The Sexist

The Morning After: Gays on Our Trains Edition


* Via GLAA Forum, The Nation reports on queer youth in juvenile detention facilities.

* From THE LINE: "I have noticed a disturbing trend among women: we do not like to admit we have sex."

* SAFER Campus on alcohol and consent:

there is so much defensiveness about alcohol and consent, as though it’s a really really complicated thing. And ya know, I think that for people who are aren’t raised to think about sex as a shared experience in which two people are actively, positively participating, it can actually seem that complicated. But the reality is that it doesn’t have to be. Having sex with an incapacitated person should be widely understand as rape. Two drunk people having sex should be aware enough of the other person to have a sense of what is or isn’t consent because they’ve been raised to respect other people, and it’s second nature to them to check and make sure their partner is involved. I understand this is reductive; that it’s real nice to think about this sexual utopia where things are simple, but perhaps not a realistic picture of how things are now so what’s the point. But I think that we overcomplicate consent; people say that defining consent is making something natural more complicated than it needs to be, but really isn’t something only complicated when it’s unclear? Wouldn’t the actions themselves be less complicated if we had the complicated conversations beforehand? I dunno. I long for the day when this can be that simple.

* Tony Perkins is concerned that Amtrak is using taxpayer money for "recruiting homosexual passengers." Gays on trains? Is nothing sacred?

* Adult Video News reporter Mark Kernes registers his displeasure with the court on its handling of the John Stagliano obscenity case. At issue: The judge's decision to keep jury selection private, presumably because of the porn-y nature of the line of questioning:

As a journalist, I have covered three previous federal obscenity cases—U.S. v. Little (Middle Dist. of Fla.), U.S. v. JM Productions (Dist. of Ariz.) and U.S. v. Isaacs (Central Dist. of Calif.)—and in all of those cases, reporters were permitted to attend all phases of the trial, including the jury selection, during which the jurors were all referred to by their juror number in order to protect their privacy.

However, in the Stagliano case, Judge Leon closed the courtroom while the attorneys were discussing the written jury questionnaires and questioning individual prospective jurors based on their answers in the questionnaires. It has been my experience that prospective jurors' answers to counsels' questions can be very informative of their backgrounds and mindsets, and as a reporter, I believe I should have had access to that information as background for my coverage of the trial, and that Judge Leon's order amounted to a violation of the First Amendment's "freedom of the press" clause.

  • Southpaw018

    Re: Tony Perkins: what...the...*fuck*?

  • Ryan

    "I've had it with these motherf**king gays on this motherf**king train!"

  • Mrs. D

    I have an uncanny ability to block out TV commercials, so do you have any idea what ads they're talking about? I do love that they don't post them, though.

  • Charlie

    @Mrs. D
    You probably won't see the ads unless you read publications that target the gay community, such as the Washington Blade or Metro Weekly. There might be a new media component. There is a chance the City Paper could get ads too one would suppose.

    And this is really bizarre to me. Does Tony Perkins think gay money is a different color? (It's not. It's green like for every one elses.) This was a business decision and if he has any criticism it should be done for business reasons. This really undercuts there stance that they don't hate gay people since it is hard to see any other reason to make this kind of pronouncement except that the FRC hates gay people. And using the word 'recruiting? That is just silly.

  • Mrs. D


    So these ads are exclusively appearing in the Blade and Metro Weekly and similar publications? I mean, sure, that's kind of targeting the gay/supporters community (which is, quite frankly, a smart business decision as train travel is expensive enough that targeting a community with money is a good use of scarce advertising resources). Do you think they'd have them on the papers' websites (not so big into printed papers, myself)? I was thinking they would be some kind of general ad that Perkins had determined had a "gay bias" or something. You can't tell a thing from his "call to action" about what the ads actually contain or where they appear.

    I'd also like to know how much Amtrak spends on general advertising. I think I recall seeing TV commercials for Amtrak (there were people on trains? Could have been anything, though), and maybe in newspapers?

  • Charlie

    @Mrs D
    I should have said that I was just guessing. The FRC notice did not have a lot of information. This posting seems to be the start of the thread.

    A couple of key sentences from the posting"
    "Amtrak allocates about 10 percent of its media budget to diversity and advertising campaigns but that amount fluctuates year to year.

    Amtrak has targeted other demographic groups in the past, including students, seniors, veterans, families with children, Hispanics, African Americans and international customers. However this is the first time it has aimed its efforts toward the LGBT community."