into believing things will be better and people will be better.
But we’d better be prepared to act on our own best interests if they aren’t.
She sat across from Oprah in an empty theater Monday to divulge some unsavory aspects of the last decade of her life when she was at her worst under a haze of drugs and marriage to Bobby Brown. The interview may not have gone as well as Whitney hoped. People have already speculated that she wasn’t completely honest about all the drugs she did. Some thought the whole thing seemed stage-managed for both parties.
But what stayed with me is Whitney as Enabler.
When she was explaining her drug addiction, she said Bobby was the ultimate drug. She was weak with him. He was her addiction. When Oprah asked about abuse, Whitney declared that Bobby was not abusive. But when recounting their life together, she backpedaled.
It seems he “only” slapped her once and shoved her into a wall once (glad that wasn’t a habit, there). Oh and he spit on her – only once. But apparently he belittled her out of professional jealousy and painted evil eyes on their bedroom wall. If that’s not abuse, then what is? But she said everything – the drugs, the appearing very ghetto on Being Bobby Brown – was because she was being the good wife, desperately wanting to please him.
So one of the most popular and powerful women in the history of music didn’t feel empowered enough to leave a bad situation and, what’s more, felt cowed into doing things she supposedly wouldn’t do by a man with a fraction of her talent, wealth, and staying power.
This instantly reminded me of Rihanna another Enabler. After her vicious beatdown by Chris Brown, she was reportedly still seeing him and refused to say a negative thing about him publicly. And did you see Chris Brown’s lame mea culpa on Larry King last week? He was barely apologetic about what he did, refused to give any details of that night or his relationship with Rihanna, and tried to convince America the person that night was not really him.
Now that a judge has forced Chris Brown not to be in contact with Rihanna for five years, I guess she has moved on, if forcibly by law.
Are these women that weak? Are they behaving just as most of us would, convinced our partner “didn’t mean it” and must be supported? But there’s a certain point where accepting certain behavior under the hope of a change or the disillusion of loyalty makes us part of the problem, instead of part of the solution.
A few things have happened in my life personally, where I’ve examined people (formerly) close to me. It’s a battle. One action or even two doesn’t make a whole person. But it’s indicative of character. And there’s a line. Even with forgiveness, there’s a line. These women were clearly dragged over it, although both supposedly are stronger and know better. And one would think the logic they used to choose to stay with their men through the ugliness is faulty.
But I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens again to Whitney, Rihanna, or anyone else. We so easily get sucked into believing things will be better and people will be better.
But we’d better be prepared to act on our own best interests if they aren’t.
Friday, September 4, 2009
The Measure of a Man
As Bernie Madoff sits in his jail cell reflecting on his 150-year sentence, he may be feeling sorry for more than his $55 billion Ponzi scheme. He may be lamenting that his monstrous felony came from an inferiority complex for his small dick.
How do I know his is small? I don’t, at least from firsthand experience (perish the thought). But that’s a juicy truffle of information that comes from a new book written by his mistress who alleges that his insecurities, including those over his, uh, member, contributed to his reckless behavior.
Sheryl Weinstein, the former CFO of the Jewish women's volunteer organization Hadassah, details her yearlong extramarital affair with the world’s best known (and ugliest) swindler in Madoff's Other Secret: Love, Money, Bernie, and Me. She waxes on his capability of sweet romance, but that will surely be overshadowed by discussion of an un-capability.
Weinstein unapologetically declared publicly Madoff’s poor endowment created issues. (Ya think??) She said in a Time magazine article: “I started doing some research, and it can impact the psyche from a very early age. I really did feel that this was a part of Bernie's makeup, a big part of his psyche. I think it started with feelings of inadequacy, his inability to accept failure, his fear of failure.”
A lot of men, at least those under ten inches, occasionally feel a little insecure about size, probably not enough to commit massive fraud but enough to make it – shall we say – front and center We tie our sense of manhood, masculinity, and vitality in our penis, probably without thinking about it.
We joke about friends who are size queens, but we all are in a sense. Do any of us look for small dicks? No. Just like we think about bulging biceps and six packs, we like to imagine big shafts. They’re hot and desirable, and we automatically assign them sexual prowess, though reality has proven that’s not always the case.
When I look back, it’s funny how some guys I met in person from online were proven to have lied about the size they boldly advertised in their profiles. The really funny thing is that some of these guys were nine-plus inches, yet they lied about that extra inch.
Most of us believe bigger is better. The flip side of it is that if we aren’t up to par – in the eyes of ourselves or others – then we become less than. And it affects our security, self-esteem, and ultimately our relationships if we left it.
I admit I give myself the occasional inferiority complex because of my size. I’ve fallen into the thinking that I would be sexier, more desirable if I were bigger. I’ve imagined if a lover felt the least bit disappointed, especially if I thought he was comparing me to someone else who was bigger. I consider myself to have a healthy sexual self-esteem but I work at it because our culture and my insecurities try to steer me on the wrong path. The funny thing is that at the core, I know better but still.
We place so much disproportionate importance on sex and what’s below the waist to define who we are and what we can be. Women seem to be smarter at it and don't have a similar complex. I don’t think Kim Kardashian wishes she were Dolly Parton.
Somehow it’s easy to be seduced into lazy assumptions of how size translates into manhood. I can imagine that money and power boosted Madoff’s sense of masculinity, and it may have assuaged his self consciousness of what Weinstein has painstakingly detailed for Borders shoppers.
Would people not have lost millions if Madoff was happier with what he had? Maybe not. But Madoff could have been happier, and at least knew having a mistress or a big dick doesn’t make you more of a man.
How do I know his is small? I don’t, at least from firsthand experience (perish the thought). But that’s a juicy truffle of information that comes from a new book written by his mistress who alleges that his insecurities, including those over his, uh, member, contributed to his reckless behavior.
Sheryl Weinstein, the former CFO of the Jewish women's volunteer organization Hadassah, details her yearlong extramarital affair with the world’s best known (and ugliest) swindler in Madoff's Other Secret: Love, Money, Bernie, and Me. She waxes on his capability of sweet romance, but that will surely be overshadowed by discussion of an un-capability.
Weinstein unapologetically declared publicly Madoff’s poor endowment created issues. (Ya think??) She said in a Time magazine article: “I started doing some research, and it can impact the psyche from a very early age. I really did feel that this was a part of Bernie's makeup, a big part of his psyche. I think it started with feelings of inadequacy, his inability to accept failure, his fear of failure.”
A lot of men, at least those under ten inches, occasionally feel a little insecure about size, probably not enough to commit massive fraud but enough to make it – shall we say – front and center We tie our sense of manhood, masculinity, and vitality in our penis, probably without thinking about it.
We joke about friends who are size queens, but we all are in a sense. Do any of us look for small dicks? No. Just like we think about bulging biceps and six packs, we like to imagine big shafts. They’re hot and desirable, and we automatically assign them sexual prowess, though reality has proven that’s not always the case.
When I look back, it’s funny how some guys I met in person from online were proven to have lied about the size they boldly advertised in their profiles. The really funny thing is that some of these guys were nine-plus inches, yet they lied about that extra inch.
Most of us believe bigger is better. The flip side of it is that if we aren’t up to par – in the eyes of ourselves or others – then we become less than. And it affects our security, self-esteem, and ultimately our relationships if we left it.
I admit I give myself the occasional inferiority complex because of my size. I’ve fallen into the thinking that I would be sexier, more desirable if I were bigger. I’ve imagined if a lover felt the least bit disappointed, especially if I thought he was comparing me to someone else who was bigger. I consider myself to have a healthy sexual self-esteem but I work at it because our culture and my insecurities try to steer me on the wrong path. The funny thing is that at the core, I know better but still.
We place so much disproportionate importance on sex and what’s below the waist to define who we are and what we can be. Women seem to be smarter at it and don't have a similar complex. I don’t think Kim Kardashian wishes she were Dolly Parton.
Somehow it’s easy to be seduced into lazy assumptions of how size translates into manhood. I can imagine that money and power boosted Madoff’s sense of masculinity, and it may have assuaged his self consciousness of what Weinstein has painstakingly detailed for Borders shoppers.
Would people not have lost millions if Madoff was happier with what he had? Maybe not. But Madoff could have been happier, and at least knew having a mistress or a big dick doesn’t make you more of a man.
Friday, August 28, 2009
The Lion in Summer
Over these next several days, the newspapers and the TV stations will talk about Ted Kennedy’s lineage, triumphs, scandals, speeches, and most certainly his loving relationship with his wife and his grand role as patriarch to America’s foremost dynasty. Very few are talking about his role as one of the LGBT community’s fiercest supporters.
I’m watching his memorial service live on CNN as we speak. Legions of leaders and celebrities have commemorated what Kennedy has done and what he’s meant. So far (and maybe I just missed it) I haven’t heard anybody talk about his extensive work and unwavering support for gays. It’s too bad that may end up being his most unsung quality.
In a moment to where our president seems to be waffling about his support of us, and when ignoramuses seem to be making a second career of quashing work done for marriage equality, someone as unwavering as Ted Kennedy feels refreshing.
The senator proved to be a brave ally way back in the 80s when he was an advocate for HIV/AIDS, a remarkable thing in a climate when many people, including his colleagues on the Hill, were antagonistic to gays and ignorant of the big disease with the little name. Since then, he repeatedly struck against those, including Jesse Helms, who disparaged gays and actively worked to discriminate against us legally.
Recently, Kennedy had mightily voiced his support Kennedy in 1996 was among 14 senators to vote on the Senate floor against the Defense of Marriage Act. When the Federal Marriage Amendment came to the Senate floor in 2004, Kennedy spoke passionately against banning same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution.
“Make no mistake, a vote for the federal marriage constitutional amendment is a vote against civil unions, domestic partnerships and other efforts by states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law,” Kennedy said. “It is a vote for imposing discrimination, plain and simple, on all 50 states.”
I met him in person very briefly over two years ago when I worked for a nonprofit that sponsored at an event where he spoke about, among other things, income inequality. He was very nice and passionate about what he believed.
He also proudly and consistently identified him as a liberal. He believed in universal health care, eradicating poverty, and equal rights for all. He frequently reached out across the aisle and was even good friends with Orren Hatch of all people. But that didn’t mean he abandoned his beliefs for political expediency or survival. That’s instructive as we watch President Obama concede large swaths of his health care proposals because of protests and GOP disapproval and refuse to curb the sweetheart deals insurers are receiving in this proposal (and receive on a daily basis).
Obama can take a cue from Kennedy over the coming months (or years?) and show us the support of LGBTs that he pledged in the campaign. The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and gay marriage are just two topics up to bat. The president has been distressingly quiet on our issues, but he can stand to swallow down a cup of courage and prove his convictions.
The Lion of the Senate has given the Lamb of the White House a lot of lessons to learn.
For a full list of Sen. Kennedy’s leadership on LGBT issues, please visit: http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/08/sen-kennedys-leadership-on-lgbt-equality/
I’m watching his memorial service live on CNN as we speak. Legions of leaders and celebrities have commemorated what Kennedy has done and what he’s meant. So far (and maybe I just missed it) I haven’t heard anybody talk about his extensive work and unwavering support for gays. It’s too bad that may end up being his most unsung quality.
In a moment to where our president seems to be waffling about his support of us, and when ignoramuses seem to be making a second career of quashing work done for marriage equality, someone as unwavering as Ted Kennedy feels refreshing.
The senator proved to be a brave ally way back in the 80s when he was an advocate for HIV/AIDS, a remarkable thing in a climate when many people, including his colleagues on the Hill, were antagonistic to gays and ignorant of the big disease with the little name. Since then, he repeatedly struck against those, including Jesse Helms, who disparaged gays and actively worked to discriminate against us legally.
Recently, Kennedy had mightily voiced his support Kennedy in 1996 was among 14 senators to vote on the Senate floor against the Defense of Marriage Act. When the Federal Marriage Amendment came to the Senate floor in 2004, Kennedy spoke passionately against banning same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution.
“Make no mistake, a vote for the federal marriage constitutional amendment is a vote against civil unions, domestic partnerships and other efforts by states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law,” Kennedy said. “It is a vote for imposing discrimination, plain and simple, on all 50 states.”
I met him in person very briefly over two years ago when I worked for a nonprofit that sponsored at an event where he spoke about, among other things, income inequality. He was very nice and passionate about what he believed.
He also proudly and consistently identified him as a liberal. He believed in universal health care, eradicating poverty, and equal rights for all. He frequently reached out across the aisle and was even good friends with Orren Hatch of all people. But that didn’t mean he abandoned his beliefs for political expediency or survival. That’s instructive as we watch President Obama concede large swaths of his health care proposals because of protests and GOP disapproval and refuse to curb the sweetheart deals insurers are receiving in this proposal (and receive on a daily basis).
Obama can take a cue from Kennedy over the coming months (or years?) and show us the support of LGBTs that he pledged in the campaign. The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and gay marriage are just two topics up to bat. The president has been distressingly quiet on our issues, but he can stand to swallow down a cup of courage and prove his convictions.
The Lion of the Senate has given the Lamb of the White House a lot of lessons to learn.
For a full list of Sen. Kennedy’s leadership on LGBT issues, please visit: http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/08/sen-kennedys-leadership-on-lgbt-equality/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)