Here is your Daily Single's Horoscope for Saturday, December 18
When that ex invites you out, you're tempted to say yes -- but don't let old feelings trap you in a toxic relationship. You know there's a good reason you're apart, so don't lose sight of it.
and, of course, because this is the way i deal with things, i had this emotional holiday night with the exsomeone about a week and a half ago. we watched the "sex and the city" episodes "are we sluts?" and "drama queens" because they so encapsulated the feelings i have had about my courtship with the longhorn. and, like my sister, i have had diarrhea of the mouth concerning this situation so i've talked to my sister and to rob and to jen and so it spilt out even to the exsomeone. i mean, we talk about everything else. and i couldn't help it, i mean, i was teary during the "drama queens" episode. but, then, that subsided. i ate my two bags of soft batch cookies. we had perfunctory fits-and-starts sex. and we haven't really talked that much since. and that happened after the FIRST re-schedule. after the second reschedule, i really went back to old habits by calling the stock broker. we caught up and i remember every single thing that made me so bonkers in the first place. and, of course, the stock broker has settled down -- the exsomeone is also dating someone somewhat seriously -- and the stockbroker told me that all relationship have drama. that i should know this by now. and as long as it's not something major, to basically, just take the good for the good and the bad for the bad. and largely, that's what i'll have to do. i really feel like this has potential. that's what makes it so tough. i just don't know if we've hit our moment.
Here is your Daily Single's Horoscope for Sunday, December 19
Embrace your existence as it is -- you're in a good place, even if you don't quite appreciate it yet. Your goal should be acceptance, so don't get hung up in what you haven't done yet.
in the interim, i've had quite a streak of good life living. almost two weeks ago, my boss called me into the office to announce an unexpected pay increase. i have three weeks off of work. two weeks ago, i went to cassis and had a racuous night out where i met this crazy katy perry bartender girl and basically had a romp through st. petersburg that started at the only bar in town and ended in a dive bar called "the emerald" with an open bar tab. after that, i went to a christmas party at one of my old pier one coworker's home. it was soaked in red wine for me. and i've been on a red wine streak lately. malbec has become my painkiller of choice. on sunday afternoon, i went to park shore grill for a late lunch of syrah and the best roasted portabella mushroom i've had in years. then i went to the old northeast tavern for a crab-stuffed portabella for dinner. on friday, i went to a late night showing of "black swan" which was AMAZING. on saturday, i went to ceviche with my sister and her boyfriend and then basically drunk myself asleep with a bottle of malbec in thirty minutes (and apparently had designs on going out seeing as i woke up in cheap mondays and a black tee)....that's how i processed the fact that the longhorn re-scheduled on me but somehow found the time to log into pof.com that day. yesterday, i spent the day overdosing on j.crew which will necessitate the purchase of naked and famous skinny guy jeans. also, because of my future boston trip, i need the true religion zach jeans in ultra skinny fit, body wash to wear with j.crew gingham. what else? oh yeah, i may or may not post for quite a while given i don't know how the internet will work in peru, but here's hoping my date tomorrow night doesn't get re-scheduled.
Daily Single's Horoscope for Monday, December 20
As soon as you think you've got it all figured out, the rules change. That's okay, though, because you're flexible and ready for anything. Be sure to keep all your options open -- this could be really fabulous!
Chanel Pre-fall 2011
by André Leon Talley
I sometimes think there is someone behind the scenes dictating to me,” Karl Lagerfeld told me right after the finale of his effortlessly elegant Paris-Byzance show in the Chanel’s couture salon on Rue Cambon. Is it the ghost of Mademoiselle Coco? Or some spiritual connection to another realm of consciousness? Or is it simply that Lagerfeld is the only couturier in our time who can, as Sergei Diaghilev said, “Etonne-moi!” (Astonish me!) from one season to the next.
His grand spring 2011 show, inspired by André le Nôtre’s Versailles gardens, featured an 80-piece orchestra. “After the Petit Palais, I wanted to go back to something intimate,” Lagerfeld continued. We were seated on low banquettes against gold-pailletted pillows made from the same fabric he used to cover the entire couture salon (400 meters!), turning it into a seraglio of golden shimmer. On long hand-painted canvas carpets, the show unfurled to the music of Pink Floyd’s The Dark Side of the Moon. The clothes were not as moody as the sound track, but with blazes of modernity. To open a show with a dark navy pea coat with small square jeweled buttons, slim jeans in fabric made just for the house, and intricate, jeweled flat sandals was a signal that this was a show about super, sexy cool.
One look after another demonstrated the incredible craftsmanship of the artisans and experts Chanel has at is fingertips—and that Lagerfeld turns into a unique expression of opulent details on clothes that are modern and accessible. He’s smart enough to know that a transparent pale-rose long lace column—as seductive as a nightgown, worn with flat sandals and little gold lamé underpants—is for the daring young woman. At the same time, he presents moments of reality, like a black-and-white silk-crepe marocain dress with one huge black pocket and a floating panel deftly outlined in Lesage embroidery. “In the Byzantine world,” KL explains, “you always had only one pocket.” He certainly did his research, including taking a trip to Ravenna, Italy, to photograph the last remnants of the Byzantine Empire’s riches and gold-washed surfaces, including the Emperor’s throne room and the vaulted gold ceilings of an Ottoman Empire church.
In other hands, this show could have sailed off to the shores of tacky, costumey kitsch. Not here. A small oval evening bag with studded jewels, right out of an Ottoman Empire glass vitrine, looked great in the hand against a pair of jeans. The white wool-bouclé dress—cut away like a halter at the bodice, and with a slim pencil skirt with a swinging panel overskirt and gilt buttons—worn with the exquisite Massaro red faille zip-up stocking boots on studded round Byzantine heels, is a look for dinner that has all the dash of fashion today. In cool rock-star mode, one great, short lamé cape with an unfinished fringe hem, and sliced away in panels like ribbons, had as much impact as the solid-gold red-carpet evening dress in silk jersey. The sweaters, worn by Baptiste Giabiconi, whose first single, “Showtime,” just debuted in Paris, were the kind men would wear après-ski—and that their girlfriends would borrow. A long black-and-gold wool-lace coat worn over slim trousers and a shirt as the last look: so perfectly non-stagnant fashion. Women today break down codes—they wear a jacket and skirt as a suit, or pair an important investment piece like a floor-length coat with trousers cut like blue jeans. Model Freja Beha wore the looks that defined easy elegance, especially her loose-fitting, white duchesse-satin jacket, cut like a casual shirt and embroidered to resemble stained glass, worn over full, silk-velvet corde du roi trousers (that’s where the word corduroy comes from).
The young front-row Lagerfeld friends were making mental notes. Charlotte Casiraghi, in black lace Chanel and funky-chunky ankle boots, sat next to Inès de la Fressange, who wore a simple blazer, a black pullover, gold silk bell bottoms, and pearls from gray to rose to white. Guests stayed long after the show ended, drinking tea from gold-embellished glasses or water from golden goblets and enjoying trays of Turkish delight. Lagerfeld and his posse were off to Berlin by private jet, where he was scheduled to photograph a Volkswagen campaign.
|| News ||
Posted on Advocate.com October 11, 2010 04:44:37 PM
Trevor Donovan on 90210’s Teddy
90210's Trevor Donovan talks about playing a closeted high schooler, looking forward to Teddy's more intimate scenes, and why he's hoping his story line can save lives.
By Ross von Metzke
Rebounding from a shaky first season and a transitional second, the CW’s 90210 is currently riding a creative high, thanks in no small part to Trevor Donovan. As high school jock Teddy Montgomery, he looks every inch the campus hunk. But as was first teased by producers this summer and as viewers have learned in recent weeks, Teddy also has a secret. He’s gay — and extremely closeted. In October 4’s episode Teddy’s internalized homophobia came flooding to the surface when, feeling threatened by former one-night stand turned classmate Ian (Kyle Riabko), he calls him a “faggot” and, later, assaults him.
It’s a plot line Donovan says he’s extremely proud of and, given the headlines in recent weeks about teens killing themselves after being bullied and harassed with antigay comments, a story he thinks is essential to tell. The actor talked to The Advocate about why he was hesitant to tell Teddy’s story, why he is looking forward playing the more intimate scenes, and what it’s like to play a high schooler when you’re in your 30s.
The Advocate: When news first broke that one of the characters on 90210 would be coming out, producers teased that you were one of three guys it could be. Did you know at that point it was Teddy?
Trevor Donovan: [Laughs] I knew.
So you just had to keep your mouth shut?
Yeah. We really wanted to keep it on the down low. But, as you know, it leaked out pretty quick.
Did you think it would leak out as quickly as it did, or did you think you’d have to keep it a secret all summer?
To be honest with you, I wasn’t sure. I was pretty shocked it got out as soon as it did.
What was your initial reaction? Did you have any sense Teddy might be gay, or was it completely out of left field for you?
It was completely out of left field. I definitely had my reservations and my concerns in the beginning. I didn’t want it to be just an in-your-face, gratuitous ratings booster. I didn’t want to be a part of something like that. Talking to the executive producer, we were on the exact same page. We really wanted to tell the internal struggle, the coming-out story. That’s really important. How he deals with it internally and how his peers, his friends, family, how they also respond to it. Once we talked about how it was going to be written, I was very excited about it. Not only for me as an actor, but to shed some light on how difficult it can be. It’s been so good, and I’m so impressed with the writing staff and production. Everything has gone in the right direction.
I saw your “It Gets Better” video. and obviously this story is happening at a very timely moment. Were you shocked to learn of all the teen suicides happening in schools, or was this an issue you were pretty aware of?
Yeah, I mean, I don’t think this is necessarily a new issue. For whatever reason, it’s coming to the forefront of the media. Partially having to do with Dan Savage launching the “It Gets Better” campaign, it’s bringing more attention to it. It’s such a tragic, tragic thing. The fact that my story line is coinciding so accurately, I think it’s just an opportunity to really help these kids and hopefully, potentially, save people’s lives. I know the story line is fairly new, but I can imagine you’ve already started receiving letters from gay teens and young adults. Have any letters really stuck out for you?
There have been so many. I do a lot of Twitter and Facebook, so some of the messages, though short ... many have brought me to tears. Everything from “Oh. my God, I’m going through the same thing. I really think this could help me” to “My brother or my friend committed suicide years ago, and I think it’s such a great thing you’re doing.” I’m getting goose bumps right now just talking about it. It’s incredible, and it’s that much more reason to really commit to this and do the story line justice and outside of that, with these PSA’s, really be a voice and help young people.
Without giving too much away, I want to talk story line a bit. Teddy is obviously deeply closeted and has a great fear of coming out. Do you have much of a sense of his backstory — why he’s so afraid to admit he’s gay? Are we going to see any of that?
Yes. You’re going to see a lot more, and you’re also going to learn a bit more of his past. It’s interesting. He comes from this sporting school on the East Coast, and all you know are a couple little things that he’s said. You start to learn more about his history. I think growing up with a movie star father and his father being such a playboy, I think he felt like he had something to live up to. That has a lot to do with his struggle, let alone coming out and dealing with his peers and family members once he comes out.
Last week’s episode grabbed a lot of attention ... your character is obviously feeling threatened by Ian (Kyle Riabko) and shut him down with an antigay slur. When you saw that word in the script, did you have any hesitation in playing it?
I had to think about it a lot. And I actually discussed it with the writers as well. Initially, in the table read, I didn’t say it. It’s a hard word to say. I thought, Does it really have to be that word, does it really have to be that malicious? And I think it does. It shows how much in denial he is and how confused he is. And I’ll tell you ... in the rehearsals, I never said it out loud. I waited until we were filming to let it rip. No one else heard it. I didn’t hear it come out of my own mouth. When it did, it was ... it literally shocked everyone. It was a very realistic reaction.
Is this a story line we can expect to see play out over the course of the season?
I think so. I only know what’s happening up to episode 10, but I see this story line going for the whole season. There are a lot of issues and a lot of things for Teddy to touch on before he comes to accept himself and is fully out. So it’s going to be a realistic, timely arc. Before this story line, would you say that gay rights and gay issues were on your radar?
Most definitely. I grew up in a very small town where I was not exposed to gay people. I’ve been in L.A. now for 11 years. In all of my acting classes, in my life — it’s become an issue I’m very well aware of. I have a lot of friends who have gone through the same sort of thing that Teddy’s going through, so it’s definitely an issue that I’ve been aware of for quite a while.
Ideally, where would you like to see this story line go?
The story line itself? Just as this “It Gets Better” project is trying to show, as difficult as it is to go through the self-realization and coming out, once you do, your life is going to be so much better. You’re going to be so much happier if you’re true to yourself, and you’re going to make other people happy. It’s just so important to not deny who you are. The “It Gets Better” project hopefully makes it better for those kids to live.
Obviously, relationships and sex are a big part of 90210. When the story line goes there with Teddy, is that something you’re ready for?
Heck, yeah. I’m an actor, this is what I do. I’m telling a story, and it wouldn’t be realistic if we didn’t go there. I have no problem with that at all.
You do read — not so much anymore, but you still see it — about actors who say they aren’t comfortable playing gay. Was there any of that hesitation with you — fear of how this might affect your career — or was it all story line– related?
It was just about how it would be presented. I didn’t want it to be a gratuitous moment. Watch these two guys kiss on TV. Oh, shocking ... it’ll get ratings. I didn’t want to be a part of that. I wanted it to be something that had substance and layers. This story has never been told this way, and especially now, it’s so important for it to be told realistically and heartfelt. I’m really honored to be a part of it.
Now, on a less serious note. I’ve been doing some research. You’re a bit older than most of your cast mates.
[Laughs] I am a little bit older. Yeah. Yeah. And I have a birthday on Monday.
You are 32.
I’m turning 32, yes.
So you are playing a high school student. Was it tough getting back into that skin?
I’m just a big kid as it is. Sometimes it is a little odd. But they really did write my character in a more mature light. Growing up the way he did, around adults all the time, it allows me to play a little older, a little bit more mature, which is good.
Advocate.com © 2010 Here Media Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Posted on Advocate.com November 30, 2010
90210's Teddy and Ian Kiss
By Advocate.com Editors
90210 KISS X390
It’s been a long time coming, but after months of struggling to come to terms with his sexuality, Teddy (Trevor Donovan) kissed Ian (Kyle Riabko) on Monday night’s 90210.
Watch the scene here.
Panel: Let women serve in combat roles
By Andrew Tilghman - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Dec 10, 2010 5:18:00 EST
The Defense Department should eliminate restrictions on women serving in combat units and end all “gender restrictive policies,” according to a blue-ribbon panel created by Congress.
The move would end the military’s long tradition of all-male combat units and open up career fields like infantry and armor to “qualified women.”
The recommendation by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission will be included in a formal report to Congress and the White House in March.
The commission met and discussed the combat exclusion policy for females at a meeting Dec. 3, said Erica Lewis, a commission spokeswoman.
Letting women serve in combat
Many of the longstanding reasons for keeping women out of combat units do not hold up under scrutiny, the commission’s research found.
A five-page analysis prepared for the commission concluded that women do not lack the physical ability to perform combat roles; gender integration will not negatively affect unit cohesion; and women are not more likely than men to develop mental health problems.
However, keeping women out of combat units and combat-related job fields can reduce their career opportunities, particularly in the officer corps and in the Army and Marine Corps, according to the commission’s research.
The recommendation could push the combat exclusion policy for women into the mainstream political debate, similar to the ban on gays serving openly that was the subject of congressional hearings in early December.
The recommendation will be one of many from the commission aimed at improving diversity in the military and opportunities for women and minorities. The panel’s work could result in changes in law, a directive from the White House or policy changes within the Pentagon.
The commission suggested a phased approach to allowing women into combat units, Lewis said.
For example, the services might start by assigning women in career fields currently open to them to combat units traditionally limited to men. A second phase could involve opening additional career fields involved in “direct ground combat” to qualified women.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown current policies and their references to “forward” units to be outdated. In some situations, women in non-combat jobs have faced more danger than male infantrymen.
“The enemy is no longer clearly and consistently identifiable, and all units are essentially exposed to hostile fire,” the commission’s research paper concluded.
“Additionally, the spatial concepts of forward and well-forward are inappropriate and lacking to convey the complexity of operations such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Marines' leader: Keep policy on gays in military
By ELLIOT SPAGAT, Associated Press Elliot Spagat, Associated Press 1 hr 15 mins ago
SAN DIEGO – The new commandant of the U.S. Marines Corps said Saturday that now is the wrong time to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" policy prohibiting gays from openly serving in the military, as U.S. troops remain in the thick of war in Afghanistan.
"There's risk involved; I'm trying to determine how to measure that risk," Gen. James Amos said. "This is not a social thing. This is combat effectiveness. That's what the country pays its Marines to do."
Last month, the Pentagon was forced to lift its ban on openly serving gays for eight days after a federal judge in California ordered the military to do so. The Justice Department has appealed, and a federal appeals court granted a temporary stay of the injunction.
Amos said the policy's repeal may have unique consequences for the Marines, which is exempt from a Defense Department rule for troops to have private living quarters except at basic training or officer candidate schools. The Marines puts two people in each room to promote a sense of unity.
"There is nothing more intimate than young men and young women — and when you talk of infantry, we're talking our young men — laying out, sleeping alongside of one another and sharing death, fear and loss of brothers," he said. "I don't know what the effect of that will be on cohesion. I mean, that's what we're looking at. It's unit cohesion, it's combat effectiveness."
Amos, who began his assignment last month, said he was reviewing preliminary findings of an internal Pentagon survey of the policy that was sent out to about 400,000 troops and another 150,000 family members. He will make recommendations to Defense Secretary Robert Gates later this month.
Amos declined to comment on the survey results, though portions have been leaked to reporters. Most troops and their families think the policy could be done away with, according to officials familiar with its findings who spoke on condition of anonymity because the results had not been released.
Amos said his top priority was success in Afghanistan — no matter how many people or how much equipment is required — and that he didn't expect any pullback in Marine forces over the next year.
President Barack Obama wants to start to reduce the number of U.S. troops in July, if conditions on the ground allow.
Amos said the U.S. effort is showing progress, pointing to improved security in the Nawa district, but that more work lies ahead in allowing the Afghan army and police to gain control of the country.
"The Marine Corps will stay the way it is (in Afghanistan) right now for probably at least the next year," he said.
He said he expects the Marines to shrink from its current size of 202,000 after leaving Afghanistan, but that "we need (the current numbers) now."
Amos, 63, spoke with reporters in a wide-ranging interview during a Southern California visit to mark the Marines' 235th birthday. He addressed other subjects:
• A living Marine who served in Afghanistan has been recommended for a Medal of Honor. The Marine Corps has had only one Medal of Honor recipient, stirring controversy due to its heavy fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Amos' predecessor, Gen. James Conway, made the recommendation last month to the secretary of the Navy, and it must eventually be approved by Obama. Amos said a report on the Marine's actions brought tears to his eyes.
• The fate of the amphibious Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle should be known in January or February. Gates, who is scrutinizing military spending in a search for roughly $10 billion in annual savings, has expressed doubts about a $13.2 billion plan for the Marines to buy large number of vehicles starting in 2012.
• The number of suicides in the Marines this year is "markedly below" the same period last year. In 2009, the Marines had 52 suicides, the highest rate of any branch.
"I don't want anyone to walk out of here and say we've turned the corner and the Marine Corps has figured it out," he said. "That is not the case. This is hard."
Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Don’t hint, don’t wink: An immodest proposal
12:23 PM 11/22/2010
It’s been a long time since I was required to shower among 40 or so friends, acquaintances, and virtual strangers, or not do so at all — a socially unacceptable option. Forty-two years after the fact, I no longer have a clear recollection of the experience, so it must not have made much of an impression on me. I’m certain I would have vivid memories of the experience if my shower-mates had been potential sexual partners.
If you are as bored as I am with the nearly 20 years of political blather about gays in the military, you’ve probably stopped reading already, assuming you started at all. But in all that I have read — before I stopped reading myself — and heard on the matter, I have never encountered my eminently sensible proposal, one that protects the patriotic urges of some homosexuals as well as the national interest on the basis of “force readiness” arguments which should govern the thinking of those charged with implementing the defense of our country: Lesbians should be allowed to serve, gay men (hereafter “gays”) should not.
Exceptions to every generalization I posit abound, but I don’t think I’m enlightening many of you when I assert that men by nature are more promiscuous than women. (You’ve noticed that, too, huh?) This is overwhelmingly true whether those men and women are straight or gay. Our instincts were designed by Parent Nature at a time when early humans were not the predators, but the prey, and our remote ancestors were still trying to avoid extinction and establish a permanent presence on this planet. It fell to men to swing through the trees and scour the caves in search of as many women as possible to subdue and impregnate — a tough job but someone had to do it. Women had to be more selective because, then as now, the principal consequences of copulation were theirs: pregnancy; childbirth; most of the responsibilities of childrearing whilst their baby-daddy hunter-gatherers were about hunting and gathering and finding other women to subdue; and the ruination of their pulchritudinous figures. How our ancient foremothers ever managed to establish any choice in the matter is utterly beyond me when one considers that they did not have access to Mace, police whistles, Lady Smith .38s, or domestic violence hotlines.
Regardless, Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons lost the evolutionary crapshoot while Homo sapiens endured and multiplied. Dumb luck is probably as responsible for our survival as our larger brains and female selectivity, but these characteristics prevail still and apply equally regardless of sexual orientation. The associations and lifestyles of gays encourage these opposing natural forces. Lesbians do not face the same pressures as straight women to “put out” for men. They therefore tend to develop long-term, monogamous, stable, and even permanent relationships.
Certainly they have their counterparts among gays, but they are rarer than hyperactive sloths. Homosexual men are not stymied by the instinctive — not to mention aggravating — caution and selectivity of most women. Most men who are sexually attracted to other men can and do indulge their promiscuous urges with little or no restraint; i.e., it’s “party time” all the time. My wife and I watched a sad documentary about AIDS a few years ago. An emaciated man in his mid-30s or so, not long for this world, said that he’d spent a lot of his free time on Fire Island and estimated that he’d had sex with “about 3,000 men.” My wife said, “I don’t think I’ve spoken to 3,000 people in my entire life.” I replied: “I’ll bet he hasn’t, either.” The unrefuted 1978 study by Bell and Weinberg indicated that 43% of gays had sex with 500 or more partners, and 28% had 1,000 or more partners.
What does all this have to do with force readiness and “Don’t-hint-don’t-wink” or whatever they’re calling it these days? My answer should by now be as painfully obvious as a suppurating genital rash: gays spread disease at a rate out of all proportion to their numbers in our population and should be excluded from the military. Gone are those happy days when a cheerful medic could give you a “pro shot” — a massive dose of antibiotic — before your wild weekend that would protect you from the consequences of every folly, unless you got mugged. Herpes and AIDS are infectious and chronic and the latter, despite advancements in lengthening and improving the lives of its sufferers, will eventually kill you as dead as a bullet in your brain unless something else gets you first. The military has depended on “blood on the hoof” — transfusions from live donor to live recipient — ever since transfusions were perfected by the discovery of blood groups in 1901. A significant population of gays in the military has the potential for disastrous health consequences.
Let’s remember that we’re not talking about a significant fraction of our population. Kinsey’s notorious World War II-era study concluded that about 10% of adult males in the United States were homosexual. Never considered in his study was the fact that most able-bodied American male heterosexuals were elsewhere, serving as part of The Greatest Generation, leaving a larger percentage of gays at home to keep one another contented. Later studies have almost universally concluded that the percentage of gays in our male population is between 1% and 6%. The recent National Health and Social Life Survey put the figure at 2.5%. The percentage of lesbians is estimated to be between 0.5% and 3%.
Finally, most gays are not inclined toward military service, but many lesbians are, and it is an open secret that they do well in the calling, especially in medical and administrative specialties. I am certain that I knew some during my 20 years in the Army, although I didn’t ask and they didn’t tell. In the era of conscription, gays had two options: lie and be inducted, or “come out” to be branded and rejected. It was a wretched choice that produced desperately unhappy men. I served alongside one such man in Vietnam.
Now back to that communal shower. It’s no secret that men are generally much more susceptible to sexual arousal through visual stimuli than are most women. Many gays will deny that this is the case with them, but why then is the Internet saturated with gay porn? I don’t claim to be a Constitutional law scholar on a par with President Obama, but shouldn’t the overwhelmingly straight warriors who answer their county’s call be spared the indignity of showering with other men who achieve lascivious enjoyment from the sight of those lithe naked bodies, and who may be tempted to seek more than the view? They are, after all, guys. If a Constitutional right to privacy that guarantees access to abortionists can be summoned from thin air, certainly the prohibition against involuntary servitude should prevent unwilling heterosexual men from providing beefcake parades without their informed consent, at least penumbrally.
Joseph A. Rehyansky is retired from the United States Army and the Chattanooga, Tennessee, District Attorney’ Office. He is a former contributor to National Review whose writings have also appeared in Human Events Online, The American Spectator, and other publications.
Article printed from The Daily Caller – Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment: http://dailycaller.com
URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/22/d
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/22/d
Judge: Let lesbians into military so male GIs can turn them straight
By Daniel Tencer
Thursday, November 25th, 2010 -- 6:09 pm
submit to reddit Stumble This!
Judge: Let lesbians into military so male GIs can turn them straight
Did judge suggest corrective rape for lesbian soldiers?
The conservative news site The Daily Caller has removed part of an article that suggested lesbians be allowed into the US military so that their male colleagues can "convert" them.
Critics say the article went as far as to suggest corrective rape for lesbians.
"Lesbians should be allowed to serve, gay men should not," declared Joe Rehyansky in an article published Monday. Rehyansky, an Army veteran who served in Vietnam, is a part-time magistrate in Hamilton County, Tennessee, and a former assistant district attorney.
In the original article, Rehyansky concluded that his lesbians-only policy "would get the distaff part of our homosexual population off our collective ‘Broke Back,’ thus giving straight male GIs a fair shot at converting lesbians and bringing them into the mainstream."
Petitions by Change.org|Get Widget|Start a Petition »
That alarmed some LGBT activists, who note that much of the article before that comment argued that men are rapists by nature. Rehyansky's argument that gay men should continue to be banned from the military was based on this notion:
[S]houldn’t the overwhelmingly straight warriors who answer their county’s call be spared the indignity of showering with other men who achieve lascivious enjoyment from the sight of those lithe naked bodies, and who may be tempted to seek more than the view? They are, after all, guys.
In the early evolutionary years of the human species, Rehyansky argued, "It fell to men to swing through the trees and scour the caves in search of as many women as possible to subdue and impregnate — a tough job but someone had to do it."
Writing at TBD.com, Amanda Hess reads between the lines of Rehyansky's article: "Once all the lesbians are easily accessible in one place, an army of straight dudes will turn them all straight, presumably through that time-tested tactic of subduing and impregnating women against their will."
Hess reports that The Daily Caller briefly dropped the article when it began to gain attention, only to put it back online but without the "converting lesbians" comment. The comment has since been republished at other Web sites.
According to his LinkedIn profile, Rehyansky's specialties are "sending criminals to prison" and "astute political analysis."
The Daily Caller was launched earlier this year by Tucker Carlson, formerly of CNN and MSNBC and now a Fox News contributor, and Neil Patel, a former adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney.
|| News ||
Posted on Advocate.com November 29, 2010 07:58:39 AM
DADT Commentary Suggests Corrective Rape for Lesbians
In a commentary posted to a conservative website, an Army veteran suggested that lesbians should be allowed to serve in the military so that straight men can "convert" them.
By Julie Bolcer
Gay men should not be allowed to serve openly in the military, but lesbians should be welcome because it would give straight male soldiers a chance to “convert” them, suggested a former Tennessee official in an online commentary.
According to The Raw Story, Joe Rehyansky posted his commentary last week on The Daily Caller, a right wing website. The site has since removed the part of the article that pertained to lesbian service members.
“In the original article, Rehyansky concluded that his lesbians-only policy ‘would get the distaff part of our homosexual population off our collective ‘Broke Back,’ thus giving straight male GIs a fair shot at converting lesbians and bringing them into the mainstream,” he said.
Rehyansky based his argument in his view of evolution, saying that in earlier years of the human species, “It fell to men to swing through the trees and scour the caves in search of as many women as possible to subdue and impregnate — a tough job but someone had to do it."
Meanwhile, that same sexual impulse provides reason to deny gay men the right to serve in the military.
“[S]houldn’t the overwhelmingly straight warriors who answer their county’s call be spared the indignity of showering with other men who achieve lascivious enjoyment from the sight of those lithe naked bodies, and who may be tempted to seek more than the view? They are, after all, guys,” he wrote.
An Army Veteran, Rehyansky is a former part-time magistrate in Hamilton County and a former assistant district attorney.
Advocate.com © 2010 Here Media Inc. All Rights Reserved.
How House Democrats Rushed To Save DADT Repeal
Evan McMorris-Santoro | December 16, 2010, 8:26AM
As the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell headed toward defeat in the Senate last week -- delivering what was seen at the time as quite possibly a fatal blow to repeal this year -- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer called Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and said he wanted to help put repeal back on the agenda.
In a phone interview with TPM Wednesday evening, shortly after the House approved a standalone DADT repeal bill that just might push repeal through before the lame duck ends, Hoyer described how he saw to it that the House acted to spur on the Senate.
As the Senate vote closed last Thursday, Hoyer says he called Lieberman and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
"I indicated to both of them that it was my inclination to ask Congressman [Patrick] Murphy [D-PA] to introduce [a standalone bill]," Hoyer said. He told Murphy -- an Iraq War veteran and the author of the legislative language the first time the House voted to repeal DADT back in May -- that it was time to act fast.
"The first opportunity we had to do [put the legislation on the floor of the House] was 12 o'clock this week on Tuesday," Hoyer said. "And we did that."
The House voted 250-175 today in favor of repealing DADT, a tally that included a 10 vote increase (from five to 15) in the number of Republicans voting for repeal. Hoyer chalked up the increase in GOP support to the Pentagon report released last month showing an overwhelming percentage of active duty servicemembers would be unaffected by a repeal of the policy.
"I think that certainly gave a higher level of confidence to members on both sides of the aisle," Hoyer said.
He now hopes to carry that momentum through to the Senate, where there's evidence that a growing number of Republicans are willing to vote for a standalone repeal bill. Hoyer said he's been talking to Republican senators and urging them to vote for the bill. He said he spoke with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) before announced she would vote for the standalone bill, and he said that Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) "indicated" he would support the bill as well.
Hoyer said that Lieberman and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) -- the only Republican to vote for cloture on the defense bill in the Senate and a co-sponsor of the standalone repeal bill there -- have told him they "they have a high level of confidence that this can get done."
But asked how confident he was that Tuesday's vote would be the last he cast on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Hoyer was cautious.
"How confident am I? I don't want to be too snide, but you are [aware] that we're sending this to the United States Senate," he said. "Confidence levels are not high from the House perspective about what the United States Senate will do with things."
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Senate votes 65-31 to repeal ban on gays serving openly in the military
By Alexander Bolton and Roxana Tiron - 12/18/10 03:39 PM ET
The Clinton-era policy banning gays from serving openly in the military will soon be history after the Senate voted Saturday afternoon to repeal it.
Eight Republican senators joined almost the entire Senate Democratic conference to approve by a vote of 65 to 31 a measure repealing the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
GOP Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Olympia Snowe (Maine) were expected to vote yes. Sens. Richard Burr (N.C.), John Ensign (Nev.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and George Voinovich (Ohio) were late surprises.
West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin (D) was absent.
The vote hands President Obama his second major victory of the lame-duck session of Congress after lawmakers approved an $858 billion package of tax relief and unemployment benefits.
“Today, the Senate has taken an historic step toward ending a policy that undermines our national security while violating the very ideals that our brave men and women in uniform risk their lives to defend,” Obama said in a statement.
“By ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” no longer will our nation be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans forced to leave the military, despite years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay,” Obama said. “And no longer will many thousands more be asked to live a lie in order to serve the country they love.”
The Senate voted 63 to 33 earlier in the day to end a Republican filibuster of the bill. Burr and Ensign supported the filibuster but later defected to vote yes for final passage.
Obama pledged to repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell” during the 2008 campaign and came under heavy pressure from gay-rights advocacy groups to end discrimination against gays in the military.
Obama held off on pushing Congress to approve a repeal until recent months as he focused on passing healthcare reform and improving the economy.
The president told reporters at a press conference shortly after the mid-term election he hoped lawmakers would approve the repeal during the lame-duck session.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Obama’s opponent in the 2008 presidential election, blasted the president for pushing a major policy between the midterm election and the Republican takeover of the House next year.
“Here we are about six weeks after an election that repudiated the agenda of the other side, we are jamming — or trying to jam major issues through the Senate of the United States because they know they can’t get it done beginning next Jan. 5,” McCain said.
Repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” appeared in doubt earlier this fall when Senate Republicans twice voted to block defense authorization legislation that included the measure.
Collins was the only Republican to vote to advance the defense bill with a repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” when it came to the floor Dec. 9.
The repeal gained new life, however, after Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) announced he would separate the repeal from the broader defense bill and advance it as a free-standing measure.
The effort to allow gays to serve openly in the military is not over, however.
The repeal measure requires the president and the secretary of Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to send a certification to Congress declaring they have considered the recommendations contained in the Pentagon Working Group report on repealing “Don’t ask, don’t tell."
They must also certify that the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to implement the repeal and that those policies are consistent with military standards for readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.
Supporters estimate it affects more than 60,000 military personnel.
“Don’t ask, don’t tell,” a policy established under former President Bill Clinton, will not be repealed until 60 days after Obama submits the certification to the Senate and House Armed Services Committees.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, endorsed the study and pressed Congress to pass the repeal to avoid having courts resolve the issue.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, called on Gates to suspend all investigations and disciplinary action against gay service members while the implementation of the new policy is pending.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) endorsed Savis’s request at a press conference Tuesday.
Democratic leaders have clinched a big victory for gay-rights activists with only a few days to spare. If Congress had not passed the repeal before the end of the year, it would have had little chance of success next year when Republicans will control the House.
Reid applauded the accomplishment.
“Repealing ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ is the right thing to do and if that were the only argument that would be enough but there’s more than that,” Reid told reporters. “Repealing this policy will make our military stronger. Someone said this is not the time to repeal this policy and they’re right. It should have been done yesterday.”
The contents of this site are © 2010 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications.
Delegate wants gay ban kept in Guard
December 21, 2010 12:35 am
BY CHELYEN DAVIS
"Don't ask, don't tell" may soon be repealed for U.S. military members.
But a state delegate wants to invoke it for Virginia National Guard members.
Del. Bob Marshall, R-Prince William County, plans to introduce legislation in the 2011 General Assembly that would make DADT the rule in the Virginia National Guard.
But DADT could be DOA on the governor's desk, as Gov. Bob McDonnell's office suggested he does not like Marshall's proposal.
Marshall--who is reportedly interested in running for the U.S. Senate seat held by Jim Webb--announced his bill shortly after the Senate voted to repeal DADT over the weekend. Both Webb and Sen. Mark Warner voted for the repeal. The House of Representatives already passed the bill, and President Obama plans to sign it.
In a written statement, Marshall, a conservative Republican who was the sponsor of the bill that banned gay marriage in Virginia, said allowing openly gay people to serve in the military "will weaken military recruitment and retention, and will increase pressure for a military draft.
"After 232 years of prohibiting active, open homosexuals from enlisting in our military, President Obama and a majority in Congress are conducting a social experiment with our troops and our national security," Marshall added.
His bill would continue barring actively and openly gay people from serving in the Virginia National Guard.
But the governor doesn't think Virginia should deviate from the standard set for U.S. military members, said McDonnell spokesman Tucker Martin.
In a statement, Martin said that while McDonnell disagrees with repealing DADT because of operational concerns from military leaders, he accepts that it is essentially now law, and Virginia will comply with it.
"He knows it is critically important that there be one set of rules for all our men and women in the military, since uniformity of major policy across all branches is essential to effective operations," Martin said. "We are not aware of a single instance in recent history where the Virginia National Guard has not complied with the policies and procedures of the Department of Defense."
Martin also said about 90 percent of the Virginia National Guard's funding is federal, and Marshall's proposal, if passed, could jeopardize that money.
Marshall said he believes Virginia has the authority to apply DADT to the state's National Guard, no matter what the federal law is.
"It does not matter what Congress does or what President Obama might do by way of executive order," Marshall said.
He cited a clause of the U.S. Constitution that gives states the "authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
"The Constitution never would have been ratified if states were not reserved unqualified control of the militia, now called the National Guard," Marshall wrote.
Opponents disagreed with that interpretation.
"The National Guard is a federal military unit, which is subject to the same rules as other federal military units," said Claire Guthrie Gastanaga, legal counsel for Equality Virginia, a statewide gay rights organization. "Any state statute seeking to set different standards for the Virginia National Guard would be a nullity with no effect."
Gastanaga said Marshall's bill is an attempt to score political points and wastes the time of legislators who should be concerned with issues like balancing the budget and easing traffic congestion.
State Sen. Don McEachin, D-Richmond, said the National Guard is part of the U.S. military, so the rules that apply at the federal level would also apply to the National Guard.
More importantly, McEachin said in a statement, Marshall's bill is offensive and "mean-spirited."
"The very idea that we would introduce discrimination into our Virginia Code is absolutely abhorrent to me," McEachin said.
He said that the sexual orientation of Guardsmen is irrelevant to their ability to do their jobs, and that he hopes Marshall's bill will be defeated.
The Virginia National Guard referred questions about Marshall's bill to McDonnell.
Chelyen Davis: 540/368-5028
Copyright 2010 The Free Lance-Star Publishing Company.
December 21, 2010
Last-ditch McConnell 'don't ask' amendment blocked
A last-ditch effort by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to complicate the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was blocked Tuesday night after Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) objected, Senate aides said.
McConnell attempted to add an amendment to the so-called stripped-down defense authorization bill that would have required the consent of the military service chiefs to proceed with "don't ask" repeal. Under legislation passed by the Senate last week, certifications are required from the president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. All the incumbents in those positions support repeal.
"It was a McConnell proposal," a GOP aide confirmed. "There was an attempted to get unanimous consent for it to be included in the defense bill and someone objected."
McConnell's amendment, which Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and other GOP senators have been urging for months, called for certifications from the four service chiefs. All of the incumbents in those positions have expressed at least some reservations about repeal at this time.
Repeal advocates have long viewed such an amendment as a poison pill. Presumably, this is what prompted Lieberman's objection. A spokesman for the senator did not immediately respond to an e-mail query Tuesday night. The stripped-down defense bill is proceeding on a unanimous consent basis after most of the controversial aspects were stripped out. Even if such a bill somehow passed with an amendment that threatened "don't ask" repeal prospects, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would likely refuse to bring it to the floor.
Of course, any such amendment, or even the prospect of it, could be seen as an effort to upstage President Barack Obama as he prepares to sign the conditional repeal bill into law on Wednesday morning.
— with Jen DiMascio, Manu Raju and Scott Wong
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
( Jeff Sheng / Kaycee Olsen Gallery )
Tristan and Zeke are gay members of the Marines who have come out only to a small number of their fellow service members because of the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Photographer Jeff Sheng has spent almost two years crossing the country to shoot portraits of gay and lesbian military members.