Home
 

SpunqDaddy's Beard

About Recent Entries

Bi Media Summit audio highlights Jun. 27th, 2009 @ 09:50 am
Bi Summit Audio Highlights  Broadcast Online

Highlights from the National Summit on Putting the "B" in LGBT in April at the NYC LGBT Center were broadcast Mon June 15 by the Out FM program on WBAI. You can listen to excerpts from the "Exploding the Myths About Bisexuality" panel with Ron Suresha, Dennis Slade, and Ignacio Rivera by clicking here: http://archive.wbai.org/files/xml/outfm.xml  then click on June 15th. The bisexual segment starts about halfway through the broadcast. More segments will be broadcast on following Mondays 11am.
 
More pix and info here at: http://biwriters.livejournal.com/81598.html. Thanks to Brad Taylor of Out FM and Barbara Fortune who took the photos.

Advertisement


Ron on the TALL Show Jun. 17th, 2009 @ 09:45 am

RJS on The T.A.L.L. Group Show

Posted By Ron Suresha on June 16, 2009

Ron had a great time last month as a guest on The TALL (Transitioning and Loving Life) Group Metrocast cable access show, and will be on again tonight at 8:00pm to talk about the Lammies, and Trans and Bi Lit! Check out the previous show: http://thetallgroup.org/archives/76.

 

nlcTrans May 20, 2009

We welcome local author, activist, and anthologist of books centering on gay and bisexual men’s subcultures, Ron Suresha, to the show. We talk about bear identity, gay and bisexual stereotypes, the Kinsey scale, and how Ron met his husbear, Rocco. Ron has been twice [sic] nominated for Lambda Literary Awards for Bisexual Literature including his forthcoming book Bisexual Perspectives on the Life and Work of Alfred C. Kinsey.
http://ronsuresha.com/



RJS in Village Voice on Pegging Jun. 18th, 2008 @ 04:11 am
More het guys are discovering the pleasure of bending over
by Steve Weinstein
June 17th, 2008 12:00 AM
Village Voice, The Queer Issue, http://www.villagevoice.com/nyclife/0825,straight-men-get-it-in-the-end,471422,15.html

Alvaro Diaz-Rubio

Considering how "liberated" gay men are supposed to be, I'm amazed by how many of my brothers refuse to recognize that some straight men like to get fucked.

Yes, you heard correctly. Not bisexual. Not "situational homosexuals" (i.e., jail, private school, the Navy), but straight. I wouldn't have believed it, either, if I hadn't experienced it myself. For the past few years, my ex and I have shared a rampantly straight man who loves to get it in the end. A serious bodybuilder, Ricardo (not his real name) met my ex at the gym. Now separated from his wife, who tired of his serial affairs with women, Ricardo loves the stimulation of a good ass-pounding in between bedding women.

On Fire Island, a good-looking middle-aged man told me about a young buck who had been doing contracting work in his and his lover's apartment. After a few broad hints, they did a three-way in which he was penetrated. My friend said that he immediately ran downtown to have sex with his girlfriend—because he was so turned on, he said, although it could have been old-fashioned homopanic.

If it feels good for us, why shouldn't it feel good for them? It all comes down to the prostate. DatingSense.com, a website for swingers, explains it this way: "The lining of the anal cavity is rich with nerve endings, and deep penetration may allow for stimulation of the prostate gland, which many heterosexual men also find highly arousing."

Anecdotal evidence abounds about straight men who enjoy this position. Other gay men have had experiences similar to mine: Gary in Los Angeles tells of a young, cute repairman who worked under him in more ways than one: "We were together every single day," Gary recalls. "I talked openly about my adventures. He was peaking sexually, and circumstances came together." One night, the two did the deed. After that, Gary says, "He got weird." Last he heard, his former employee was married, a father, and studying to become a pastor.

That some men are "gay for pay" is well known, even though most people—straight and gay—remain skeptical. Chris Rockway is a popular gay-porn star who claims he likes only women, although, as he told Australian magazine DNA: "Sex with men can be fun. Guys get so hung up on labels and what people will think of them that they miss out on a lot."

Dave Pounder agrees. As his name implies, Pounder prefers it on top. A former porn actor who now produces adult films in Boca Raton, Florida, he says he wouldn't be able to do anything sexual with a guy and won't even do anal with women. But he refuses to judge anyone's sexuality based on performance: "There are two temperatures," he says, "freezing and boiling. But the most measurement is in between. What we need to do is expand our definition of sexuality."

Ron Suresha, who has written extensively on bisexuality, believes that most adults of both sexes have experienced some form of anal sex: "We know how things have progressed," he says. "There's been an increase not only in reporting anal sex, but in the practice."

Sexologist William Fitzgerald reports approvingly on his website SexDoc.com of a colleague who "rendered the opinion that anal sex for 20 years starting [after] 1990 is like oral sex during the 20 years after 1950," when returning GIs convinced their partners that giving head wasn't something only sleazy prostitutes did.

Much of this involves a woman in a strap-on, popularly known as "pegging," a term coined by Voice columnist Dan Savage. The popular porn tape Bend Over Boyfriend spawned a whole subgenre of titles like Babes Balling Boys, Strap Attack, and Boss Bitches.

According to Suresha and others, what keeps more men from experimenting is a fear that they'll enjoy it too much: "It doesn't necessarily lead to homosexual contact," Suresha says. "People have come to understand that when it's done right, it's pleasurable to get fucked anally regardless of the gender of their fucker."

In fact, Fitzgerald notes: "Heterosexual men who acknowledge the pleasure they derive from anal or rectal or prostate stimulation are more centered and grounded about their sexuality."

Of course, this isn't man-on-man sex, but some men have realized that the real thing feels even better than latex. Bob Sanders, who helps run a popular website devoted to muscle worship, has established friendships with several bodybuilders, many of whom like it, he says, because of that prostate massage. Richard Wassersug, an anatomy professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, believes that men who have had prostate cancer and can't sustain an erection—an increasingly common occurrence as the population gets older—could benefit from this position. He even suggests that this could be the ultimate gay karma for those who practice "reparative therapy," which claims to "cure" homosexuality: "Assuming that sex ultimately stimulates endorphins and triggers a physiological reward, anything that causes pleasure will be desirable." Besides, adds Wassersug (who is happily married to a woman), it's yet more proof that gay men have a bigger sexual repertoire. Or, to paraphrase Woody Allen, having it both ways doubles your chances of getting a date for Saturday night.


Don't make Iowa a media diversion from Iraq Dec. 31st, 2007 @ 09:15 am
Don't make Iowa a media diversion from Iraq


AAR blog open-thread topic starter today:  What's more relevant to you in the next week, New Years or Iowa? My response:

You want us to talk about Iowa?! Or New Years?! Really?!

Those choices are no choice at all.

No offense if you're from Iowa (been there myself several times, lovely state but not this time of year) - but who gives half a flying freak-on about the Iowa caucuses?!

Seems like the M$M, and maybe even some AAR hosts, want (us) to spend the whole week speculating about how the very very white Caucasians are going to caucus, as if all that Caucasian caucusing matters.

Iowa and New Years are nonstarter topics - compared to all the other real HERE-AND-NOW PROBLEMS that we face as a nation.

Some  folks talk as if this Incidental Iowa Caucasian Occasion is going to determine the entire outcome of the election.

When will people wake up and realize that this horserace mentality, where the presidential election campaign dominates the political discussion, focusing the media's message on the election (starting immediately after the 2006 election), is exactly what Bu$hCo wants them to do?

Obviously progressive talk  radio is much better than the M$M in this regard, but  consider this: If the "news" media spent a tenth of their election campaign coverage time investigating, say, THIS pRezident and discussing his high crimes - well, just imagine.

Just imagine if the "news" media spent a tenth of their time investigating, perhaps, widespread rampant GOP election fraud - well, who knows?

If the "news" media spent a tenth of their campaign coverage time investigating, say, the failure of this illegal occupation of Iraq - well, you get the idea.

But instead of engaging the candidates on real issues, the media has twisted it into a Bizarroland fashion show where nothing of substance is debated.

It's an obvious political strategy: get everyone looking ahead toward the hopeful but uncertain future, so that we're not seeing how they're stealing this country out from under our feet right this very minute, and have been, since the sElection / coup of 1999 (and yes, even before then).

As long as Bu$hCo leads the M$M to endlessly follow election campaign coverage - and as long as the MSM continues to lead the American public around with rings in their noses - we will never start focusing on the real crises facing this nation now.

Ron & Rick on Thinking Green 12/18 Dec. 17th, 2007 @ 07:27 am
Forget Wayne's World. Cable has never been so progressively ursine!

SpunkDaddy and Ranger Rick will be hosting New London Greens weekly "Thinking Green" this Tuesday on local cable-access TV. Tune in - and call in - 7:00-8:00 to our live show, discussing and taking your calls on the topic "Should the NL City Council Reintroduce the Resolution to Impeach Bush/Cheney?"

Our call-in number is 860-444-3154.

Advertisement


Aravosis: Whence comes the B & T in GLBT? Oct. 10th, 2007 @ 07:34 am
John Aravosis of AmericaBlog parses the queer alphabet soup, gets his gay history wrong, and kicks up the dust on ENDA, throwing in a skewed perspective on bisexuals and transfolk, to boot:

Oct. 8, 2007 | WASHINGTON -- Like an ever-expanding mushroom cloud of diversity, every few years America's gay leaders and activists welcome a new category of member to the community. Wikipedia walks us through our complicated family history:

"LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered] or GLBT are the most common terms [to describe the gay community] ... When not inclusive of transgender people it is shortened to LGB. It may also include two additional Qs for queer and questioning (sometimes abbreviated with a question mark) (LGBTQ, LGBTQQ, GLBTQ2); a variant being LGBU, where U stands for "unsure", an I for intersex (LGBTI), another T for transsexual (LGBTT), another T (or TS or the numeral 2) for two-spirited people, and an A for straight allies or asexual (LGBTA). At its fullest, then, it is some permutation of LGBTTTIQQA."

In simpler times we were all gay. But then the word "gay" started to mean "gay men" more than women, so we switched to the more inclusive "gay and lesbian." Bisexuals, who were only part-time gays, insisted that we add them too, so we did (not without some protest), and by the early 1990s we were the lesbian, gay and bisexual, or LGB community. Sometime in the late '90s, a few gay rights groups and activists started using a new acronym, LGBT -- adding T for transgender/transsexual. And that's when today's trouble started.

America's gay community, or rather, its leadership, is apoplectic over the imminent passage of the first federal gay civil rights legislation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA.
...
Worthwhile read: complete original article, responses, and follow-up here.

"Bisexuals, who were only part-time gays,..." Clearly Aravosis is too young and isolated from other queer activist communities to recall the centrality of bis or transfolk to what we used to call, in simpler times, the gay lib movement. All these freaky queers parading around asking for equal rights, in all their awful diversity, are just soooo confusing to him. But I'm glad that he's trying to figure it out, and helping others figure it out.

To me the central idea is that of discriminatory treatment of sexual minorities. I think framing the political debate in those terms is accurate, fair, positive, and understandable to the general public.

Mahmoud's narrow stance Oct. 10th, 2007 @ 06:00 am
The New Yorker cover does the bearded queer cover again:
"Narrow stance" by Barry Blitt

OCTOBER 8, 2007

Ahmedinejad isn't nearly as cute as the (also) diminutive Afghani president Hamid Karzai.
But who wears sandals cruising the men's room?
Current Music: TYT

Miller Lite near-naked manbear fight Feb. 6th, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
Check out this Manboob-ellacious Miller Lite Superbowl ad:
"The Miller Catfight Girls return in a no-holds-barred manfight between two hot and sweaty beasts."
According to comments on ifilm.com, the older redhaired guy was the jogging manboobs in "Epic"; and you may recognize the other guy from the Carl's Jr. Paris Hilton carwash spoof.

http://www.ifilm.com/video/2818616/collection/18373/minisite/superbowl
Tags: ,

Tell ABC to Cancel Biased "Docu-Drama" Sep. 7th, 2006 @ 12:36 pm

Rachel Maddow carried this item this morning and I blogged the following at TRMS around 8:15am.

I agree Rachel, I think we should ask people to call ABC to tell them to not run the fictional if not mythological miniseries. You know they're trying to make it seem historical while telling a big fat lie. People can call their local station or complain on ABC.com.

So then this shows up in my mailbox from Arch Brown at 11:19am.

Tell ABC to Cancel Their Inaccurate and Slanted Sept. 11th Program
On September 10th and 11th, ABC is planning to air a "docu-drama" called "Path to 9/11," which is being billed as "an objective telling of the events of 9/11." In fact, the film was written by an unabashed conservative who twists the facts to blame President Clinton.

Tell ABC to cancel this show.
ABC's new six-hour film was apparently screened in advance only to conservative bloggers and journalists -- and received extensive praise from none other than Rush Limbaugh. The film is apparently also riddled with factual errors and distortions; former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke has completely refuted one of the key scenes in the show.
It's simply stunning to think that as this fall's election approaches, a major television network would devote six hours of prime-time programming to air such a slanted and inaccurate program.

Tell ABC -- this type of inaccurate and slanted program does not belong on primetime television, and they should cancel this show.

 Want to increase your impact? Share this message with everyone you know who's interested in unbiased reporting on the tragic events of Sept. 11th, 2001. Thank you for working to build a better world.

Will Easton
Manager, ActForChange.com
Working Assets
Is the bloggerati freaking hot, or what?

Tags: ,

Advertisement


Chicago Free Press: No Bailey ads, thanks Aug. 13th, 2006 @ 09:38 pm
This shows you that Bailey's credibility is so abyssmal that the gay rag won't even run his research ads.

+-+-+

Chicago Free Press Editorial: No Bailey Ads.
http://www.chicagofreepress.com/news/editorial/index.html

An excerpt:
"Since we cannot in good conscience steer our readers to a study that Bailey is part of, we´re canceling the ad. And in the future, before accepting any ads for research studies, our ad staff will ask who is involved. If Bailey is, we won´t accept the ads.
There are other researchers involved in this study. They may have good motives, but we question their association with Bailey. We appreciate good science. We don´t appreciate being used to further the dubious agenda of someone who believes he should not be held accountable to our community."

For more information about the Bailey controversy, see Lynn Conway's in-depth site and BRC's Bailey page.
http://www.biresource.org/index.php?p=484
Current Mood: scrinchy and yes pinchy
Current Music: Neil Young "Living with war"
Other entries
» 60 Minutes: Nothing wrong with silencing Bailey critics
CBSNews.com
March 13, 2006

Producer Shari Finkelstein Discusses 'The Science Of Sexual Orientation'

Yesterday, "60 Minutes" ran a story on "The Science Of Sexual Orientation." Because of its religious, political and social significance, the topic seemed destined to invite controversy, and indeed, some blogs have already criticized the piece. (Many others, it should be pointed out, have lauded it.) I spoke to producer Shari Finkelstein about the early criticism, her goals for the piece, and the concerns those involved had in putting it together.

"We felt we couldn't shy away from a hot button issue because people might become upset," said Finkelstein. She said she was concerned about criticism from two groups – the religious right and the gay and lesbian community. Many people in the former group believe sexuality is a choice, and thus would likely not respond well to the contention voiced by scientists in the piece that sexuality is inborn, if not necessarily entirely genetic. She feared some in the gay and lesbian community, meanwhile, might be offended by the portion of the piece that discussed how "the science was showing a lot of stereotypes [about people's voices and movement] could be proved scientifically," though she felt on the whole that gays and lesbians would respond positively to the piece.

The key for Finkelstein – as it was for Scott Pelley in a piece on global warming – was to stick to science. "We decided we would just look into what the science was showing and report on that, and let people react to what was out there however they will," she said. That meant not including in the piece people more associated with the cultural debate, such as those who argue that homosexuality is a choice, a position most scientists reject. "We just did not want to get into that controversy, because it was not about the science," said Finkelstein.

The piece, some pointed out, did not explore one question that it seemed to raise: If sexuality can be affected by hormones, is it possible to alter a child's sexuality in the womb? And if so, what are the social ramifications? (One blogger raised this question here.)

"Frankly, there are so many issues associated with this subject and we had so much trouble fitting even what we did into the piece," Finkelstein said when I asked why the issue had not been addressed. She pointed out that the issue has actually been around for a while, as the search for a "gay gene" raised questions about the potential for altering someone's sexuality long before scientists began looking at hormones.

Another of the early criticisms of the story is that it was "confusing gender non-conformity with homosexuality," as one blogger put it. In the story, a nine year old boy named Adam, who is interested in dolls and paints his nails, is held up as an example of childhood gender nonconformity, unlike his twin brother, who has a G.I. Joe collection. Adam also says he thinks of himself like a girl. Critics said the story erroneously portrayed Adam as likely to turn out gay because of his gender non-conformity. Wrote the blogger quoted above:

Ask any gay man, do you want to be a woman. You will get a definite no. It sounds like Adam is going to end up being a transgender. Transgenders, not gay. It's a completely different type of mindset, personality, everything. Apparently 60 Minutes has never heard of this, though I know they have.

"We thought we were very careful not to label his sexuality in any way, because he's nine years old," says Finkelstein. "He doesn't have a sexual orientation. But we did report what is accurate, which is there have been longitudinal studies that have followed boys like him, and the best study in that field said the vast majority of those boys grew up to be gay men." She added it was possible that because being transgender is more accepted today than it used to be, a study that began today might show that more children with gender non-conformity would turn out to be transgender.

Finkelstein was in Puerto Rico when I spoke to her, so she has not had a chance to look at much of the response to her story. She has kindly agreed to make herself available to discuss any criticisms that emerge in the coming days. In the meantime, I spoke to "60 Minutes" spokesman Kevin Tedesco about the response he's seen so far.

"It's been the normal amount of feedback…There wasn't really a blip," he said, adding that the feedback has been across the board, as opposed to a deluge of emails from one side. "Perhaps homosexuality is not as controversial as some people think, and the origin of it is not as controversial as some people think."


+-+-+

March 14, 2006 Next Post | Previous Post


More Reaction To The '60 Minutes' Sexuality Story

Yesterday, I wrote about some of the early reaction to the "60 Minutes" story on "the science of sexual orientation." Here's an update on what people are saying about the story, as well as more response from producer Shari Finkelstein.

A writer at the gay-oriented blog called "Good As You" calls the piece "fantastic" and "fascinating" before getting into the criticism he or she expects:

Of course there will be those who think it unfair that the show did not present the "pro-family" side's position that homosexuality is a choice, and we'd almost guarantee that the 'mo foes will try and debunk CBS's journalistic ethics within the next few hours/days. We'll call them on their bull when that time comes; for now, let's just relish the fact that there are rational folks in this world who seem supportive of the notion that if it's a choice, then your humble scribe's zygote had very strong opinions about boobs.

I haven't seen much in the way the sort of criticism the blogger expects, actually, though there is some to be found in the debate taking place in the comments section of Wayne Besen's blog. Most of the commenters seemed to like the story, but not all of them. "The one thing that you can say in favour of that program is that it is so obviously one-sided and unfair in not giving supporters of the family theories any time to make their case that it isn't likely to convince anyone who hasn't made up their mind already," writes one commenter.

Some of the criticism has centered on Northwestern University professor J. Michael Bailey, who was featured in the piece. Conservative blog Newsbusters goes after "60 Minutes" for including Bailey in the story. "…what [correspondent Lesley] Stahl conveniently left out of her piece and failed to tell the viewing public, is that her “expert” J. Michael Bailey has been exposed and charged for “research misconduct” concerning the research he is best known for on transexuality. Turns out Bailey received many complaints from the transsexual women he interviewed for his book The Man Who Would Be Queen: The Science of Gender Bending and Transsexualism, saying that they didn’t know he was using them as research subjects and that he distorted versions of their case histories that appeared in his book." Northwestern opened a formal investigation into Baliey's conduct in 2004, and he eventually resigned from his Chairmanship of the Department of Psychology, though he remains a professor at the university.

I asked Finkelstein to respond. "We were aware of the controversy surrounding Michael Bailey's book, and we looked into all the allegations before we decided to interview him for the story," she said. "We didn't feel there was anything that disqualified him from being interviewed. And in fact, his work is highly regarded by all of the researches in the field who we spoke with, and we felt that he was a very worthy person to discuss these issues."

A number of the emails that have come into "60 Minutes" about the piece have touched on an issue that was discussed yesterday – namely, the charge that the piece mistakenly equates gender non-conformity and homosexuality. Finkelstein again addressed the issue. "We are aware that most gay men were not boys who wanted to be girls, but according to the research, most boys who consistently and pervasively identify as girls grow up to be gay men," she told me.

Finally, if you ever needed proof that it's almost impossible to anticipate the criticism any given piece will elicit, I give you this complaint from the comments section of yesterday's post on this story. It posits that the "60 Minutes" piece was "just an excuse to promote gays like Rosie O'Donnell." The commenter goes on: "She has been campaigning to replace Bob Barker on the Price Is Right. She would make a terrible host. Although I sometimes watch the Price Is Right, I would stop watching it all together if O'Donnell replaces Barker. She is not as fun loving as he is."

Price is Right producers: Consider yourself warned.
» Bailey Trashes Bisexuals Again...?!
This is why books like BI MEN and BI GUYS exist.
http://tinyurl.com/nwclw


From: "my_boston_buddy" <my_boston_buddy@...>
Date: Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:31 am
Subject: Re: 60 Minutes my_boston_buddy

Sorry to say, two of the "experts" that Lesley Stahl interviewed, Michael Bailey and his protegé Gerulf Rieger, are known wackos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Bailey

As part of their "research", they've advanced the idea of homosexual eugenics, i.e. the ability to identify and abort a fetus that's likely to become homosexual post-puberty. "Parental Selection of Childrens Sexual Orientation"
http://tinyurl.com/jd3ps (55kb Adobe Acrobat .pdf file)

They also claim scientific proof that bisexuality does not exist.
"Straight, Gay or Lying?" http://tinyurl.com/dkozy
(NY Times, free registration required)

It's disturbing -- make that unethical -- that 60 Minutes would legitimize these guys without mentioning the many, many controversies that surround them.

--- In boston-bears@yahoogroups.com, "bearman03887" <bearman03887@...wrote:>
FYI: My name is Robin Sanders, and I work at CBS News. I wanted to let you know about a story that "60 Minutes" will be airing this Sunday focusing on the question of what determines whether a person is gay or straight. It's a fascinating piece, and we're trying to get the word out beforehand to as many people as possible who might have a particular interest in this subject. To that end, we were wondering if you might consider sending out an email to your listserve and/or posting something on your website. The story will be broadcast on CBS stations on at 7:00 ET/PT on Sunday, March 12. Further details will be posted on our website,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/08/60minutes/main13502.shtml
which you're welcome to link to from your own site. Below, you'll find a short write-up about the piece.

"GAY OR STRAIGHT?" There are few issues as hotly contested -- and as poorly understood - - as the question of what makes a person gay or straight. It's a political question, a social question, a religious question. But it's also a science question, and one that might someday have an actual, provable answer. The handful of scientists who work in this under-funded and politically charged field will tell you that the answer is a long way off. But their efforts are already yielding tantalizing clues. Lesley Stahl looks at the research being conducted in the field of sexual orientation on this week's "60 MINUTES," Sunday, March 12 at 7PM ET/PT on CBS.
» Outfoxed screening at Kream
Went to see "Outfoxed" tonight and it got me riled up. Jenny, the MoveOn person who hosted the event after the screening and discussion, acted kinda weird toward me. I advocated several times for trying to get an Air America affiliate here in New London, but the reaction was cautious. I think I may have subverted Jenny's intention to get a media criticism group united here in New London. I think she was taken aback when I told her I might know someone who's had sex with Karl Rove. Whups. Jenny and Dennis, the cute coowner of Kream, the downtown cafe where it was held, seem to be dating, which led to a somewhat awkward moment with Jenny and Dennis as I left. I think they were negotiating something. Met Rocco for dinner at Stash's and we had a good long talk.

I saw the handsome bearded mayoral candidate Andy Derr and several other Greens at this screening from the local Peace and Justice Network. Andy's a master carpenter, married man, great hugger, and I supported him in a letter to The Day. Sadly none of the Greens who ran in this election won - Andy, Bob Stuller, the other candidate, and Ken Hanson who ran for school board (another bearded woofster and really nice guy).
Top of Page Powered by LiveJournal.com