Here is some comments from a combox at the site Joe.My.God, which was one of the first sites to pick up the Sanchez story. (As I started, it had 230 comments; this list is entirely from the first 140.)
Dirty Sanchez (explanation here ... added by CM; with warning)
homer | Homepage | 03.07.07 - 5:35 pm | #
----------------------------------
"I've moved forward a lot and this past stuff is not something I want to drag into my future." - Isnt that what Hitler said when he invaded Poland?
GD | 03.07.07 - 5:39 pm | #
----------------------------------
Wipe the santorum off your lip, Joe. (explanation here ... added by CM; with warning)
kusala | Homepage | 03.07.07 - 5:41 pm | #
----------------------------------
oh so he's not gay?
Let me guess he made a choice to be gay and didn't work out for him.
Total freak. Total asshole. Is deserving of all the shit we can dig up.
Princes' Penis | Homepage | 03.07.07 - 5:50 pm | #
----------------------------------
"i'd say i'm pretty bad at being gay"?
why? cause you asked 2 women to marry you and talked one into accepting? you seemed pretty good at being gay in front of the camera. now you seem pretty good at being republican in front of the camera.
"the sad part of this whole conroversy..."
it's fairly obvious to those of us gay men and women reading this what the sad part of this "contoversy" is -denial, betrayal, self-deception and vigorous adventagous use of you by the venemous right wing might be places to start.
"I'll be able to address these issues seriously and with some authority."
yeah, ask jeff gannon how that worked out.
hughman | 03.07.07 - 5:50 pm | #
----------------------------------
You know, in so many ways this story is bigger than the guy himself--which makes it kinda weird to question him. He's never going to answer to reason, or understand why his porny past has so much traction as a story given his political affiliations.
And are we to understand that he is married?
Also, the bitch goes to Columbia yet seems to have serious problems with basic subject-verb agreement.
I could go on...
Tep | 03.07.07 - 5:54 pm | #
----------------------------------
Trust me ... this guy is VERY good at being gay ..
and I didn't have to pay !!!!
anon | 03.07.07 - 5:55 pm | #
----------------------------------
your next interview with Matt should be titled, "Matt Sanchez, UNCUT!"
Brett Pellicone | 03.07.07 - 5:55 pm | #
----------------------------------
Good that your going to be on MSNBC.
I just realized today that I have two videos from his previous career. Not very good at being gay? Well, if that's the case off camera, he is a hell of an actor in those two pieces of evidence from the past. It's kind of a challenge imagining his tongue and other appendages doing the same with Ann Coulter. Ew, it's painful to imagine anyone doing that to Coulter!
JunkThief | Homepage | 03.07.07 - 6:03 pm | #
----------------------------------
What bugs me is the comment "I, personally wouldn't have used the word faggot in public like that."
So...he'd use the word in private? He's straight (now, lol) and is OK with the word, just not in public where you can be caught on tape saying it. Makes his money on gay for pay porn and now decides he wants to put this behind him and not drag it all into the future.
I agree with above posters-he deserves the s***storm he's in.
Lee | 03.07.07 - 6:04 pm | #
----------------------------------
The book I'm really looking forward to reading is the one he'll write after the whole ex-gay/republican thing doesn't work out. I expect it'll come out right before he goes on stripper tour.
David | 03.07.07 - 6:09 pm | #
----------------------------------
He's bad at being gay because he's A TOP! Only bottoms are gay! Being a top and asking women to marry him and being in the military makes him 100% MAN!
"Bad at being gay" is probably best reserved for describing a guy who can't get an erection in naked man-on-man situations and who quickly realizes he should stick to naked man-on-woman situations. It's a pretty laughable way to describe a man with an 11" uncut list of gay porn titles under his belt and an escort site filled with pictures of his cock and emphatic declarations that he's only a top.
Jake | Homepage | 03.07.07 - 6:16 pm | #
----------------------------------
Two words: Rough trade.
Mikeprov1 | Homepage | 03.07.07 - 6:16 pm | #
----------------------------------
What a pathetic joke.
If you can make money by having sex with other men on film AS YOUR CAREER, then you are "pretty good" at being gay, Sanchez.
The misunderstanding of free speech from simpletons like this dumbass always amaze me.
Newsflash to Matt:
Free Speech only pertains to the GOVERNMENT not being able to tell you what to say.
The rest of us are (through free speech, you twit) free to express our agreement, disgust and even at times ambivilence towards what others have said.
Accountability is about being able to stand by your words and not hide behind bullshit like "it was just a joke" or "what about free speech?".
You are an embarrassment to your uniform in more ways than one, Sanchez.
Pete | 03.07.07 - 6:17 pm | #
----------------------------------
With those pussified answers, let us please refer to him as Snatchez from now on.
johnny | Homepage | 03.07.07 - 6:20 pm | #
----------------------------------
Maybe those "liberals" should start bringing huge signs at future public appearances, with the picture being him engaged in sex acts with men LOL
Scott | 03.07.07 - 6:18 pm | #
----------------------------------
Wow...what happened to "candid and thought-provoking"?
Sounds like a dirtbag trying to avoid losing his wingnut friends.
rodger | Homepage | 03.07.07 - 6:31 pm | #
----------------------------------
Okay, I have a problem with this guy. His dick is not 11 inches. Maybe 8 and thick but c'mon. We're not that stupid!
J-Bone | 03.07.07 - 6:32 pm | #
----------------------------------
This loser is just lucky he didn't have to go through the hell those poor paratroopers at Ft. Bragg went through when it was dicovered they were making gay porn films.
My guess is that he's milked gay men for all he can get out of them. He's moved on to women and Ann Coulter is his new favorite john. It can't be too much fun being buttfucked by her.
JC | 03.07.07 - 6:33 pm | #
----------------------------------
"The sad part of this whole controversy, is that if your readers had heard that I had died of a drug overdose or some STD, they probably would have written a lot of nice comments, but no one would have been surprised."
This is supposed to be an argument? If he'd died, yeah, we'd have gotten all mushy and fuzzy warm about some of the hot porn he did. But he didn't die. He went on to became a self-serving shill for the Republicans. Why is this a surprise to him?
Mike | 03.07.07 - 6:48 pm | #
----------------------------------
"Ann made a joke and that's just what she does."
Really? Very sad.
Matt Sanchez, why don't you just drop dead of a drug overdose? It's just a joke; we know that this would only offend you if you were actually a drug addict.
And I don't buy the bull that he is straight. The argument that he's had wives and fiancés only reiterates that he is a big closet case. How very, very sad.
And what a waste of an 11" dick - This is really a joke
rey | 03.07.07 - 7:09 pm | #
----------------------------------
This guy tells us how many "finaces" and wives he's had. What about the number of tricks he's turned over the years? Did prostitution and porn help put him through Columbia U.? Was money earned from gay prostitution ever turned over--as contributions--to the Republican Party? He lacks the moral authority of Mike Jones.
And will someone please find "Mrs. Matt Sanchez" and get her take on all this?
JC | 03.07.07 - 7:33 pm | #
----------------------------------
A Datalounge sleuth reports that he last checked into his manhunt.net profile 12 days ago. manhunt.net is a (non-prostitute) hookup site for gay guys. Looks like our boy gives it out for free too.
Personally, I think it's tremendous.
Patsy Ramsey | 03.07.07 - 8:39 pm | #
----------------------------------
"But in my reality, the people around me including the many conservatives I've met this weekend have been extremely kind and supportive."
Of course they were. They probably didn't know (yet) that you fucked men in the asshole during gay sex. Oh, and also hustled for money for a living with men. How's that for "crude and radical"?
"Flaming" liberal?
You gotta be kidding.
"There's something about the beleaguered gay psyche that wants to prove to the world that everyone is just as messed up as they are."
Guess we don't have far to look. do we? Gay porn for years, escort services. suckling to the very group that would have us destroyed? Who's messed up?
This sickens me. To my core. Sanchez doesn't deserve the dignity of having Joe call him or ask him to explain himself. I hope he reaps what he deserves. Although I usually have no moral stand about porn or hookers, this is one instance in which he deserves the title of a whoring, cash obsessed shill.
Good riddance to him. And Rich Merritt is twice the man this ass will ever be.
hughman | 03.07.07 - 8:47 pm | #
----------------------------------
I'M KIND OF DUMB STRUCK. THAT OUR FRIEND THINKS THAT NOT GOD OR JESUS HAS HELP HIM STRAIGHTEN UP HIS LIFE BUT THE CONSERVATIVE RIGHT WING REPUBLICANS HAVE. HUH! I THINK HE IS GREAT ALL NAKED AND GOING DOWN ON ANOTHER GUY BUT NOW HE HAS FOUNDED SALVATION WITH ANNE AND HER FUNNY SENSE OF HUMOR, NOT. THE ONES THAT SINK THE LOWEST ARE THE ONE SHOW THE MOST PRIDE IN BEING ALMOST NORMAL. LET'S SEE HOW WONDERFUL THE PEOPLE ARE TOMORROW. SOLDIER BOY MIGHT BE A LITTLE SURPRISED.
Gary Hill | Homepage | 03.07.07 - 9:16 pm | #
----------------------------------
Dirty Sanchez is sucking Ann Coulter's cock!!! Duh, people!
Quit giving this coward publicity and a venue to actually put his delusions out in the open!
Oh no...I've just had an epiphany..it's the "Gay Republican" version of Ann Coulter...SCARY!
Cody | 03.07.07 - 9:19 pm | #
----------------------------------
matteo is lost, and is trying to be 'normal' and this is where he's ended up... the gay scene, community can be hard and destroy you a little bit, and now he's turned to this as solace..
clearly, he's not straight and never will be and he can go to all the fundraisers and whatever, but cmon, he likes ass and that's that ...
guess being celibate is his way of being 'normal' huh? i bet he's had sex with 1000 men in his life... yeah, he's straight!! lol
Tim | 03.07.07 - 10:14 pm | #
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Sullivan on outing
Andrew Sullivan, “Sleeping with the enemy,” Washington Diarist, The New Republic, 9 September, 1991.
In all the recent brouhaha over the “outing” of alleged homosexuals, one fallacy has remained virtually unchallenged. It’s the notion of a simple “closet” and the crude assertion that one is either in it or out of it. I know of no one to whom this applies. Most homosexuals and lesbians whose sexualities are developed beyond adolescence are neither “in” nor “out.” They hover tentatively somewhere in between. And most outings are not essentially about dragging someone out of anything. They are crude assertions about invariably complex people, which have very little to do with the nature of someone’s sexuality, and all to do with who controls the disclosure of it. Properly understood, outing is not a resolution of something, a final act. It’s when the intricate steering of self-disclosure, with which every homosexual is intimately familiar, is suddenly seized by someone else, when one’s ability to describe oneself, one’s freedom to say who one is, is peremptorily taken away.
Most gay lives, by virtue of the culture we live in, know dozens of such moments of powerlessness. I remember in my early 20s being casually asked in the back seat of a car by an open-minded acquaintance “are you gay?” and not being able to answer yes or no. The question was as benign as it comes, but the effect was temporarily terrifying. The panic, for most homosexuals, periodically returns: when the subject comes up and the throat becomes intolerably dry; when the insult is hurled across the street, and shame mysteriously returns. What’s worse is that one is complicit in such moments: without a sense of embarrassment, there would be no loss of power, no handing over of control. But the trauma is real nonetheless. It is the sense of asphyxiation you feel when someone defines you without your consent.
This element of uncontrol, of course, is not exclusive to homosexuals. The racial slur has a similar effect. It demeans a person because it defines him against his own particular self-image. The word “nigger” stings because it hammers an intricate human achievement into a communal blur. It erases dignity because it denies individuality. But with homosexuals, this expression of contempt can find a way of sounding legitimate. Because homosexuality is largely invisible, the act of control can often be disguised as an act of revelation. Declaring someone gay can come in the guise of news; it can be sanctified with the mantle of a fact. And what, after all, can be wrong with a fact? And who can oppose it, except those who are themselves “homophobic,” who choose the hypocrisy generated by shame over the liberation afforded by fact?
In the world of intimacy, however, there are few such facts. Human sexuality is too mysterious and too fluid to be reduced to such simplicities. Honesty can destroy relationships; candor in the affairs of the heart is almost always a means to assert some sort of control. And there is little moral difference between a straight person forcing one to hide one’s identity and a gay person forcing one to declare it. But the most disturbing element of the outing craze is not simply that it is initiated by gay people, whose lives, one might think, would be testimony to the cruelty of others’ control, but that it is done in the name of political conformity. All the targets have been gay people at odds with the agenda of fringe activists. All have been justified as ways of exposing “hypocrisy,” but have, in fact, been ways of enforcing control. A recent outing, for example, was of a congressman who had a 100 percent legislative record from a leading gay group, but who still failed to please one particular activist. In New York a politician felt obliged to declare he was HIV-positive, after a mounting whispering campaign to that effect. In another case, a man was outed for whom there was no proof of his hostility to homosexuals, and some evidence that he may have been doing good, but who was employed by an institution that is anathema to the outers -- the Pentagon -- and so was fair game. No crimes were cited, except an imputation of cowardice. Regardless of his own motives, the taint of collaboration (he is a civilian in the Defense Department) was enough. In one last-resort defense of the outing, a leading gay activist actually said “[His] silence in the last couple of years has hurt us. And I think his silence now is hurting us.” His silence?
There are times and places, to be sure, when silence is indeed a culpable act, and the way in which the Pentagon treats gay and lesbian soldiers in its ranks is a disgrace -- brutal in its bigotry, callous in its effect, as this magazine has repeatedly pointed out. But the sacrifice of another gay man, deemed “guilty” before proved “innocent,” as an indirect means to undermine the policy requires an ethic of a peculiarly twisted kind. One is reminded of Orwell’s remark about the morality of those “always somewhere else when the trigger is pulled.” One is also reminded of all those other political movements around the world in which silence is invariably an unacceptable form of conduct. They demand an active, even eager, participation in a particular politics, a mouthing of certain words, a performance of certain actions. Inaction is the same as treachery; weak souls in the ranks are treated with greater viciousness than any putative enemy. But they have rarely been sympathetic to a liberal society. And they have never been tolerant of homosexuals.
Not so long ago I thought this was an exaggeration about some fringe elements in the gay movement. Whatever the differences among gay men and lesbians, there was always a sense that everyone was essentially on the same side. Now I’m not so sure. It’s not so much that, within the gay world, there are now those who have assumed the rhetoric of the historic enemy. Nor even that, in the heat of battle, some have taken to desecrating others’ religious beliefs and practices, embracing the very forms of intolerance that homosexuals, of all people, have historically shrunk from. It is that they have attacked the central protection of gay people themselves. They have assailed the ability to choose who one is and how one is presented, to control the moment of self-disclosure and its content. They have declared that the bonds of common sympathy must be sacrificed to ideology, that the complexities of love and loyalty and disclosure can be resolved by the uniformity that is the classical objective of terror. The gleam in the eyes of the outers, I have come reluctantly to understand, is not the excess of youth or the passion of the radical. It is the gleam of the authoritarian.
In all the recent brouhaha over the “outing” of alleged homosexuals, one fallacy has remained virtually unchallenged. It’s the notion of a simple “closet” and the crude assertion that one is either in it or out of it. I know of no one to whom this applies. Most homosexuals and lesbians whose sexualities are developed beyond adolescence are neither “in” nor “out.” They hover tentatively somewhere in between. And most outings are not essentially about dragging someone out of anything. They are crude assertions about invariably complex people, which have very little to do with the nature of someone’s sexuality, and all to do with who controls the disclosure of it. Properly understood, outing is not a resolution of something, a final act. It’s when the intricate steering of self-disclosure, with which every homosexual is intimately familiar, is suddenly seized by someone else, when one’s ability to describe oneself, one’s freedom to say who one is, is peremptorily taken away.
Most gay lives, by virtue of the culture we live in, know dozens of such moments of powerlessness. I remember in my early 20s being casually asked in the back seat of a car by an open-minded acquaintance “are you gay?” and not being able to answer yes or no. The question was as benign as it comes, but the effect was temporarily terrifying. The panic, for most homosexuals, periodically returns: when the subject comes up and the throat becomes intolerably dry; when the insult is hurled across the street, and shame mysteriously returns. What’s worse is that one is complicit in such moments: without a sense of embarrassment, there would be no loss of power, no handing over of control. But the trauma is real nonetheless. It is the sense of asphyxiation you feel when someone defines you without your consent.
This element of uncontrol, of course, is not exclusive to homosexuals. The racial slur has a similar effect. It demeans a person because it defines him against his own particular self-image. The word “nigger” stings because it hammers an intricate human achievement into a communal blur. It erases dignity because it denies individuality. But with homosexuals, this expression of contempt can find a way of sounding legitimate. Because homosexuality is largely invisible, the act of control can often be disguised as an act of revelation. Declaring someone gay can come in the guise of news; it can be sanctified with the mantle of a fact. And what, after all, can be wrong with a fact? And who can oppose it, except those who are themselves “homophobic,” who choose the hypocrisy generated by shame over the liberation afforded by fact?
In the world of intimacy, however, there are few such facts. Human sexuality is too mysterious and too fluid to be reduced to such simplicities. Honesty can destroy relationships; candor in the affairs of the heart is almost always a means to assert some sort of control. And there is little moral difference between a straight person forcing one to hide one’s identity and a gay person forcing one to declare it. But the most disturbing element of the outing craze is not simply that it is initiated by gay people, whose lives, one might think, would be testimony to the cruelty of others’ control, but that it is done in the name of political conformity. All the targets have been gay people at odds with the agenda of fringe activists. All have been justified as ways of exposing “hypocrisy,” but have, in fact, been ways of enforcing control. A recent outing, for example, was of a congressman who had a 100 percent legislative record from a leading gay group, but who still failed to please one particular activist. In New York a politician felt obliged to declare he was HIV-positive, after a mounting whispering campaign to that effect. In another case, a man was outed for whom there was no proof of his hostility to homosexuals, and some evidence that he may have been doing good, but who was employed by an institution that is anathema to the outers -- the Pentagon -- and so was fair game. No crimes were cited, except an imputation of cowardice. Regardless of his own motives, the taint of collaboration (he is a civilian in the Defense Department) was enough. In one last-resort defense of the outing, a leading gay activist actually said “[His] silence in the last couple of years has hurt us. And I think his silence now is hurting us.” His silence?
There are times and places, to be sure, when silence is indeed a culpable act, and the way in which the Pentagon treats gay and lesbian soldiers in its ranks is a disgrace -- brutal in its bigotry, callous in its effect, as this magazine has repeatedly pointed out. But the sacrifice of another gay man, deemed “guilty” before proved “innocent,” as an indirect means to undermine the policy requires an ethic of a peculiarly twisted kind. One is reminded of Orwell’s remark about the morality of those “always somewhere else when the trigger is pulled.” One is also reminded of all those other political movements around the world in which silence is invariably an unacceptable form of conduct. They demand an active, even eager, participation in a particular politics, a mouthing of certain words, a performance of certain actions. Inaction is the same as treachery; weak souls in the ranks are treated with greater viciousness than any putative enemy. But they have rarely been sympathetic to a liberal society. And they have never been tolerant of homosexuals.
Not so long ago I thought this was an exaggeration about some fringe elements in the gay movement. Whatever the differences among gay men and lesbians, there was always a sense that everyone was essentially on the same side. Now I’m not so sure. It’s not so much that, within the gay world, there are now those who have assumed the rhetoric of the historic enemy. Nor even that, in the heat of battle, some have taken to desecrating others’ religious beliefs and practices, embracing the very forms of intolerance that homosexuals, of all people, have historically shrunk from. It is that they have attacked the central protection of gay people themselves. They have assailed the ability to choose who one is and how one is presented, to control the moment of self-disclosure and its content. They have declared that the bonds of common sympathy must be sacrificed to ideology, that the complexities of love and loyalty and disclosure can be resolved by the uniformity that is the classical objective of terror. The gleam in the eyes of the outers, I have come reluctantly to understand, is not the excess of youth or the passion of the radical. It is the gleam of the authoritarian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)