Courtesy of Examiner.com

Click here to see our opinion of Mattel’s new look for Dora.

 

History unfolded before us last night. And I’m proud to say that my vote was one of the snowflakes that created the avalanche.

Obama will be good for the country but will he be good for sex?  I think so.  We’re going to go from Recession Sex (doing it to get over something) to Recovery Sex (doing it to get under something).

Like most of Obama’s approaches, I’m sure his plan for our sexual recovery will be as well-thought out as his plan for our economic recovery.  My guess is he’s going to use a modified 12-step program:

 

 

Step 1: Admit we are powerless; that our lives have become unmanageable.

(We have to admit we had too much meaningless sex and it left us spent, unable to move forward.  Or back. And a little to the side)

 

Step 2:  Believe that a Power greater than ourselves can restore us to sanity.

(Better Obama than that dildo with the kick-start.)

 

Step 3:  Turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood God.

(Well, we did that when we pulled the lever).

 

Step 4  Make a fearless moral inventory of ourselves

(Wall Street made us realize that investing without oversight is like sex without condoms. . . we got infected with something Lysol can’t spray away).

 

Step 5:  Admit to God, to ourselves and to another human beings the exact nature of our wrongs

(“Honey, I really do watch as much porn as you think”)

 

Step 6:  Be ready to have God remove all these defects of character

(Do it, Obama! That’s why we elected you)

 

Step 7:  Humbly ask God to remove our shortcomings

(Although the Republicans can still filibuster)

 

Step 8:  Make a list of all persons we’ve harmed, and become willing to make amends to them all

(If we start now we’ll be done by his first term)

 

Step 9:  Make direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others

(Hedge Fund managers, being the exception)

 
Step 10:  Continue to take personal inventory and when we are wrong promptly admit it

(Especially when we make our partners the third wheel in the three way.)

 

Step 11:   Seek through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understand God.

(“Please God, let the hottie pick me!)

 

Step 12: Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, carry this message to others, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

(especially the marital ones)

 

Welcome to “Recovery Sex” everyone!   Don’t fall off the wagon…unless there’s a bed to break your fall.

 

“Are we actually voting to take away other people’s rights?  Turning the American Constitution into American Idol?  Letting the contestants stay as long as they amuse us?” 

 

On November 4, Californians will vote to amend the State Constitution, which currently allows the right of same-sex couples to marry. 

There will be no winners in this referendum.  Whether the proposition succeeds or fails, we’ll all be diminished by it.  That always happens when one group of people has the authority to take rights away from another. 

In California, gay couples have a right to marry.  Prop 8 isn’t about preventing people from enjoying that right, it’s going to the unprecedented step of  taking it away.  It’s the equivalent of voting to take away a woman’s right to vote.  

It’s too bad we can’t get online and pull up a moral Mapquest.  We could input the starting location (the corner of Rule and Law) and the ending location (the corner of Playing and God).  We’d click the “Get Directions” button and see the quickest route:  Proposition 8.   

Voting to take people’s rights away circumvents the rule of law.  Actually, it does more than that—it transforms the law into a tool for persecution. Which may sound fine, if you believe the persecuted pose a danger.  But who gets to decide that?  You?  Me?  What if we disagree?  Majority rule?  But what if you’re not in the majority?

Here’s the exact wording on Proposition 8:  “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

The problem with “letting the voters decide” on that simple sentence is that once we get used to deciding who deserves a right and who doesn’t, once we get a taste of that kind of power, we’ll want to exercise it again and again.  Where would we stop?  Imagine if you will, a Proposition 80:

 

“Only marriage between a Christian man and a Christian woman is valid or recognized in California.”

 . . . 

 

Part of the reason so many can’t see the folly of Prop 8 is the belief that the vote is about preserving the sanctity of marriage.  It’s not.  Imagine yourself at the entrance of a dying man’s hospital room.  He doesn’t want to die alone.  His lover is in the room.  You’re voting on the right to throw him out.

Part of the folly is the belief by so many that the vote is about stopping two women from getting a marriage license or two men from registering at Bloomingdale’s.  It’s not.  Imagine yourself at an orphanage with an eight-year old girl nobody wants.  She found a couple who’ll love and take care of her.  The papers are signed.  You’re voting on the right to leave her in the orphanage.

Part of the folly is the belief by so many that the vote is about stopping two women from entering into a committed relationship or two men from filing joint tax returns.  It’s not.  Imagine a lonely 70-year-old woman who can stay in her home because she’s receiving spousal death benefits.  You’re voting on the right to cancel her checks.  

Is that what being an American is about? Voting to take away other people’s rights?  Are we going to turn the American Constitution into American Idol?  As long as the contestants amuse us we’ll give them another chance?  

This isn’t just about gay marriage.  It’s about codifying the ability of one group of people to punish another by taking away their rights.  That’s why it’s imperative that this amendment fail– so it doesn’t continue as an option to be used against others.  Vote No on 8.  Not because you’re for gay marriage, but because you don’t believe you have the right to stand in the entrance of that hospital room and reverse a dying man’s decision, because you don’t believe you have the right to keep that little girl from loving parents, because you don’t believe you have the right to cancel a widower’s checks.

But most of all, vote no because you don’t believe other people should have the power to take away your own rights.

 

                        

                                             Liar, Liar.

The New York Times had a great article on the latest study of infidelity.  Though the real news, as editors saw it, was the rise of infidelity among women over the past few years, I couldn’t get past the overall number:

 

Married men who cheat in a given year:           12%

Married women who cheat in a given year:      7%

 

Men who cheat over their lifetime:                28%  

Women who cheat over their lifetime:        15%

 

Please.  These numbers are so low they could walk under a closed door.  With a hat.  Almost all studies tend to have what are called “statistical outliers” — Numbers that are so off the average they suggest they’re part of a different population or that the sample is weak.  These infidelity figures are so low, I’d like to suggest a new term for the study of infidelity:  Statistical Outliars.  

With the divorce rate hovering at 50% and infidelity cited as one of the top three reasons for splitting up, how the hell can you believe a study that shows such low numbers?  The article acknowledges the difficulty in getting people to fess up to strangers, but it doesn’t go far enough.  Yes, the numbers are extremely low when face to face studies are conducted.  And they shoot up when it’s done on the internet because it provides a lot more anonymity.  

But still, what kind of idiot do you have to be to tell a stranger that you’re boinking somebody who isn’t your spouse?  The fear of that information getting out would make a lot, if not most of us, go into truthiness overdrive. 

And let’s not forget the ever-expanding capacity for people, especially men, to rationalize their behavior so that they can lie and feel like they’re telling the truth.  

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman” anybody?

Or “It depends on what your meaning of ‘is’ is?”

I’m always amazed by letters I get from people who don’t consider sleeping around cheating because they didn’t stick it in the right orifice.  Right.  Is a test any less of a test because it was an oral exam?

My point is that it’s ridiculous to ask somebody a question that makes them admit to others a behavior they don’t admit to themselves.   You know why the Centers for Disease Control does not use the word “Gay” when reporting HIV infections?  When they ask somebody if they’re gay the answer is a WHOLE LOT LOWER than if they ask them if they’ve had sex with another man.  So they tag it MSM (men having sex with men) rather than gay.

The infidelity study I’d like to see would have the following question.  I think you’d get a more accurate number, if not a more interesting one:

 

“Do you think your partner has ever cheated on you?”

 

 

 

Yo, Mike!
I’m 24 and have not really had a proper long-term relationship.  I’ve never had much trouble getting guys into bed, so there’s normally a decent amount of sex flying around.  The problem is I’m a bit of a hypocrite.  If a guy likes me for “more than sex” straight off the bat, I kinda lose interest, even if I’m attracted to him.   I tend to fall for the guys that I sort of like at first, but who then don’t reciprocate.  It’s like their lack of interest just rocks my world.

Normally, I hate playing “the game” (acting hard to get, feigning disinterest, etc), so if I like someone, they will know it.  But when I get the same treatment from other guys, I find it…. boring?

Is this normal? Should I just hang around till the right balance between him liking me, and me liking him comes along?  Or am I a rejection junky?

–  Screwed

 

Dear Screwed,

You’re not a rejection junkie; you’re a new meat junkie.   Big difference.  Oh, and that bullshit about not liking the game?  Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.  You love the game –as long as you’re the dealer and not the dealt with.  Here’s why you’re chasing your tail and how you can stop:

 

1.  The Hunt is More Exciting For You Than the Catch.

The pursuit is giving you something that being pursued does not:  Anticipation, excitement, spontaneity, conquest and drama.  OH GOD, THE DRAMA!  And of course, that New Dick Smell.   

The solution:  Trade in the fruits of the pursuit for the benefits of a boyfriend.  That means accepting less of what you’re getting plenty of-excitement and drama, in return for what you’re getting none of-intimacy and bonding.  How do you do that?  By knowing what you don’t know.  And what you don’t know is the excitement of being with someone you truly love.   What you don’t know is how intimacy creates mind-blowing sex.  Be curious.  Find out. 

You also need to exercise a little impulse control.   Don’t ‘mancan’ a guy after a week or two.  Wait a month.  You might be kicking the love of your life to the curb without knowing it. Dating isn’t just about giving your dick a new career; it’s also about discovering qualities in a guy that aren’t immediately noticeable.   I’ve had two “tricks” that turned into long-term boyfriends-thank God I didn’t do then what you’re doing now. 

 

2)  You’ve Confused Sexual Conquest with Self-Acceptance.

You’re an acceptance vampire, hungering for warm, life-giving dick.   Once you’ve buried your fangs in somebody they’re of no use to you anymore.   You need a constant supply of fresh acceptance or you’ll die.  Or rather, your ego will.

The solution:   Put a stake through the heart of your ego.  You’re convinced that your self-worth is based on how many guys you can get to like you, making it impossible to be in a relationship.  There are great reasons to be a whore; a lack of self-esteem ain’t one of them.   Read Eckhart Tolle’s book, The New Earth.  It’ll give you a great understanding of how your ego keeps you from getting what you want and how you can stop it. 

I’m not going to pump sunshine up your ass and tell you any of this is easy to do.  But if you don’t change direction you’re going to end up where you’re headed-a love life defined by a single word:  “Next!”

 

Russell Brand, the English comedian who hosted this year’s MTV Video Music Awards, said this on the Graham Norton show last night:

 

                YOUR ODDS.  ——->

You chatted online or talked on the phone almost every night for weeks.  You really fell for him even though you never physically met.  Then suddenly he stops all contact.  He won’t return your emails, texts or calls.   You’re crushed, and you just can’t rest until you know why he ended it.  How bad is it to ask for closure from someone you’ve never met?  If you’re talking every night for weeks doesn’t the other guy owe you something?

 

He owes you nothing.  N-O-T-H-I-N-G.   How can somebody you’ve never met owe you for something that never happened?   Besides, what if he’s hideous?  What if he’s a toxic waste dump who disguised himself as oceanfront property?  You’d end up getting closure from a foreclosure.

Yes, you’re hurt.  Who wouldn’t be?  But you’re the one who allowed it to happen.  The point of online dating is to hook up or date-not to have endless phone conversations and weave chat threads into adorable little sweaters.  The next time you meet somebody online cut to the chase.  Tell them you’re not here to type; you’re here to meet.   If he’s dodging all your invitations he ain’t just hinting that something ain’t right-he’s skywriting it.

 Hillary Duff and Wanda Sykes star in a series of public service announcements dedicated to getting teens to stop saying the phrase, “That’s so gay!”   The idea is to discourage anti-gay language after the latest student climate report shows nearly 90% of gay middle and high school students reported being harassed, sometimes violently.   

. . . 

 

The first time I heard a teenager say, “That’s so gay,” she was referring to a vacation she took with her parents.  I got that look ostriches get when they hear two whistles:  WHAT?  It was completely out of context to anything I know about being gay. 

I asked a nineteen-year-old friend for a reality check.  “Yeah, I got a brain fart the first time my younger brother, who’s 17 and straight, used it,” he said.  “I couldn’t understand the context–there was no connection to being gay.”

That’s because teens don’t really say, “That’s so gay” to refer to gay people or our perceived characteristics or activities.   Not only is it pretty much divorced from the offensive gay stereotypes-like being campy or effeminate-it doesn’t even reference the positive ones-that we’re all hip, stylish trend-setters.  Teens use it to tag objects, places or activities as lame, tired, or silly.  There’s no venom in the phrase-it’s just the updated 50’s version of, “That’s so square.”  

Yet, the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN) is using Hillary Duff and Wanda Sykes as spokespeople on national TV to stop middle and high school students from saying the phrase.  (see below)

GLSEN is rightfully worried about the latest student climate report that shows almost 90% of students have suffered some form of harassment in school.  But they should be more worried that they’re adding fuel to the fire.  By trying ban the phrase for a meaning it doesn’t have, they’re just going to rile up straight students.

Teens, who have an unerring sense of when they’re being manipulated for no good reason are going to seize on this campaign and use the phrase even more.  Try telling a teen not to do something he knows is harmless and see what’ll happen.  GLSEN should stop doing the new math and go back to basics: 

 

Best of intentions + worst of tactics = More of what you don’t want. 

 

GLSEN should be discouraging students from saying incendiary words like Faggot or Dyke, not banning some kitschy phrase.  It’s noble to discourage language that sets up an environment for harassment or violence,  but as somebody who’s been attacked on the street by a bunch of homophobes, I can promise you when they swung their bats and tire irons they weren’t yelling, “That’s so gay!”

There are better words to discourage teens from using.  If you want to stop a fire, douse the matches, not the pin lights. If I were a teen, I’d take one look at this campaign and say, “That’s so gay.”

 

Hillary Duff’s Video:

[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”][fusion_youtube T7pvebaJbpM/]

 

 

Wanda Sykes’ video:

[/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”][fusion_youtube sWS0GVOQPs0/]

 

 

[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

 

The spot where Mathew Shepard was beaten, tied and left to die in a cold, deserted Wyoming field.

 

For being himself.

For being different.

For being.

 

 

When it happened, most of my gay friends thought, “That could have been me on that fence.”  It wasn’t long after his murder that I came face to face with my own Matthew Shepard moment.  As I chronicled it in a local newspaper:

 

It was midnight.  I could sense the car slowing behind me as I walked toward a gay bar.

My friend John walked about ten feet behind me, the freezing temperature slowing him down and speeding me up.  A voice called from the slowing car and I turned around, thinking the driver was lost, looking for directions.

He wasn’t lost.  He and his friends found exactly what they were looking for.  And in that instant of realization, that moment when your heart stops and your feet take off, you understand, profoundly, what it means to be the object of unbridled hate.

Everything happened in a burst-all four doors in the car flinging open, fours sets of hands gripping of tire irons, bats and pipes. We took off, John and I, without a word uttered between us.  In the horrifying first few seconds of attempted escape, it dawned on me that they were more likely to catch John because I had been walking ahead of him.

Suddenly I heard the dull thud of metal on flesh and knew they had gotten him.  My heart was pounding so loud, my body was moving so fast and yet I could hear some little voice inside me saying *”You have to help him.  You can’t abandon him.  Even if it means dying in the process, you have to help him.”*

I stopped.  Turned around.  We were outnumbered two to one and we had no weapons.  What would I do?  What *could* I do?

I never had to answer the question.  By some miracle, they had only grazed John with the tire iron, and he managed to keep on running.  We reached a main thoroughfare and the oncoming traffic scared our attackers into retreat.  We had escaped.

John didn’t say much and didn’t stay long at the bar.  I realized only later that he had gone into mild shock.  The next day he knocked on my door and showed me something repulsive.  The backs of his legs, from his hamstrings to his calves were a sheet of swollen black and blue bruises.

A common result, his doctor had said, from the trauma of a full and sudden sprint from a standing position.  His tendons and muscles had nearly snapped at the explosive sprint that had saved his life, swelling and discoloring his legs with the blood of burst capillaries.  

To be the object of careening disgust, to be hunted for sport, these are the shadows cast by America’s darkest values.  It would be easy to dismiss our attackers as violent thugs but that would miss a larger point.  The men who chased us weren’t monsters; they were attentive pupils sitting at the foot of America’s great institutions. 

Whether it’s the military banning gay recruits, the Boy Scouts enshrining a policy of exclusion, or the church ex-communicating us for loving the wrong person, many of America’s institutions teach a very Un-American lesson:  Hate Thy Neighbor. 

Our attackers weren’t a cause of physical violence.  They were the effect of a dark consciousness.  A few years ago, Judy Shepard told an Oregon paper, “Do I blame the two young men who murdered my son?  No.  I blame society for giving them permission.”

Society gave our attackers permission, too.  They were simply taking the next logical step laid out by so many churches, families and institutions.   What comes after exclusion, expelling and ex-communicating? 

Elimination. 

Sometimes the lessons of America’s intolerance ends with helpless boys left to die on rural fence posts; other times it ends with grown men left to the luck of their instincts.

Fortunately, the numbers of those lessons are shrinking.  America’s social curriculum is changing, much like its science curriculum changed when evolution replaced creationism.  It is increasingly possible to be different and live a good, safe, productive life in America.

As long as you’re fast enough.