Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘crazy’ Category

Scene: Erie Public Library, Sammy checking out VHS’s for the week with the library closing in 10 minutes.  Sammy’s friend is behind him waiting patiently, infront of him is a man wearing swishy gym pants with his sweatshirt tucked into it, a wild hairdo, and jesus fish earrings hanging from his ear lobe….Sammy watches the man in front of him waving at a silver dome (the kind that has a security camera in it). 

ACTION!

Guy, finishes waving and looks at Sammy:  “Big Brother’s always watching.”

Sammy, hesitant: “Yeah they are always watching…..”

Guy: “Have you ever read “1984?””

Sammy, having only read 70 pages of the book: “Yes, I did read it.”

Guy: “Yes, gotta be careful with Big Brother.  You know that new Health Care Bill?”

Sammy, knowing this coversation will not go well: *nods* “Yes.”

Guy, states matter-of-factly: “Well, the new Health Care Bill allows the government to put chips in our body.”

Sammy: “Oh it does.”

Guy: “Yes, on page 1000, I can give you the page number and the exact section where it says they can implant chips into people.”

Sammy, turns and eyes his friend behind him hoping he would help him, to no avail.”: *just stares at the crazy man.*

Guy: “I’m not worried about it though, nature will take care of us in the next few years….”

With that a woman calls for him to come and check out his books and Sammy is left wondering how a crazy man could read and understand all the nuances of an in depth Health Care Reform Plan, and wonderswhy the government would ever want to moniter that crazy man.  The entire time Sammy is praying the man doesn’t have a weapon.

END SCENE.

I guess I’m just lucky to get all the crazy people in line. *shakes head*

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

So I was cruising around the internet checking out news stories and stumbled upon this little gem of a story.  Apparently, the 51 yahoo’s in the North Dakota House felt it necessary to deem gay men and women a fertilized egg all the legal rights as a human being.  This basically outlaws abortions in North Dakota.  As mentioned in several news articles, the bill is meant to challenge Roe v. Wade but let’s cast a critical eye on this bill. 

 

First, I think that the government telling women that they can’t have an abortion is an impediment on women’s rights to privacy and her own body.  I don’t care if you’re religious or what your religious text tells you quite frankly.  If you don’t like abortions don’t get one but you have no right to force a government to out law abortions because of your religious nonsense.

 

Secondly, I hope North Dakota is ready for, in terms of funding, for women who can’t afford a child.  I mean realistically if the 51 North Dakota State Government Representatives who feel it can outlaw something like this then I think women, as a constituency, should questions what kind of help can be afforded to them because they are being forced to keep a child they might not necessarily have the funds to keep.  No it isn’t the nicest thing to say or look at but let’s take off the rosy colored glasses.  Not all people who have children are financially responsible.  It isn’t pleasant but it’s a reality.

 

Thirdly, I hope North Dakota is ready to not only teach sexual responsibility (not abstinence only sex education) because lets face it teens are having sex and they need to know the repercussion…especially if abortions are now outlawed (not that I believe abortions are or should be a form of birth control) but also have tons of contraceptives prepared to hand out to people who have sex.  Because, truthfully, there are adults out there that have sex and there are accidents…If you are going to take away an option you better have alternatives ready.  That seems like the only responsible thing to do considering the North Dakota Government is the one that is creating moral law.

 

Fourthly, so a fertilized egg has rights…I see.  That’s a pretty far reaching idea….now that fertilized egg that the North Dakota Government is working so hard to protect and give rights to, will that fertilized egg have the right to marry if it turns out to be gay?  Wait we will side step the issue of gay marriage, if that fertilized egg happens to be gay will there be laws and protections passed to protect its right to live a safe and full life from people who hate gay men and women?  Will the North Dakota Government be will to pass laws like the Matthew Shepard Act to protect the rights of that fertilized egg that may be a gay man or women?  I mean if we are so worried about the rights of unborn, fertilized eggs, then we should have the same concern for gay men and women who come from those eggs…right?  Or am I being foolish?  How quickly people feel the need to grant rights to something that can’t even exist outside of a human body (not considering fertilization clinics etc.)but fail to grant rights to gay men and women who oh I don’t know pay taxes, go to work, go to school, can breath on their own, purchase a plane ticket (I could go on), and are citizens. 

 

Fifthly, I hope the government is ready to help adoption agencies.  Let’s not pretend, children will end up at the adoption agencies. 

 

Sixthly, recession + babies= aid from the government.  Plus, I hope the ND Government is ready to fork over more money for court costs.

 

Seventhly, I love how a MAN, Republican Rep. Dan Ruby-Minot, is sponsoring bills for women about THEIR bodies.  I don’t know but perhaps a woman knows more about her body than a man does.  I’ll post a picture for you to see him.

 

 

 

Finally, these are just my opinions.  I hope ND government had some of these in mind when they voted.   Yeah I might be biased some then again a fertilized egg has more rights than this gay man in Erie.  But hey that’s life right?

Read Full Post »

So today I fully intended a happy fun Christmassy like post then I made the mistake of surfing over to CNN.  I just read the article regarding Obama’s choice for the inaugural invocation.  He has chosen Rick Warren.  Please read the article, the link is below:

 

 http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/17/obama.warren/index.html

 

God damn it.  I am thoroughly offended by this!  It’s a slap in the face really.  So Linda Douglass is quoted in the article saying, “”“The president-elect certainly disagrees with him on [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] issues,” Douglass said. “But it has always been his goal to find common ground with people with whom you may disagree on some issues.”” Obviously, he doesn’t disagree with him enough to find his opposition to gay marriage offensive.  It very well may be true, regarding finding common ground with people who disagree on some issues but I’m not some issue nor are my rights.

What people fail to recognize is that my rights are not a bargaining chip.  It isn’t common ground that should be disagreed on, Obama should be championing for our rights.  I’ve come terms with the concept that gay rights are not number one on the agenda (and I hate to admit it because in my mind gay rights should be a high priority unfortunately it’s not shaping up to be that way).  Fine, let’s fix the economy, let’s get out of this war, but remember there were a ton of gay men and women who voted to put Obama into office then he goes off and makes this kind of choice for invocation.  It’s like a big F*** You!

I love the fact that Linda Douglass defends the choice to saying, ““This is going to be the most inclusive, open, accessible inauguration in American history.””  Please, really?  Do you really believe that, as a gay man, I want to go to the inauguration of our President who chose a man, who does not support gay marriage or gay rights, to do the invocation.  Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?  It shows a disconnect with the gay community.

What people don’t understand is the symbolism that his choice holds.  It is symbolic acquiescence to the religious right.  Remember when I posted several months ago and said that I wanted someone in office that would champion rights 100%, this choice shows me Obama’s not the person for it.  I can’t have someone with a luke warm attitude towards my rights in office, and this just shows me that my rights are part of a political agenda.  Instead of standing up for us gays (who many touted with rainbow colored pins with his logo) he chose to try and united political parties, which in my mind was a political move (plain and simple as that).  If Obama can’t see what it means to have this man swear him into office then my biggest fears are being recognized. 

 It just pisses me off to think that Obama chose a man who not only opens supports Prop. 8 but also champions pro-life (for all you ladies out there that are pro choice). 

 

I decided to take a little spin around Obama’s website and found the following quote from Obama,

While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It’s about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect.”

 

“Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us…” well I feel exploited.   

 

What upsets me is that fact that all my friends were all over Obama.  He had a heavy college aged constituency and I happen to hang out with a lot of college aged people.  I hate the fact that they were upset over the fact that I liked Clinton.  They were stunned that I didn’t jump onto the Obama bandwagon.  But I don’t think they fully understand what its like to compromise your rights for a politician or a political agenda.  I hate the fact that I had a friend tell me Obama was the best that I had at the moment and that I had to look at the greater good for the U.S.  (She meant this in a good way meaning one more advocate in office is better than no advocate at all…ahem McCain/Palin).  Greater good my ass…you see where the greater good is getting me right now.  I’m upset that the gay community was so quick to support Obama.  He was championed so quickly by our community to deliver on gay rights and civil unions (which should be marriages) that now instead of delivering he is more apt. to unite political parties.  It isn’t the fact that the LGBT community supported him that upsets me, it’s the possibility that we could be disappointed by him.  I view my rights as not a political stepping stone.  So when he says he wants to deliver on “equality by treating all citizens with dignity and respect” perhaps he shouldn’t have picked Rick Warren to do the invocation.

 

 

 

 

I’d like to post script this by saying I can’t fault the gay community for supporting Obama.  It is exciting to think that we might have someone in office that is a champion of gay rights (even though gay rights include marriage and not civil unions).  What I think, though, is that we have to ask a lot of our political people we chose to support.  We can’t just support someone when they say they support gay rights, we need to expect them to follow though.  The reason for this is so that those newspapers, gay community supporters, etc. that endorse, endorse, endorse aren’t shocked when something like this happens.

 

I’d like to close with this quote from Andrew Sullivan in the article, “[It’s] shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now.””  It’s a scary quote and I hope he’s wrong, but I have to question is this the start of something, beginning with Rick Warren, that will only serve to disappoint the gay community later down the line?

Read Full Post »

So I just received this little ditty in my email regarding pat boone.  

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82830

It pains me to put this link up…literally.  I hate to think all the press this hate monger is going to get.  In this recently posted article of his he went as far as to equate our struggle (regarding Prop 8, gay marriage, and other rights) with the extremists that caused the terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

Go ahead read it…I’ll wait.

Now that you’ve had that chance to digest his horrible and awful words lets take a moment and discuss.

First,  mr. boone, I’m gay and I am in no way shape or form like the individuals who have caused the terror in Mumbai.  If you think that me being a political activist equates me to someone who will kill people then you are sadly mistaken, small minded, and unable to comprehend our community.

Secondly, for you to write such awful things about our community and our people then at the bottom of the page tout about your “Broadway headlining,” I have a newsflash for you.  You have performed with tons of gay men and women and it’s a shame that you would say such hateful things about actors and actresses that have aided your career.

Thirdly, let’s take a moment and look at a few things you’ve said shall we…

Every homosexual citizen has the same, identical rights as any other American.” If every homosexual citizen has the same rights as any other American then why is it that we have to fight for regulations to protect us from jobs that will fire us because we are gay…or protect us from those people who will kill us leaving a gay bar?  If we have the same right how is it fair that my married parents can be on each other’s health benefits despite the city in which they live where as I couldn’t have my partner on my benefits nor would he be covered depending on the state we live in?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/nyregion/10assault.html?_r=2

(Mr. Sucuzhanay wasn’t even gay.)

Because this elemental building block of society has been so defined and respected throughout history, elected representatives in our self-government have granted certain supports and tax relief and privileges to marriages and families. Again, these privileges did not originate with some benevolent higher authority – they originated with the people, through the democratic process.

That’s how a free republic works. Our people consecrated our Constitution and determined to live within its provisions, voluntarily. It was determined that the will of the voting majority would rule, though it was subject to change if the majority will changed.” What you fail to realize mr. boone is that a voting majority does not have the right to take away others rights.  That’s not the way it works.  If we were voting on tax raises or voting to create a new road system a majority vote would be acceptable but the minute you try and justify that a  majority can take away rights then the democratic process has been overstepped.  Also, just because you may be in a majority that doesn’t necessarily mean that the “said” majority is right.

No “rights” were ever granted to citizens on the basis of their sexual habits or lifestyle. There simply are no such “rights.”  Perhaps mr. boone needs to study up on his Constitutional Law.  Its a little Supreme Court called Griswold vs. CT.  For those of you who don’t know what this case involved, mr. boone, it involved the use of contraceptives in the state of CT.  Women at one time were not allowed to use contraceptives in CT.  This case argued that a woman’s body is her body and can do with it what she wants…in terms of contraceptives.  The law was over turned allowing for the use of birth control.  It was a crash course in what the meaning of “right to privacy.” A right provided for by the Constitution.  In other words a woman has the RIGHT to take birth control because her body is private and the State cannot dictate what she can and can’t do regarding birth control.  Might I add that this “privacy” which a woman has was granted on the basis of some women’s sexual habits and or lifestyles. This was just a quick glaze over the case it really is a great case and merits further investigation and trust me there are many more cases regarding rights then you realize.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_496/

 

“Slavery was abolished, blacks and women obtained the rights to vote, and these true rights were not obtained by threats and violent demonstrations and civil disruption (though these things did occur, of course), but by due process, congressional deliberations and appropriate ratification. This was democracy in action, not mob rule. As noted journalist Thomas Sowell has said, there never was “a right to win.” In America, at least the America we’ve known till now, rights are earned and won in a deliberative, legal way – at the polls.”  Uuummm correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t one of Thoreau’s and Martin Luther Kings’ tenants Civil Disobedience if a law was not fair. I think I remember something from my Civil Rights class I took in college…that we are obligated as good citizens to demonstrate against rules that are unjust and unfair.  At the moment I don’t think we’ve had any giant violent gay demonstrations?  And if we want to nitpick even more due process wasn’t necessarily reached in your “congressional deliberations and appropriate ratification” when Eisenhower had to call in the Army to desegregate Little Rock Central High School for the Little Rock 9 or when a white mob tormented the people who sat at Woolworths. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobediance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_sit-ins

Finally, “There never were any “rights” granted or designated to those who dissented with the will of the majority, other than the same rights all citizens have to work through the democratic process to accomplish their purposes.”   I think if we operated under this assumption we could very well be British citizens still.  I do believe that our 13 colonies were a minority in regards to England.  I believe we dissented with the will of the majority and fought a war for what we believed were our rights as a new nation…I believe we dissented with the majority when England tried to impose a tax on our tea….a la the Boston Tea Party.

 

The point is mr. boone while you try to paint us as crazy, unjust people, our history is littered with people who have been considered radical but in actuality were quite sane fighting for the rights they know they deserved.  We are no different.  And while you can compare me to a “sexual jihadist” lets not forget to turn that powerful ability to judge on yourself.  You’re right hate is hate and those people who perpetuate it by taking away the rights of others and those people who take the time to fan the flames, mr. boone, are just as guilty of hate as well.

 

P.S. Your argument lacks consistency and validity.  It falls apart with every flimsy argument you make.  I’m not quite sure what is irresponsible or hedonistic of gay men and women fighting for the right to marry one another.   In fact fighting for the right seems to be the exact opposite of hedonism and irresponsibility.

Read Full Post »

Yesterday I had a quick chance to check out the Newsweek article that is causing pandemonium amongst the religious right.  If you haven’t read please do, the link is below.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653/page/1

 

I had saved the link to do a post about it yesterday but unfortunately I was running errands for my job and never had the chance to.  So here is my quip about the article.  I think Newsweek hit the story right on the head.   Lisa Miller has taken what the religious right clings to and used it against them…the bible.  It’s a simple as that.  What is in question is the conventionality of the bible.  Is the bible a reliable source of morals and ethics in today’s society?  I think the answer is yes and no. 

I believe that there are several over-arching, capital T (for you philosophy majors), Truths that are detailed in the bible that add to a moral code that will always be part of life.  Love thy neighbor, treat others as you would want to be treated, don’t kill, don’t steal etc.  These are a part of a moral code or ethics that all people should live by.  But, these morals and ethics are not just a construct of the bible or religion.  They are products humanity.  Now here is where it becomes tricky.  So we have a moral and ethical code created by humanity and it is supported by a religious group, doctrine what have you.  What happens when there is a disconnect between humanity and religion.  What happens when you have humanity saying that it’s okay to do one thing but religion telling you it isn’t okay to do said “thing;”  in this case gay marriage. 

The problem is that the religious right argues points in the bible that are not in accordance to a capital T Truth…a Truth that is in accordance with humanities views.  That’s the problem with the bible is that it lacks the conventionality to continue dictating peoples lives.  I’m not saying Love is an advent of conventionality but is something that is Truth regardless of age, period of history etc.  But the moment people try and use leviticus to tell me I can’t sleep with the person I love and they are wearing a cotton blended shirt they have lost their argument right out of the gate.  While leviticus says a man laying with a man is an abomination he also states that wearing blended fibers is wrong as well.  That is an unconventional belief, hypocritical, and not part of a Truth. 

This is the argument that Lisa Miller put forth in her article for Newsweek and she doesn’t even have to say it.  Miller chips away at the hypocrisy that is contained in the bible.  Notice while she does it she never takes away from the importance of love and loving your neighbor.  Notice how she doesn’t have to dog-ear the hypocrisy in not killing and not stealing….she doesn’t dog-ear those precious pieces of the bible because they are not part of a trivial, unconventional, part of a substandard way to dictate life.  They are part of something much bigger (Truth).    It amazes me how quickly these “religious” people are willing to put up a fight for these little pieces of the bible.  I would understand if Miller argued to not love anyone and to kill and steal.  But, to argue so fervently for doctrine that can’t even be proven as truth blows my mind.  Now I know there are people out there that believe that the bible is a capital t truth but I have one question if your religious doctrine is a truth who are you to say that other religious doctrine aren’t also capital t truths?  Also, if your doctrine is a capital t truth then why aren’t all the followers abiding by it?  I know I know your going to pose the same question to me regarding Love and that is fine.  Not everyone Loves someone else or Loves at all.  But Love is not denied from them, all people have Love and can give Love and can deny Love.  The point is that every one has Love no matter color of skin, creed, or sexual orientation, or gender…it’s your choosing to do with it what you want and nobody can take it away from you.  But marriage on the other hand can be taken away because people believe that Love between to men isn’t the same kind of Love between a man and a woman, and that a marriage which affirms the Love between two people isn’t possible if you’re gay.  It’s funny how we easily equate love and marriage (queue the Sinatra) and how easily people try and dictate that love and marriage only is possible between a man and a woman.  But now we are stepping on the Victorian ideal of marriage…and I’ll save that for another post.

 

 

P.S. I have also added this gem below.  It was comment on the Newsweek blog that posted Millers article.   Delightful I must say, glib and to the point I especially enjoyed the part how nice it was 20 years ago and going back into the closet.   I wonder if we can get their right to vote revoked…..

 

·         Jesus Christ… Here we go again… The Gays are trying to shove there lifestyles in our face,Dam the Constitution! Im sorry but i dont want to hear it. And im so tired of these Liberal whiney peaple who are more worried about political correctness then the law of the land. Hey,i dont hate Gays,thats your business if thats how ya wanna live. I dont have a problem with civil unions,but ill be dammed if the Gays think they can have there own rules. Im not a Religous nut,i dont even go to Church. But im tired of America bowing down to every group with an agenda. We need to bring America back to Normalacy,and the Gays need to cool there jets… It was alot nicer 20 years ago,when they were in the closet. If they cant live by the rules,Maybe they should GO BACK!

 

P.P.S.  Here’s a big gay WOOT WOOT for Lisa Miller whose article was AWESOME!

Read Full Post »

So I’ve been mulling over some of the reasons why the gays in California had their right to marry taken away from them.  On the surface you see California being more liberal in its decisions and view points.  It is home to the Castro District; moreover San Francisco itself is a liberal/gay Mecca.  You have Berkley and so on.  All these free thinking individuals in a state that went blue on Nov. 4th and the gays were still denied had their right to marry taken away.  Not just taken away, the California State Constitution was amended to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.  It’s like taking three giant steps backwards. 

 

As I was sifting though the numerous quantities of internet information on the passing of Prop 8 I stumbled across several pieces of information that I find to be interesting. 

 

First, the Mormons siphoned millions upon millions of dollars (upwards around 22 million dollars!!!) into getting Prop 8 passed.  Alright then, if that’s what they wanted then that is what they got.  Now it’s time to hear my terms and conditions for them.  I want to attend your church.  No I don’t want to go though all the hub-bub of becoming a Mormon…no no no.  I just want to be able to walk into their church and participate…including weddings.  I don’t think that’s much to asking.  I mean since they have taken issue with what goes on in my bedroom then I should be able to see what goes on in their churches…and by go on I mean seeing everything.  Somehow deep inside I don’t think they would let me in.  I wonder why?  Why are they so secretive?  Why can’t I come and participate?  More importantly, why did liberal Californians trust them enough to vote with them?  Why is it that people will follow blindly with a group that won’t open the doors to their church to anyone?  Also why do they get to define what “traditional/traditional marriage is?”  If I’m not mistaken they aren’t necessarily the most traditional group ever.  Well let’s just get one thing straight…If you are a mormon I’m judging you.  Yes, I’m judging you and that’s what you get for following a church that got its beliefs from a man (Joseph Smith Jr.) who found your beliefs on gold plates.

 

The second areas I want to look at are the exit polls regarding Prop 8.  So on a CNN blog they gave the following information on Prop 8 exit polls. (the link will be below)

 

If the trend holds, younger, first-time voters can be said to be responsible for Proposition 8’s defeat. Voters between the ages of 18 and 29 opposed the proposition 66 percent to 34 percent; voters 30-64 were evenly split; voters 65 and above favored the amendment 57 percent to 43 percent.

First-time voters cast their ballots against the proposition by a 64 percent to 36 percent margin. The rest of the electorate favored the amendment 52 percent to 48 percent.

Californians who attend church weekly voted for Proposition 8 by an 83 percent to 17 percent. Those who attended church occasionally voted 40 percent in favor and 60 percent opposed. Californians who never attend church were 14 percent in favor and 86 percent against.

College graduates opposed Proposition 8 by a 57 percent to 43 percent margin. Those without a college degree favored it, 53 percent to 47 percent.

African-Americans voted for Proposition 8 by a 69 percent to 31 percent margin. However, 55 percent of white voters and 52 percent of Hispanics voted against the proposition.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/05/exit-polls-gay-marriage-in-california/

At first looking at this I found nothing to surprising.  I’m not surprised that the educated individuals and the young voters opposed the amendment.  I’m not surprised that those people who attended church regularly supported the amendment.  I mean you eventually get use church goers being blinded and brain washed enough by organized religions to never be able to make decisions for themselves.  Who doesn’t love an antiquated book with a patchwork of stories, the bible, and a priest; aid you in your decision making? **insert sarcasm** 

 

What did surprise me was how the African Americans voted.  A whopping 69% of African Americans voted for Prop 8.  69%.  I find this particularly upsetting considering their own struggles with civil rights.  I took a Civil Rights course while in college and I found it somewhat comforting to know there were others that had to fight for their rights.  They understood our plight.  Granted it wasn’t nearly the same kind of fight, but we could commiserate to some extent.  Well apparently the African Americans do not feel the same way about us gays.  I think it is particularly hard when a marginalized group attacks another marginalized group.  It stings a little more because the connection that we thought, or at least I thought, shared.  Well now it’s just plain HYPOCRISY! 

I just want you to know that you made history not once but twice election night.  You helped vote into office the first African American President…but…you also took rights away from people too…welcome to the majority.

 

Finally, to those of you who will read this blog, don’t share my beliefs, and want to comment.  If I find your comment particularly cruel I’ll remove it.  Also, make sure it’s not anonymous and that I’m able to link back to your blog.  There is nothing less appealing than someone who will insult your stance but are to chicken shit to leave a name or their blog.

Read Full Post »

My apologizes bloggers; I’ve not be as attentive to my blog as recently as I should be.  (Insert lame excuse)…I’m currently working on a project that will take place in October and I have been eating, drinking, and sleeping said event for the past two weeks….I think it might be getting to me.  But, don’t worry as of October 8th the project will be done and I will be able to blog a little more!!!!!

 

Here are a few updates I would like to touch on.

 

First, on Friday night as some of you may recall I went out to visit an older gay man from Erie.  I had no intention of thinking it was a date or anything like that.  In my mind it was either going to be a friendly meeting or one that would end in some man action.  It was just a friendly meeting.  So we met and my fears of being murdered by a psychopath were immediately put to rest.  He was very nice and cordial.  So we chatted compared political notes, preferences in men, celebrity crushes (Hugh Jackman…swoon) etc.  It was for all intensive purposes a nice meeting.  I decided early on, while I find older men attractive and enjoy attention from older guys (weird I know) that it would have never worked out between us.  I could tell from out conversation.  When I check my email on Monday he made it adequately clear in an email that we couldn’t date.  He mentioned that if he was 20 years younger we could have possibly dated.  The line made me think that we might have been out on a date, but needless to say I was a little confused by the whole thing.  So that is that…I’ve made a gay friend…yyyiiipppeee.

 

Secondly, you guys will enjoy this one.  Earlier on Friday I was attending several meetings around the Erie area for this big event I’m doing.  I meet with people in my field it is usually one or two people and myself.  The meeting itself lasts usually no more that 20 minutes; until I met Dave.  So I walk into an office and meet with this man.  Initial thoughts were as follows.  He is wearing a black shirt (some stains on it, it was dress down day at his office) jeans and shell top sneakers.  He is really tan (and I’m thinking via a tanning booth but I can’t confirm) His teeth are bleached white; he is about 40 years old, maybe a little younger or older.  I come to the conclusion he is either gay or an aging hipster.  I turn around and see a purple sarong tacked to his office wall and decide that more than likely he is gay.  We greet one another and I get this vague thought that he seems familiar but I couldn’t really place my finger on it so I dismiss it.  We begin talking and the next thing I know he rounds his desk and is standing immediately to my left (while I am still sitting in my chair).  He has totally invaded my personal space and I’m kinda trying to figure out what is going on.  It would be at that point he TOTALLY RUBBED HIS CROTCH ON MY LEFT ELBOW.  Yes you read right full on crotch rub to the elbow.  I’m stunned and the rubbing continues its kinda light then he would bump his crotch on by elbow a little.  I’m having serious ethical and moral issues at this moment.  One, is he doing it purposefully, two, I should be upset because I was totally being sexually harassed three, I shouldn’t be but I was totally enjoying it.  I know what you are thinking TACKLESS.  Sammy is being totally tackless, but I would be lying if I didn’t say that I enjoyed that fact that a semi-good looking older man found me attractive.  It’s a nice boost of self confidence but is a boost in self confidence grounds for sexual harassment?

 

For anyone who is straight and reads this, notice how I completely responded to sexual harassment in the opposite way normal people do. 

 

So I move my arm to my side and he sits down beside me.  We do the meeting thing and I’m still confused as to what had happened when all of a sudden he invites me to sit behind his computer to show him information regarding my place of employment.

 

Moral dilemma 2:  Should Sammy One, say that he is uncomfortable about using his computer and end the meeting and leave, or two,  use this moment to talk up his place of employment and get him interested in it (which incidentally might help my place of employment if I get him excited about it).  I choose two…I’m a whore what can I say.  If he thinks he can rub his crotch on me, I’m totally going to use it to my advantage.  He crossed the work ethics line first, I am just responding naturally…with the hopes to make some gain out of it…don’t judge I’m just playing the game and I’ll be damned if I sit by and have my elbow rubbed by a man and me not get any gain out of it.  I sit down at his desk and right on queue….the crotch is bumping and rubbing against my elbow.  He would reach over me for the mouse and graze me and I am just dumbfounded by this blatant harassment and the fact that he is aroused by me.  So after a bit of this I finish and prepare to leave, this is when my being sexually harassed pays off.  I score several phone numbers and emails of people I can branch out to for my job.  Was it worth it…I really don’t know.  Now comes the awkward part.  We get to a point in our conversation where we are having awkward silences.  (Much like when some wants to ask you out on a date or for you phone number and they are scared to do it) There was stuttering and murmuring and I shake his hand and go to leave….about halfway down the hall he starts to follow me…he stops me we talk a few more minutes…awkward pauses and starts in our conversation…and he mentions that we will be at a few meetings together in the upcoming months…I say goodbye and leave.

 

I am totally confused at this point in my day, he has rubbed his crotch all over my elbow, with out so much as a drink offer, I’m not sure I can even call it sexual harassment because I’m flattered at the attention, and then to think we are going to see each other later…it is all just to much for me.

 

So I go to work, I meet my older man friend out, then I head out to the bars to visit a friend that is in town.  My sister shows up; her and her roommates get drunk I take them home and I start driving home.  It is about 12:30/1:00 in the morning and I am thinking about my being sexually harassed when it comes to me.  I’m guessing this is what it was like when Newton discovered gravity…everything clicking into place questions that you’ve had are answered easily by your new found awareness.  Not that I discovered anything as significant as gravity but at that moment I realized I knew Dave.  Dave had been at a gay bar that I had frequented hitting on the bartender from several posts ago (it was the karaoke bar).  I almost drove my car off of the road at my epiphany.  Dave and his couple of friends sat in front of me and Lucy and Lauren when we went to the bar and I am able to identify him by his glasses.  What I like to pay attention to the finer details of people.  No I am pretty sure Dave knew who I was before hand prompting the uninvited gay sexual harassment.  It just blew my mind…and now I have to see him again at several of these meetings we will be attending.

 

I would like to go on but this blog has gone on exceptionally long.  More about this later!

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »