Democratic Party | Manhunt | News | Republican Party

Manhunt Chairman Jonathan Crutchley Steps Down from Board


As a response earlier this week to revelations that Manhunt Chairman and founder Jonathan Crutchley (above, right) had maxed out his individual personal contributions to vocal gay rights opponent Senator John McCain ($2300) which we reported on Wednesday, Crutchley has apparently been pressured by the board of the company to step down as Chairman.

I received this statement made by founder Larry Basile (above, left) in my inbox late yesterday from an anonymous source at Manhunt and called Manhunt which confirmed its legitimacy. Please read the statement below:


"There has been a depiction this week of MANHUNT being Republican. All my life, I have never voted to the right, and have always been generous to 20th Century Democrats, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, HRC, and the NGLTF.

"I was arrested at the Supreme Court and FDA in Act-Up actions, and was the founder of the Grass Roots Gay Rights Fund, which over the years has raised more than $800K. I was the Treasurer of Out Week magazine, which was a powerful force in its time. I began giving Obama donations in March 2007, and I have sent several checks that have yet to be reported. The hat and t-shirt I wear say 'Obama for President', as does the sign in front of my house. I refuse to live in a country that is so marred by war and hate. To me, Barak (sic) is by far the best candidate, probably better than we deserve.

"It should be known that Jonathan Crutchley's donation to McCain left the entire Board in disbelief. I am disappointed that we have lost some customers, and I understand the anger. It is too bad for the web site if we lose customers, but PLEASE never refer to me as a Republican. I consider it an offense.

"Earlier today, at the request of the Board, Jonathan has stepped down as Chairman. Sincerely, Larry Basile."


One last note: We never referred to Basile as a Republican. Also, though Crutchley has stepped down from the board, as far as we know he's still collecting money from thousands of gays and donating it to a presidential candidate who would deny them status as equal citizens.

Manhunt Responds to Account Cancelation Over McCain Donation [tr]
McCain Takes $2300 Contribution from Owner of Gay Sex Site Manhunt [tr]
(top photo: OUT - "Has Manhunt Destroyed Culture?")

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. "Stepping down from the board" absolutely does not mean that he won't still be making tons of money. He's just not on the board anymore. THis is not good enough. He needs to be completely divested of the company. Until then, I will not renew my membership and you shouldn't either.

    Posted by: olen | Aug 17, 2008 1:08:35 PM

  2. The Republican Faggot has "stepped down from the board," but that doesn't mean he's been divested of the company and its profits. Being off the board doesn't mean anything. What an ignorant, sad man. He happens to like cock, but he's basically probably just like my straight father: an old rich white man in power who loves "the USA" with politics that, coming from a sociopolitical perspective are, when seen as a whole, totally regressive to the entire queer agenda, yet he manages to actually profit off the same social conditions that his homophobic Republican politics create, with their conservative insitutionalized and cultural homophobias, further encouraging homos to relate in this dissociated, addictive, decontextualized, objectified and secretive way. And we send our money like lemmings to the cliffs.


    Posted by: olen | Aug 17, 2008 1:30:00 PM

  3. Like ALL log-cabinettes, Crutchley is an ethical and moral quadriplegic. Drain the battery on his wheelchair -- walk away from 'Manhunt' and don't look back.

    Posted by: Nathanial | Aug 17, 2008 2:58:07 PM

  4. Screw Manhunt. I just canceled my account and went back to They can suck it!

    Posted by: TopDaddy | Aug 17, 2008 5:26:33 PM

  5. I can tell you that they have no "Board of Directors." He's an owner...he's just going to sit back and let the cash roll in. And I bet everyone is going to give up their accounts only to resign-up next week. I would love for everyone to prove me wrong.

    BTW - It is his right to support a Republican such as McCain, however, it IS NOT alright for him to take money from gay customers and give it to a person or entity that supports anti-gay agendas.

    Posted by: RMP | Aug 17, 2008 11:41:34 PM

  6. Christopher Nutile: Thanks for your post. It confirms exactly my decision to cancel my membership and boycott the site altogether.

    This a free country. Crutchley can donate to whatever cause he chooses. But if I can help it, my money will not be used to further oppress me and my community.

    Posted by: JTlvr | Aug 18, 2008 2:18:36 PM

  7. Way to wave the tolerance flag, Mary.
    We want people to be tolerant of our lifestyle, but one fag doesn't vote the way we want him to, and he's all of a sudden a pariah. Sad, pathetic, and ridiculous. This is one of the most bigoted, intolerant displays I've ever seen. For shame!

    Posted by: Seamuth | Aug 18, 2008 5:43:40 PM

  8. I just bailed from manhunt... too late to fix Crutchley's donating the money away (can't get it back) I feel like a big fool for blindly supporting them. I have several friends on manhunt... the word is out to them too.

    Posted by: immediatmente | Aug 18, 2008 6:49:12 PM

  9. @ Seamuth --

    What's the trouble? All the sad, pathetic quisling log cabinette types will no doubt still be there. Now they can concentrate on fucking each other over, instead of us.

    Posted by: Nathanial | Aug 18, 2008 9:46:29 PM

  10. Never even been to Manhunt. It costs money? What's up with that?

    I'm glad I've never personally lined Mr. Crutchley's pockets.

    cf. craigslist = free (and gay-friendly)

    Better yet, have a meaningful relationship with somebody.

    Posted by: Forsooth | Aug 18, 2008 11:31:15 PM

  11. "Lifestyle"? Fuck off, Seamuth.

    Posted by: Jason | Aug 18, 2008 11:48:23 PM

  12. Keep up to date at:

    Posted by: Nathanial | Aug 19, 2008 4:01:58 AM

  13. Shouldn't come as any big surprise, Boston is fucked up like that. Ramrod, Jacques and Machine are all owned by a filthy rich rePublican racist. Any gay man who spends money at a place owned or run by someone who votes to deny your rights is a fool!

    We should be boycotting Manhunt, Machine, Jacques, Ramrod, WalMart and every other business that would dare to take our money and use it to subvert our basic rights. Instead, we need to seek out and support those businesses that ARE supportive of our community!

    'nuff said.

    Posted by: Never Forget | Aug 19, 2008 10:01:11 AM

  14. The last time I checked, it was not a crime to support the candidate you felt was better qualified. When I was younger, I voted for the candidate with a Jewish sounding name, but as I got older... I realized I should vote for the best candidate based on their record, and not their religion, or sexual preference or race.

    31 years ago, I received the wrath of the San Francisco gay community, and BAR gay newspaper when I supported, and worked for Terry Hallinan when he ran against Harvey Milk... even though Harvey was both gay and Jewish like myself. I felt that Terry was better qualified to represent most of the residents and businesses in our district. Many gays in the district voted for the gay Republican candidate. Bar called me "Gays for homophobia" and called Terry anti-gay and said his slogan "UNITED WE STAND" was overtly anti-gay. After Harvey was assassinated... BAR endorsed Harry Britt witha banner headline..."UNITED WE STAND!"

    Originally, I supported Hillary for President, and was leaning toward Obama, however I decided to wait to see whom Obama and McCain picks for their running mate. Again, I'll be voting for the team that best represent my views... that includes pro-choice, gay issues and so much more.

    Posted by: jerry pritikin | Aug 19, 2008 12:26:21 PM

  15. GBM
    You and I are actually in TOTAL agreement. I think it's stupid to give your $ to anyone you disagree with. I try not to buy anything buy amarican apparel because I hate their policy of encouraging illegal immigration. I also avoid Wal Mart because of their anti union policies.

    Btw people. Wanna fuck up manhunt? Google free manhunt codes. Then I think it's There you get a free code. Copy it. Go to manhunt.netpromo and paste that code in. Go back to linkedin and repeat with all the codes. You get free manhunt for weeks therefore depriving them of cash. Tell all your friends to do the same. Actually everyone here should do it and really mess things up. If i'm wrong about that promo it's some combo of that keep trying. Does someone else know the link?

    Posted by: thevegasstyleguy | Aug 19, 2008 1:07:13 PM

  16. This is patently insane.

    Manhunt is a cruising site--not exactly the moral litmus test type place, if I do say so. Many people who post there are closeted (which is why they post there, as opposed to a dating website) and profess values inconsistent with an identity politics agenda.

    So what? Unless you want to make the personal political, you should be in favor of a little space for inconsistency.

    As for supporting McCain, he's hardly the worst offender. He spoke at the funeral of a gay supporter who was aboard Flight 93. He voted against the marriage amendment. I'm not claiming he's going to gay rights parades, but it's crappy to punish politicians who go out on a limb--and it was going out on a limb--not to do something cruel.

    You need non-friend/non-enemies like McCain (or Schwarzenegger, who was a pariah for not signing the marriage bill, right up until he declared his opposition for the ballot proposition). Getting things done doesn't only mean beating up everybody who opposes you. It is also about convincing the ambivalent that it is in their interest to do the right thing.

    Moreover, there are a bunch of gay people who don't make identity politics their lives and consider other things more important, like taxes, government waste, property rights, limited regulation, business, & c. that McCain is worlds better than Obama on.

    I expect the people who are happy about this not to complain when others vote for candidates because they like their anti-gay positions. You've legitimized their behavior and should be proud of it.

    Posted by: Pa Lawyer | Aug 19, 2008 4:22:07 PM

  17. In what you are all discussing above I personally come down on the side of not patronizing a business that takes my money on spends part of it on things, people or positions which I oppose or which I believe undercuts anyone's civil or human rights.

    BUT THAT BEING SAID, I think this campaign contribution by one man in the long run isn't the thing that Manhunt does that most damages the gay community in some very significant and continuous ways. First, as pointed out in the "Out Magazine" article on Manhunt earlier this month, the manhunt site is deliberately engineered to keep its members on line for as long as possible and to keep them coming back as often as possible. Manhunt staff brags about the stickiness of the site because this enables them to earn greater advertising revenues from the commercial ads placed on their site. Of course members are paying fees to meet real men in real time, not spend more time on line isolated at home, chasing tail. There is a conflict of purpose and intent between Manhunt’s owners and their customers.

    Second, I also learned from the "Out Magazine" article a far more despicable business practice. Crutchley and Basile own another site called "" which shows amateur porno. Where do they get all the newbie's from on that site to keep it fresh and amateur? . . .By contacting the endless number of new young cuties posting Manhunt profiles. Well when you ask a 18 19 or 20 year old college student strapped for cash if he would like to send just one afternoon working and earn $600 for jerking off in front of a camera or more $ if he is willing to take a more “leading role” in a “feature”…well in this age of internet porno and the bragging rights which seem to come with having done porno he says "sure, ok" because he does not have the maturity to see future consequence. But when he matures and gets serious about a career, many of things he might desire to do he will be foreclosed from forever. Today job applicants are vetted and Googled and have background checks done before hiring. And each passing month brings an even better Google image search engine that will one day tie his name to X-rated stills. Further a copy of his actual driver license with picture ID is now on file along with his consent and release form to appearing in the porno. That information is then placed in the office of some unknown adult industry lawyer or custodian of records and these records, by FEDERAL LAW, are always available during normal business hours for inspections by law enforcement, licensed private detectives or “interested party” (this is the whole anti-child porno compliance stuff). THEIR ONE DAY ADULT PERFORMANCE WILL HAUNT THEM THE REST OF THEIR LIVES, BEING EASILY DISCOVERABLE WITH A SMALL AMOUNT OF DUE DILIGENCE BY A PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYER---DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THAT DOES FOR SOMEONES JOB PROSPECTS, TO THE WHOLE WAY THEIR LIFE IS GOING TO TURN OUT. They can’t work in Law, Accounting, Investment Banking, Government, Education, in an appointed or elected Political position, or even in a management position of a publically owned company etc. FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES THEY WILL HAVE LIMITED THEIR OPPORTUNITIES AND THEIR POTENTIAL.

    Yes a 19 year old is an adult who can consent to performing. But a 19 year old doesn't always have the wisdom to see beyond today--- But two 60 year old experienced business men certainly know what the consequence could be---and two 60 year old owners of a hookup site that already makes a ton of money, have to be completely morally bankrupt to know and not care about the consequences for these young men because the only thing that matters is MAKING EVEN MORE MONEY! I RESIGNED FROM MANHUNT FOR THESE REASONS.

    Posted by: Lee Kallop | Aug 19, 2008 4:40:03 PM

  18. One more thing about thinking carefully about who your enemies are.

    George Bush, Sr., appointed David Souter to the Supreme Court (on majority in Lawrence v. Kansas [striking down sodomy laws and overturning Bowers v. Hardwick], wrote dissenting opinion in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale [BSA had right to refuse gay scoutmaster--with which I agree]).

    Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor (majority in Romer v. Evans [striking down law prohibiting local gay rights ordinances], concurring with majority in Lawrence, but only after voting in the majority in Bowers v. Hardwick--a profound change of mind; voted with majority in Dale) and Anthony Kennedy (WROTE majority opinions in Lawrence and Romer).

    Gerald Ford appointed John Paul Stevems (majority in Romer and dissent in Bowers)

    Richard Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun to (WROTE dissenting opinion in Romer).

    "The present case [Lawrence] does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government." Lawrence v. Texas (Kennedy, J. for the majority)

    "I can only hope that here, too, the Court soon will reconsider its analysis and conclude that depriving individuals of the right to choose for themselves how to conduct their intimate relationships poses a far greater threat to the values most deeply rooted in our Nation's history than tolerance of nonconformity could ever do. Because I think the Court today betrays those values, I dissent." (Blackmun, J. for the dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick)

    Posted by: PA Lawyer | Aug 19, 2008 5:09:41 PM

  19. Personally I'm shocked that any gay person could give money to McCain. But then I'm shocked that any think the Democrats are our friends. But I'm more shocked that the man is forced out of his position in the company he helped found because he is a Republican. I am not a Republican. I hate what the Republicans stand for, especially under Bush. But I hate this sort of witch hunt even more.

    There are reasonable causes for someone to contribute to McCain (I don't buy them myself). One can think McCain is better on tax issues for instance. I think Obama would be a disaster on economics. His rhetoric is very much in favor of massive state control and I don't think that works. I don't think McCain is any better but maybe this man thought so. I studied enough economics (actually quite a bit) to know that Obama is a lightweight and his policies destructive. At the same time I think McCain is evil. I won't vote for either.

    But when it becomes necessary for a gay person to be a DEMOCRAT in order to be employed then the gay community has become intolerant, fundamentalistic and bigoted. As stupid as his contribution was, it made him look bad. But the demand for his ouster and firing makes the entire gay community look like authoritarian monsters. What scares me is that sometimes that images seems right. And this was one of those times.

    Posted by: hlm | Aug 19, 2008 6:47:49 PM

  20. Deny your status as equal citizens???

    Are you seriously this retarded??? (rhetorical question. you clearly are) gay sex is not the equivalent of heterosexual sex, nor does society benefit from it. Indeed, if anything, gay sex has cost society a great deal. Meanwhile children come from and ONLY from heterosexual sex. Don't give me your delusional BS (and it truly is delusional) about how gays can have children, because they absolutely cannot. They must in every single case reproduce with a member of the opposite sex, no matter how many laboratory clinicians serve as intermediaries.

    Nor can any child EVER be raised by their biological parents within a gay "marriage".

    These are all enormous benefits to society that are rewarded because they are important to society. They are also benefits that no gay couple on earth could ever provide.

    You are treated COMPLETELY equally by society in all respects. What you are demanding, because of your own low-self esteem issues, is to be treated equally for doing something entirely different, and you damn well know it, which is why gays get so fascistic when you point it out to them.

    If you want to get tax credits for driving a hybrid, don't buy a Hummer. And if you want to get the benefits society gives to encourage children to be born inside wedlock to their biological parents, you must at the very, very least form partnerships that include one member of each sex necessary to do so.

    What a bunch of little nazis you are driving someone out because he has different political priorities, and because he has committed the sin of not reinforcing your DELUSIONS that gay sexual relations are of equal value to society.

    Instead of dividing America by trying to force the people to reaffirm your delusional lie, and pat you on the head and tell you that gay relationships are just as valuable to society as straight relationships, and crying about victimhood that doesn't exist, I have a better idea, why don't you get therapy to help you accept reality that gay sex has never, cannot and will never produce 1 single solitary child. That all children come from heterosexuality and thats why we encourage it.

    And before you regurgitate your same cliched and ignorant arguments, no, not allowing gays to marry is not the same as not allowing blacks to marry. The difference between skin colors is just that -- superficial and skin deep, it is not a significant difference. Interracial couples can produce children and raise their own children just exactly the way same-race couples can. And no, it is not necessary for the government to perform some sort of unreasonable search and seizure in order to determine if straight couples actually will end up having children before allowing them to marry, the goal is encouraging children to be born into the bonds of marriage to their biological parents. The more straight couples get married, the more that goal is met, and no further inquiry is necessary. Besides, straight couples who don't want children can get pregnant unintentionally, and everyone has heard of the couples who "couldn't have children" who got pregnant after long giving up hope that they ever would.

    Gay couples, unlike those examples, can NEVER fulfill the purpose of the institution.

    Should society approve civil unions so that, hopefully, although there is no evidence to support it, gays will form unions and stop being so promiscuous? Probably, although i see no evidence gays have any intention whatsoever of doing so.

    But quit making society suffer for your inability to accept the biological facts of life and low self esteem! You're here. you're queer. get used to it!

    Now, let the wailing and gnashing of teeth ensue, at it will, which only goes to prove my point that this is all about gays trying to convince themselves that their relationships are just as good and just as important to society as heterosexual ones.

    they arent.

    Posted by: Fact Check | Aug 20, 2008 1:18:43 AM

  21. Uh oh... somebody better call Brad 'n Angelena and tell them their marriage is nothing but a farce. "Fact Check" has informed all us ignorant plebes that it's all about whelping, and here these two misguided airheads have been *adopting*...

    Give it up, Angie 'n Brad... "Fact Check" is onto your charade.

    Posted by: Nathanial | Aug 20, 2008 3:17:56 AM

  22. Uh Fact Check,
    Im not going to wail of gnash Im just wondering if youre gay do you hate every moment of being gay? If youre straight how did you end up here? Are you closeted? Im not being funny or bitchy. Im actually fascinated by your online existence. Dying to know your story. Whats up?

    Posted by: thevegasstyleguy | Aug 20, 2008 3:26:27 AM

  23. The problem with single-issue politics is it confines one like a prisoner, so that the ability to realize over-arching issues and philosophies are obscured.

    One should not be a "gay John McCain supporter" or a "gay Barrack Obama supporter," but rather a supporter of either who just happens to be gay.

    Sometimes one's passion about other issues, be they economic, environmental, foreign policy, etc., collectively or individually, may be more important than a single issue seemingly most important to a person defined (and confined) by their demographic identity.

    In my mind, unless the United States of America is secure, free from "all enemies, foreign and domestic," then no one's individual rights are secure anymore. And certainly theocratic, Islamo-Fascist nations do not have a good track record when it comes to the rights of homosexuals. So I don't know why leftists think gays will fare any better when Islam comes to "a neighborhood near you."

    But then we see evidence almost daily of how American liberals try to vanquish individual rights for what they say is the benefit of the "community," which has left now a few generations brainwashed by an elitist, left-wing media and entrenched Marxist bureaucracies in private & public educational institutions. This is why many parents now advocate and practice home-schooling of their children.

    This is the same, supposedly freedom-loving ilk which has tried to strip American citizens of their rights to maintain exclusive memberships of their private organizations, bear arms, ingest legal substances on private properties, evening telling them what foods they may or may not consume.

    In Europe, Muslims have taken advantage of nations' liberal laws to usurp the power of indigenous citizens, such that in places like Rotterdam, The Netherlands, for instance, it is very close to having a majority Muslim voting population, which would thereby grant the invaders the right to impose Sharian Law, thus enabling them to execute homosexuals and force non-Muslim women to wear burqas, among other freedom-enhancing practices.

    I strongly urge all gays truly concerned about civil liberties, including those which enhance self-preservation, to visit this website: It is the site of a gay author Bruce Bawer, a former Republican insider who moved to Europe over his disgust with the Christian conservative element of his political party, then realized one of his worst nightmares in moving to what he thought was the supposedly free-spirited Europe.

    Vote with your minds, not your emotions (or your genitals) in 2008!

    Posted by: Jim M. | Sep 5, 2008 7:00:52 PM

  24. "But quit making society suffer for your inability to accept the biological facts of life and low self esteem! (blah blah blah) which only goes to prove my point that this is all about gays trying to convince themselves that their relationships are just as good and just as important to society as heterosexual ones.

    they arent."

    That juxtaposition shows that nobody need read any more of your rant. You're a straight homophobe troll. Go away.

    And Jim M. Many of us remember Bawer, and hated Place at the Table. There are issues everywhere, as I have said in other posts. Europe is ahead of us on gay marriage, behind us on gay adoption. And yes, ALL fundamentalists are bad.

    Your references to "elitist left-wing media" and "Marxist bureaucracies" supposedly in our schools show that your information comes from unreliable sources. The US now, including the media, is controlled by elite right-wing conservatives. There are indeed more liberals than conservatives in education, but that's because smart liberal people want to give back to their country and its citizens, while smart conservatives (oxymoron?) just want to make money for themselves, which you can't do in education.

    Posted by: KevinVT | Sep 5, 2008 7:27:36 PM

  25. "Fact Check," a previous comment poster, reads an awful lot to me like Boston talk radio host Jay Severin, which isn't his birth name anyway, but the identity by which he is normally, publicly known.

    Actually I do agree with some of what "Fact Check" wrote, but if he is Severin, he already draws a fairly significant amount of oxygen from the soapbox space as is, so one would think he'd either come clean or confine his rants to his appointed portion of said box on the WTTK airwaves.

    Of course now I'm expecting another post from Severin identifying himself, or else "Fact Check" to deny the outing.

    If I'm incorrect on this, I apologize, but I think I smell a rat.

    If it turns out I am incorrect, then feel complimented, "Fact Check," for the comparison, because "Severino" is articulate if nothing else, almost like some people stereotypically say is one identifying feature of gay people. Probably has something to do with why so many are also "neat freaks."

    My place is a mess by the way, but I can speak and write the Queen's English reasonably well. So sometimes stereotypes are at least half correct.

    Posted by: Jim M. | Sep 5, 2008 7:46:33 PM

  26. « | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »

Post a comment


« «McCain Couldn't Pick a 'Pro Gay Rights' Running Mate« «