Coming To A Relationship Status Near You

You politically correct types are going to be the end of me. I swear. I know you're going win in the end, but I'm going to try and fight it as long as I can. And while I've got a lot of fight left in me, this sort of stuff really tires my ass out.

According to a Huffington Post article, Facebook is branching out and giving you more, yes, more choices for how to describe whatever your relationship status might currently be! How enlightened of them! Apparently, "Facebook has added two new relationship status options users can include in their online profiles: "in a civil union" and "in a domestic partnership." OK. So, why does this bother me? Well, you know I'm going to tell you, so what say you just calm down a minute there, Sparky? (Sorry. I'm a little cranky. Stuff like this just gives me a full head of steam.)

Before all of the enlightening, the choices were "limited" to: Single, In a relationship, Engaged, Married, It's complicated, In an open relationship, Widowed, Separated, and Divorced. OK. That's all fine and good. Are you seeing my problem with including "in a civil union" and in a domestic partnership", yet? The answer is: It seems unnecessary to me.

And it's not just the new ones that I have a problem with. How is "In an open relationship" any different from "It's complicated"? What the what is "It's complicated" supposed to mean anyway? Is it like, "I'm going to break up with him, but I'm waiting until after my birthday to see what he gets me"? Or is it "I haven't found anyone else to sleep with without emotional attachment, so I'm waiting for that first"? Or is it simply "I'm cheating on him and he doesn't know it yet"? (Did you like how in that example I made the woman the cheater instead of the man? See? I can be progressive, too!)

But back to the new options. Isn't "In a relationship" good enough? You'd think (back when the whole gay marriage debate was going on in California) that the civil union and the domestic partnership options would have been frowned upon by gay marriage proponents. Good Lord, that's all we heard about was how nothing less than a marriage would do! I mean, I guess if folks who it applies to are OK with it and everything, then I suppose it's fine. Maybe I'm just irritated that I never know what's fine and what's not with these things! It's always changing! And it's NEVER the same. Folks were absolutely militant in California about civil unions and domestic partnerships being soooo not good enough. Second-class compared to being married is what I heard a lot of. (I also heard a lot of the opposite of that. "What's next? People marrying dogs?") Which one is it?!

How come "polygamist" isn't an option? Is it because it's illegal and, therefore, doesn't have a legal status? (I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation as to why polygamy is illegal, by the way. Two consenting adults? Seems like that's their business. I wouldn't do it, but if they're not hurting anyone and I'm not supporting their lifestyle in any sort of financial way, then why would I care? Why would anyone care?) What about "swinger"? That's a choice without a legal status, just like "In an open relationship" is a choice without legal status, right? How come "swinger" isn't on there?

Maybe they should be more specific with some of these. "Engaged to an inmate". "Looking for love". "Will screw for food." I really don't know. If you're perfectly OK with a civil union or a domestic partnership tag, well grand. I just don't know that they were needed. And I've just re-read this entire thing and it's entirely possible that I'm either overreacting (not a shocker) or wrong (not a shocker, either). But it does kind of bother me for the reasons stated and probably for a couple more that I'm not quite sure about just yet. When I figure those out, I'll let you know. Just don't hold your breath. I don't plan on devoting a whole lot of time to thinking about this ridiculousness.

You Never Know When...

We're friends, right? You...me....friendly, yes? Yes. I think we are. And as a friend, I am going to do you a favor. Well, it's not a favor now so much as it would have been about 60 years ago. So if you could pretend it is somewhere around 1950 that I'm helping you out with this, that would really be beneficial.

Apparently, at one point, it was seen as useful to make a charming, short, black and white film for educational purposes and show them to students in class. PSAs, or Public Service Announcements, is what they were known as. And they do just that. They provide a public service which is announced via the film. And I am here to share one of these with you. Feeling lucky? You should. Because I'm going to let you in on some very important information to which you would be wise to heed. See, you may not have been aware of it up until now, but you never know when the homosexual is about. Wait. What?

Correct. See, the the PSA below warns about the dangers of the homosexual. We "learn" vital information about the homosexual. And if you thought that it was just a stereotype that the homosexual had a pervy pencil-thin moustache, was balding and wore weird sunglasses, well, you'd be wrong! According to this depiction, that is exactly what the homosexual looks like! Watch and learn, folks!

Leave Ballroom Dancing Alone

It would seem that Portia de Rossi will not be doing Dancing With The Stars next season. At first, I was kind of disappointed, as I really like what she does with her life and how she handles herself and I thought that she'd be interesting to watch on the show. The fact that she is smoking hot doesn't hurt, either. Then I heard what the producers had in store for her if she were to join the show and I have to say that I'm really glad that she's not going along with their idiocy.

From the lovely Rob Shuter over at PopEater, what the producers had in mind for Portia was for her to dance with another girl. You know. Because she's gay and all. That is the most ridiculous thing I think I have heard in quite some time. Are they serious? Apparently they were. According to an "ABC insider" who corresponded in some fashion with Rob, "If Portia had agreed then this would have been a done deal...She was the only star that could have pulled this off without completely offending the program's conservative viewers." What about offending the rational thinking viewers?

Let me get this straight (no pun at all intended). If a woman is gay and wants to ballroom dance, she has to do it with another woman? Because....why? I can't think of a single reason why this would have to be. Ballroom dancing isn't about one's sexuality. It's about two people dancing. And the way that it works is that one of the people is a male and one of the people is a female. That's just how it is. You don't need to feel obligated to change it because one of the participants is gay.

Some Hollywood casting director told Rob that "With all the debate going on about Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the country, this would have been the perfect time to do this...Yet, the show has never been about pushing the envelope. It's a huge hit because it doesn't make anyone uncomfortable." So much to like and so much to dislike in that statement. First of all, there would never be a perfect time to do this because it shouldn't be done. And second of all, not only should a show not make people uncomfortable, it shouldn't make them watch something that is patently absurd.

And let me just make the statement right now and say that if you think that ever male dancer on that show is straight, well, you'd better think again. (For cryin' out loud, judge Bruno Tonioli is about as flaming of an individual as you can be.) You don't see them paired up with other men, do you? No, you don't. Why? Because it would be ridiculous, that is correct. Don't they realize that the dance partners are just that? Dance partners. There's nothing sexual going on between them. They're just doing their job. So why couldn't Portia be on the show and dance with a man? I just don't get it.

I don't know how else to make this point. I'm kind of surprised that I have to make it at all. I'm definitely annoyed I have to make it. Just because a man or a woman is gay, that doesn't mean that they have to ballroom dance with another person of the same gender. I'm so glad that Portia turned them down. It would have been an embarrassment if she had gone along with it. Maybe the season after this one, the producers will have come to their senses and have her on and dancing with a male partner like it should be. People are so damned worried about being politically correct that they forget to be worried about looking like a jackass.

There Are Not Always Two Sides

Do both "sides" of an issue always need to be presented when covering a story in a journalistic or media realm? Like when you're covering a bunch of recent suicides by teenagers who were bullied because they were gay. Do you really need to run the opinion of folks who are anti-gay? I'm not so sure that you do. The Washington Post, surprisingly, felt a little differently.

For some reason, on National Coming Out Day (for whatever that is worth, as it would have been bad on any day), The Washington Post felt the need to run an editorial from a one Tony Perkins (not of Psycho fame). Mr. Perkins is the president of the Family Research Council and seems to be very against those who are gay. Naturally, his editorial, while not condoning any of the bullying that goes on, made it clear that he felt that "...homosexual activist groups like GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) are exploiting these tragedies to push their agenda of demanding not only tolerance of homosexual individuals, but active affirmation of homosexual conduct and their efforts to redefine the family." Uhh, OK?

I'm kind of not even sure what that means. I don't know that it can be considered "exploiting a tragedy" to send the message that people need to be tolerant of other people. That seems like a message that doesn't have a whole lot of exploitation in it. So, even though gay kids are getting bullied to the point where they off themselves, we still shouldn't send the message that being gay is all right. That seems...um...idiotic.

But what is more idiotic is how The Washington Post handled being called on the matter of running his editorial on National Coming Out Day. According to the huffy folks over at The Huffington Post, GLAAD made mention via Twitter (good Lord...) of The Washington Post's giving editorial space to Mr. Perkins on that particular day. (By the way, I don't have so much of a problem with The Post allowing the editorial to begin with, but it didn't really have anything to do with bullying. If they wanted to allow him space to voice his opinion, that's fine, but I'm thinking that it probably should have been on the topic at hand and not just what Mr. Perkins wanted to address.)

For some reason, The Washington Post decided to respond in an odd fashion. They Twittered back (good Lord...) with this:

They're working to cover both sides? Of...bullying? No, wait. That can't be it. They're working to cover both sides of...teen suicide? No, wait. That can't be it, either. They're working to cover both sides of...oh, for cryin' out loud, I give up! I don't know that there are two sides of the subject of kids who get bullied might off themselves. I think that's a pretty one-sided discussion. Sure, there are two sides to the whole being gay in the first place debate. I get that. But that isn't what they were talking about. They were talking about gay teens being bullied to the point where they did themselves in. There aren't two sides to that and giving an open forum to someone to talk about what he believes are the evils of homosexuality under the guise of it being the "other side" is simply insane.

Why couldn't Mr. Perkins simply focused on the evils of bullying and how, since it's irrational to think that we're ever going to be able to put a stop to it, we can help kids from becoming so despondent over it that they want to die? Why couldn't he have gone with that angle? Why the continued attack upon those who are homosexual? The point was the bullying. Can he not get off of his anti-gay soapbox for just one day? Seriously? Please.

European Gaycation

I'm always suspicious of people who are really adamantly against something. I don't care what the something is, but the more that someone is against it, the more that there might really be a completely different story lurking behind it.

That's sort of the case with a one George Rekers. According to the Miami New Times, in 1983, Dr Rekers, along with a one James Dobson, "...America's best-known homophobe, formed the Family Research Council, a D.C.-based, rabidly Christian, and vehemently anti-gay lobbying group." He has also "...published papers and books by the hundreds, with titles like Who Am I? Lord and Growing Up Straight: What Families Should Know About Homosexuality." I'm sensing a theme here. In addition to those qualities, "Rekers is a board member of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), an organization that systematically attempts to turn gay people straight." Ah, yes! The gay-to-straight camps! Sure. I've heard those are really productive. Uh-huh. Whatever. You have a pretty good idea of what kind of a guy this Dr. Rekers is, right? Vehemently anti-gay. Hmmm.

So, I don't know, call me crazy, but I guess I just find it odd that someone who is SOOOO anti-gay would hire an escort through something called Rentboy.com to "carry his luggage" for him during a ten day trip to Europe. Wait. He what now?

That's right. Mr. Rekers, who claimed to have some sort of surgery at some point in the recent past, said that he could not carry his own luggage on his trip. Thus, he did what anyone else who couldn't carry their own luggage would do. He went to straight to Rentboy.com, a site which makes you ascertain that you're 18 or older in order to enter the site. I didn't know that you had to be over 18 just to have someone carry your luggage.

That's probably because Rentboy.com is not exactly a baggage handling website. Granted, I'm sure that Mr. Rekers wanted to have his package handled, that isn't really in question at this point. But what I am saying is that when you click on the button that says that you're 18, you're taken to the main page of the site which is headlined with "Welcome to Rentboy.com - The world's largest gay escort and massage site." Escorts AND massages? Does anyone really just go for just the massages? Seems to me that'd be like offering hookers AND shoe shines. Who is going to go just to have their shoes spiffed up a little bit?

Now, I can't show you ALL of the Rentboys on Rentboy.com because I'm not all that comfortable with posting pictures of partially clad (ie, no pants) young, hardbodied men here. Not that there's anything wrong with that! (The partially clad part is what I'm referring to. I'm pretty sure that there IS something wrong with the whole Rentboy.com dealio.) I'm just saying that I'm trying to keep this a family friendly site. It's hard to claim to be family friendly if your readers are looking at a schlong. But I will show you a picture of the 20-year old that Mr. Rekers chose to accompany him on his European gaycation. Meet "Lucien". Behold!

Yeah, he appears to have all of the qualities that I look for when searching for an appropriate baggage handler. Shirtless. Underaged-looking. Wispy hair. Forlorn eyes. Yep. He should be able to lift Mr. Reker's sac, er, sack with no trouble a'tall!

I noticed on the site that you can "Find Boys" and when you click on that arrow, your choices are "Rentboy, Sugardaddy, Masseur or All" All? Not all-in-one, right? I mean, you can't have a Rentboy AND a Sugardaddy be the same person, right? A boy and a daddy? That seems wrong. Not impossible, but just a bit wrong. Regardless, I did notice that there wasn't anything there about hauling large objects for short distances. That was noticeably absent. It's hard to imagine that Mr. Rekers would go to Rentboy.com to find someone to suit his baggage carrying needs. Has he not heard of bellhops? Hotel staff? Drivers?

There are a number of flashing ads on the site which offer various services and devices for personal use. None of them seem to involve traveling or luggage. I see no mention of Samsonite, TravelPro, Tumi, Delsey or the like. Even under the "Resources" column, there was nothing like that to be found. No, instead it reads "Check out these links if you are looking for professional assistants, post a personal ad or simply try to get off." Sure. I can see where Mr. Rekers would have mistaken that for "I can't lift this, can you?" Uh-huh. Seems reasonable.

Now, Mr. Rekers seems to be in full damage control mode and has even posted a statement at the top of his own website, professorgeorge.com, that reads in part "Dr. Rekers found his recent travel assistant by interviewing different people who might be able to help, and did not even find out about his travel assistant’s Internet advertisements offering prostitution activity until after the trip was in progress. There was nothing inappropriate with this relationship." Uh, yeah. Now...what now?

Look, if you're going to be a closeted homo, that's your deal. I don't care. Be in, be out, just be you and just happy. That's my motto. But if you're going to be in, please don't be disparaging to those who are out. And, for the love of God, if you're caught going on vacation with a Rentboy, please don't insult the intelligence of everyone having to hear about this story by coming up with a scenario in which he's only there to carry your freaking luggage. And please don't come up with this ridiculous story AFTER there is a picture of you which seems to show you handling your own luggage whilst your Rentboy, Lucien, stands there and waits for the elevator. Behold!

I mean, really now. Are we supposed to just believe any of this stuff that he's telling us to explain why this dude went with him on vacation? Because none of that really bodes well for his story. Not that there was any part of his "I can't pick this up, I need a semi-clad, muscular, 2o-year old, male prositute to lift it for me" story that WAS boding well, I'm just saying.