Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Oh Good Grief - this guy is too much! To call this circular and evasive is a huge understatement.

   I give him credit in that he seemed to stick to his plan of either not answering the question or repeatedly answering it with different responses. I think there's a job in the White House communications officer for this big mess.

   Posted by: hoya86 | Mar 13, 2007 3:48:34 PM

   
   

2. What a pathetic performance. Blame the liberals for your own hypocrisy and your actions.

   He's gone from using his tool to make money from gay men as a porn star and hustler to a tool of right wing whack jobs like David Horowitz and Sean Hannity. Once a whore, always a whore.

   Posted by: Marco | Mar 13, 2007 3:58:39 PM

   
   

3. "Once a whore, always a whore."

   Ouch.

   Posted by: Silas | Mar 13, 2007 4:15:11 PM

   
   

4. He deserves it. And more. What a douchebag.

   Posted by: Marco | Mar 13, 2007 4:18:36 PM

   
   

5. Well - gee - if ya google facercise, look who pops up on the 1st page.

   Posted by: kitchenbeard | Mar 13, 2007 4:24:46 PM

   
   

6. When this story broke I supported him. Since then he has taken every opportunity to disparage gay people. I no longer support him and hope he gets what he deserves.

   Posted by: Jack! | Mar 13, 2007 5:37:24 PM

   
   

7. I think Sanchez held his own, stated his truth and I feel did it with an honest heart...but Signorle was hard pressed to but it all to gay sex, gay identity, gay gay gay, Sanchez is a person...maybe because that was the only way to get to his audience...too many gays are only interested in hearing the sexual aspects of Matt Sanchez with the hopes that he is available for sex...Sanchez has a right to his life and changing his views and it does not make him an enemy or an asset to the so called "gay community".

   I am so tired of "you had sex with a man" so you are gay. It's 2007 and the gay community needs to wake up and grow up.

   Sanchez came out to support for Veterans and that needs to be acknowledged. Sanchez never hid his porn past to deny his "gay" past.

   It would serve all well to listen to the entire interview.

   Posted by: Charles | Mar 13, 2007 7:22:42 PM

   
   

8. Signorile was right on target. The whole point of the exercise was to show that Sanchez should be judged by the same standard as those who demonize gays (Coulter, Bennett, Limbaugh, etc). If you want to moralize, but in private you buy illegal drugs and go to the sex market in Dominican Republic).

   Sanchez wants to be taken credibly. Fine, then all you have to do is let stand his very evasive answers and then the hard facts that he, a 100% red-blooded American man, was able to slowly caress and suck man other men's penises, linguilly titilate and stimulate their anal opening, analy penetrate them ravenously while remaining erect, and kiss them tenderley with deep tongue (while remaining erect).

   See if your average straight friend can do that with some other straight guy he barely knows. Ask him if he would be willing for 100% to lick the anus of a man on the street and then perform oral on his organ and maintain an erection. It's highly unlikely unless they are bisexual. In which case they cannot serve in the military (unless per DADT and UCMJ 125.A they vow to remain celibate 24/7 for their entire military career).

   Posted by: Jake | Mar 13, 2007 7:32:52 PM

   
   

9. Oh "Charles" if you're so sick of the gays why do you keep coming here?

   And who knew that 11 years of sucking my husband's cock doesn't qualify me as homosexual??

   Wow. New one on me.

   Posted by: mark m | Mar 13, 2007 7:45:29 PM

   
   

10. So Andy, you noted the two of you briefly dated years ago. I take it that he was "gay" outside of being paid for it, is that correct? Not looking for details here just a yes or no but I think that I know the answer.

    Posted by: Mike | Mar 13, 2007 7:51:44 PM

    
    

11. Signorile was hard pressed to put it all to gay sex, gay identity, gay lifestyle, gay rights and anything else that can be associated with gay. Sanchez stated he was not there or anywhere to discuss what you did in the past you were there for Veteran Rights. He did not "hide" or "lie" about his past. I feel that Signorile approach was the only way to get to his audience to listen to his program. It is strange how the "gay community" has taken the sex that you have done in films and assigned you with a mission for all gays. Too many gays were only interested in hearing the sexual aspects of Sanchez's life with the hopes that he is available for sex ( I do love the fact that he points that out). Again Sanchez has a right to your past, present and future. However more importantly, Signorile for me highlighted the fact that there is a dangerous level of fake personalization going on in the gay community.

    Sachez states to have received numerous emails and bloggers have equated their watching or knowledge of these film as if to say they know "the real Matt Sanchez". He has been reduced to a sexual act (either on film or as an escort) and now that is all that one needs to know about you to make you gay or straight or bisexual. The assigning of a label is not necessary because it does not impact your life of someone who is not making policy and law. I feel that it is an immature approach for gay bloggers and other liberal groups to take. Furthermore if you were Governor McGreevy and you vetoed a gay bill, well that would be something to up in arms about.

    Yes, I am so tired of "you had sex with a man" so you are gay. How many gay men have had sex with women and are now gay with no challenge to that. Is the gay community pressing Elton John, Jim McGreevy and others to see if they want to have sex with women. How could you fuck your wife Jim for years and have a child? Are you sure you are gay are you bisexual? Have you slept with women? Do you miss sex with your wife?Why no questions to that affect. Oh so you cross into gay world and all is rosy and forgiven. However if you have "gay sex" and then are straight you are in denial and repressed. It's 2007 and the gay community needs to wake up and grow up and really start challenging their own viewpoints.

    Gays do not want to talk about the rampant drug use, casual sex and diseases, domestic violence and other huge issues in their love filled community. One of the most dangerous things that infects the gay community is the lack of growth or challenging ideas and standard. Gay marriage is not the BIG ISSUE that everyone claims it to be. It is a BIG distraction from other more pressing and immediate issues. If you make waves like I am doing here then you are a "homophobe" or if you are gay and challenge anyone then you are "self loathing".

    I feel that you have a community soiling the water that it drinks from.

    One last point back in 1994 Clinton did the BIGGEST injustice to gays by signing into law "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and no one said a damn thing to him about it now Bush and future leaders have to shoulder all of that crap. I am still pissed at Clinton for all his "support of gays and lesbians", he told us to hide it.
    

    Posted by: Charles | Mar 13, 2007 8:16:50 PM

    
    

12. Charles, there are way too many things in your overly-long post to even address here, so I'll pick one. What makes you think no one said a "damn thing" to Clinton after DA/DT??? People said plenty....where were YOU? You say you're pissed at Clinton about DA/DT? There were many GLBT people pissed THEN, too. All other notions about Clinton aside, it is generally understood that DA/DT was the only tack he could take back then. And, horribly flawed that it is, it IS better than what used to be even worse. Before DA/DT, there were no guidelines on how a gay person could or could not serve in the military. All that was in place was a free-for-all. Bill Clinton is still the only president who has embraced us on any level up to and since then.

    Posted by: Todd | Mar 13, 2007 9:26:13 PM

    
    

13. Well, I can remember the pre-Gannon days when "Media Whore" was just a metaphore...
    

    Posted by: MR. Bill | Mar 14, 2007 7:15:54 AM

    
    

14. Charles,

    It's not the escort/sex-with-a-man issue that bothers me. It is his whoring approach that mimics the Coulters of the world, with his fuck them then, fuck them now that really ticks me off. It is a tenet of the reactionary conservatives in order to maintain their base of bigots.

    Posted by: Gary | Mar 14, 2007 11:40:48 AM

    
    

15. Sanchez was evasive X 10 in that interview. He could have just answered Michael's questions and be done with it. Instead he attacked and failed miserably in doing so.

    Posted by: Marco | Mar 14, 2007 12:53:50 PM

    
    

16. Although I understand the temptation to find joy in this guy's self destruction, and have found myself seeking out information about Matt Sanchez since this story broke, I can't help but feel like he was right in saying that Convervatives may hate the sin and love the sinner, but we Liberals love the sin and hate the sinner. When I read all of these posts on various websites the overall tone is on of snarkiness and bittnerness. We come across as the gay men he paints us to be, to the T.
    I ran production for one of the porn studios where Matt worked for a year and a half. (Several years after he supposedly retired). There were some great people who worked there, but there were also a lot of really fucked up, toxic people and it was this energy which pervaded that arena. People were exploited. I'm quite certain that Matt was fucked up going into porn (as one has to be) and even more fucked up when he was spit out the otherside. It's very clear from the Signorile interview that this guy is in denial, full of self loathing and quite adept at living in some alternate reality of who and what he is. Many of the men who worked in gay porn as as escorts (which most of them are, as you don't really make so much money from the porn), identified themselves as straight. They had girlfriends and wives and when given the choice between a man and a women they chose women. THey bonded with women, not men. If Matt wants to identify as a straight man who is capable of having sex with a man for money, so be it. Why do we care?
    At the end of the day, he's another fucked up human being who's on his own, bizarre life journey. Wouldn't it be great if we could all offer up love and compassion to him? Just a thought.

    Posted by: Rico | Mar 14, 2007 3:18:46 PM

    
    

17. Although I understand the temptation to find joy in this guy's self destruction, and have found myself seeking out information about Matt Sanchez since this story broke, I can't help but feel like he was right in saying that Convervatives may hate the sin and love the sinner, but we Liberals love the sin and hate the sinner. When I read all of these posts on various websites the overall tone is on of snarkiness and bittnerness. We come across as the gay men he paints us to be, to the T.
    I ran production for one of the porn studios where Matt worked for a year and a half. (Several years after he supposedly retired). There were some great people who worked there, but there were also a lot of really fucked up, toxic people and it was this energy which pervaded that arena. People were exploited. I'm quite certain that Matt was fucked up going into porn (as one has to be) and even more fucked up when he was spit out the otherside. It's very clear from the Signorile interview that this guy is in denial, full of self loathing and quite adept at living in some alternate reality of who and what he is. Many of the men who worked in gay porn as as escorts (which most of them are, as you don't really make so much money from the porn), identified themselves as straight. They had girlfriends and wives and when given the choice between a man and a women they chose women. THey bonded with women, not men. If Matt wants to identify as a straight man who is capable of having sex with a man for money, so be it. Why do we care?
    At the end of the day, he's another fucked up human being who's on his own, bizarre life journey. Wouldn't it be great if we could all offer up love and compassion to him? Just a thought.

    Posted by: Rico | Mar 14, 2007 3:21:14 PM

    
    

18. I think one of the challenging things about Signorile - and I happen to like a lot of his work, but still - is that he's hard edged and strong minded on identifying as gay and being out. And there's plenty of history to explain why that would be the case, things (and the time period) I lived through as well. It's taken me a long time, certainly, to see sex and sexuality on more of a continuum and less of an "either/or" gay or straight dynamic. There's plenty of in-between. None of this excuses Matt Sanchez or what really comes off as a tremendous case of self justification and self pity - his whole response has been very "me me me I I I" and he blames the gay community because he wants someone to blame (which is conservatism in a nutshell these days - all about whom to blame). I think "gay for pay" and porn ethics are a complex business and once your in that mix, who you are and how you define it is, it seems to me, somewhat perverted by what pronography is and how it plays in our society. Who wouldn't have a sad, perverted view of gays if porn and husting were their only touchstones? Ultimately, I think however critical some gay men are of Sanchez, it's beside the point to the threat to his personal and professional ambitions that rejection from conservatives would - and will - bring. Sanchez is welcome to reject gay life and gay people all he wants, based on his narrow, and really rather unique, circumstance; I think at some point, when conservatives tire of the drama, though, he'll have a hard time finding a place to fit in if he really pushes gay people away so thoroughly.

    Posted by: weboy | Mar 14, 2007 9:04:37 PM

    
    

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: