Gay Sex & Republicans — Odd Bedfellows?

When Manhunt.com's co-owner, Jonathan Crutchley, donated $2,300 to Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, some gays felt betrayed. QueerClick recaps the controversy and examines if the two are as unlikely a pair as they seem.
A lot's been going on over the past couple of weeks at Manhunt.com. If you're a member of the massively popular hook-up site, you might know that it just launched a ManCam video chat feature that "enables members around the world to easily connect with each other 'live' before meeting in person; and offers a fun alternative when meeting in person is not possible."
Almost concurrently with ManCam's release, writer Michael Joseph Gross released an article, entitled, "Is Manhunt Destroying Gay Culture?" on Out.com. In his article, Gross wonders why so many national political victories and reforms— such as a repeal of the military ban and securing of gay marriage— have remained beyond gay grasp. When someone replies, "It's because so many of us spend so many hours of so many days online, doing things that make us feel ashamed of ourselves," Mr. Gross latches onto the explanation, and decries online cruising in general (and Manhunt in specific) for intensifying our isolation, exaggerating our propensity to objectify each other, and diminishing our sense of life's nonsexual possibilities.
Any LTR-minded Manhunt user who has found themselves disappointed by the site's numerous "Sup?" e-mails and "unlocked" butthole pics, will identify with Mr. Gross' sad psychosocial portrait. Yet, in targeting Manhunt specifically, he's excluded other gay hookup sites like Gay.com (owned by the same company as Out) and other sexualized marketing that his argument could have included. He also ignores the internet's role in the long, painful history of anonymous gay sex and the myriad ways in which the internet promotes non-sexual gay culture offline. In short, his impassioned article poses an important question but provides too easy an answer.
Around the same time Gross' article came out, it came to light that Manhunt.com's "liberal Republican" co-owner, Jonathan Crutchley, had donated $2,300 (the maximum allowed) to Republican presidential nominee John McCain. Below an interview with Crutchley on Online Personals Watch, he responded to another user's announcement of the donation thus: "I believe McCain will be a better commander-in-chief than Obama, who also opposes gay marriage. If we have an experienced, seasoned person defending the country in this dangerous age, we will be able to argue about the gay agenda later."
After the news of Crutchley's donation went for a spin around the gay blogosphere, a wave of ManHunt cancellations followed and Mr. Crutchley stepped down as Manhunt CEO. McCain retruned Crutchley's donation and Manhunt's adamantly non-Republican co-founder, Larry Basile, did damage control by playing good cop. According to Basile, Crutchley said, "If John is too good for my money, I'll give it to (presumptive Democratic nominee) Barack (Obama)." Crutchley has since written a "touching" letter to the employees at Manhunt, according to Basile, and is now committed to supporting Obama. "Someone had a reality check," Basile said.
Mr. Crutchley's donation to McCain is hardly shocking and it's doubtful he's undergone a complete political change of heart— it's still a free country with a private vote. Mr. Crutchley isn't a single-issue voter nor is he alone in thinking that gay rights will barely affect this year's presidential election. He'll continue to profit off Manhunt and those who want to change services have alternatives. It also makes sense for McCain had to reject Mr. Crutchley's money— because of all the attention it got, it would have ended up becoming a press nightmare (even though the Republican National Committee has accepted gay porn money before).
It's a fact that lots of seemingly liberal businesses deal in conservative politics and that's perhaps the most startling realization for Mr. Crutchley's detractors. A gay sex site funding an anti-gay party seems like betrayal. But it merely reveals the gap between those who see gay sex as anti-establishment and those who see gay money as the quickest road to political recognition. One of the most persuasive arguments in favor of gay marriage has nothing to do with equal rights or the consequences of instiutionalized homophobia, but all the money waiting to be made off gay weddings. And it's precisely that financial influence that Mr. Gross thinks gays should wield.
Manhunt.com grosses $2.4 million per month — almost $30 million a year. Worldwide, the over 1-million member site gets 30,000 new users per week. This makes Manhunt's membership larger than the membership of every major gay political organization combined. Its annual income from memberships alone form roughly the same as the total amount of individual contributions to this country's two biggest gay political groups, the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. In Mr. Gross' view, if we contributed as much energy towards social change as we do towards getting our rocks off, we might all be married and insured with adopted children by now.
But as a political base, homosexuals are a fractured group. We can't seem to agree whether "marriage" is a purely religious term or if civil unions would solidify our standing as second-class citizens. We can't agree whether transsexuals should be dropped from anti-hate crimes legislation to make it more palatable. We can't even agree that we're all gay and like cock. The only thing we can agree on is that there are people who have identified us as gay and consider us worth denying rights. In politics as in business, it's money, not humanity, that matters. And to whoever throws their two cents in the arena— especially online where it can be dug up and put on display— it's caveat emptor.
10













QC Asians





Reader Comments
Your 2¢, in chronological order — add your comment below.
If you're gay.... and a Republican..... you need.... help. Quickly.
Being a gay Republican is much like being a Jewish Nazi.
I'll give them a pass on the hookup stuff, but you didn't address the Republican donation. I can't believe you are willing to defend them. How much are they paying you?
wow... on so many levels. First... it wears me out when people make these experience arguments. They did it with Hillary, when really, outside of her tenure as a NY senator, her only 'experience' was as the wife of the president. And that doesn't count for shyt and doesn't make her any more ready to answer the bat-phone at 3 am...
And now they are doing it with MCcain. He was an aviator and a prisoner of war. Just because you were in a war, does NOT mean you know how to lead the entire armed forces. If he wasn't a top ranking official, which he wasnt... it doesn't count for shyt in a presidential election. Actually, the fact that he endured torture makes me leery of having another war happy president...
Second, I find that WEALTHY gay folk are similar to wealthy hetero folk in that they have found a way to use the status quo to get where they are, so they have vested interests in maintaining that system. People at the top of the food chain rarely experience the discrimination regular folks do, and therefore are more likely to be numb to our issues.
The same phenomenon exists among wealthy people of color, which to me, illustrates the growing divisions in America that are surfacing along financial status lines instead of color or sexuality lines.
And thirdly... who knew that these social networking sites net so much money... Imagine what could be done in the community with even a portion of that money? Aids awareness... prevention... or any of our zillions of issues that need to be addressed that adversely affect our community.
Just something to think about.
The idea that the rode to equality and respect for LGBT people is through money really fucking pisses me off. That sure wasn't the idea during the Stonewall riots.
Let's cut things down here.
"I believe McCain will be a better commander-in-chief than Obama, who also opposes gay marriage. If we have an experienced, seasoned person defending the country in this dangerous age, we will be able to argue about the gay agenda later."
This guy is obviously a fucking tool playing into the Republican fear mongering that the media constantly shoves down our throats. He also, obviously, knows nothing about politics, or national security, if one considers how the places that are most likely to experience a fucking terrorist attack (NYC) voted for KERRY in 2004, and will no doubt vote Democrat again. Electing McCain would ensure that we start more aggressive wars with no justification. Yeah, that would make us really... secure. Fucking jackass. Get a clue.
Second of all, if you think that homosexuality will be accepted if we assimilate ourselves and sell ourselves into capitalism, you:
A. are wrong, and
B. have no soul.
we shouldn't have to market ourselves into further consumerist social structures in order to be respected as human beings and citizens. We're stereotyped enough as it is, trying to cater to us as a market and a demographic would make things worse.
Furthermore, trying to assimilate ourselves into an inherently christian/sexist institution (marriage) is a step in the wrong direction. We only want marriage so we can have equal tax benefits and equal health benefits. What we should really be pushing for is health insurance and fair taxes regardless of if you're partnered or not (gay or straight).
I live in Canada and can say that just because people can get married here doesn't mean tons of people still don't think of you as simply a "faggot".
some issues ("gay rights") supersede others (national security).
I don't trust Obama with my life, but I do trust someone that has spent 5 years as a prisoner of war for this country.
vote country first
I wonder if the focus on national security keeps us from having a real conversation about gay rights. Think about it. If the government can keep gays like "c4" wrapped up in the drama that's going on in the rest of the world, then gay rights (or other important social issues that need to be addressed) continues to not get the attention we need them to have here.
Keep in mind that "country first" is what happened in Nazi Germany, pre-Civil Rights America, the internment of the Japanese, etc. "Country first" has its pitfalls. And, who's to say that the millions of gay men who support gay sites are not the next target by the Patriot Act.
As well, "Country first" could also mean the American Dream. Both candidates have some of that "American Dream" stuff going on. Be careful about not trusting Obama, because he's had not military experience (if that's what you mean). Your beloved George Bush had all kinds of military experience around him, and look where that got us.
C4-your comment is soooo wrong on soooo many levels that neither time nor energy allows me to address it adequately in this forum.
I will say, however, that if that statement was meant seriously, you are in desperate need of some critical thinking skills. One example: while Obama and McCain may not endorse gay marriage, Obama DOES oppose "don't ask, don't tell." Ya know--that military policy that madates secrecy for Queers...who are serving their country...and fighting against terrorism.
Look up the definition of the word "irony" and get back to all of us, m'kay?
This would have worked out so much better if it had not come to light until later. McCain would have accepted the money and spent it on his campaign. Then, maybe years down the road, when his party is working to undermine gay rights or shut down online social networking sites, it would have been revealed that he accepted money that was generated from a gay online hookup site. Just the sort of scandal the public loves, but in this case the whistle was blown too soon and the mark was alerted in time to refuse the donation.
Great essay, AQCE (that stands for anonymous QueerClick editor).
The permanent state of war that the Republicans used during the Cold War and now during the so-called "war on terror" (!) are used so that no attention is paid to domestic issues (eg. health care for all, civil rights etc). It's George Orwell's "1984".
Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996 because the cold war had ended and Americans turned their attention to the economy (stupid!) and realised what Reagan/Bush economics did to the middle and working classes. Bush II used the war on terror to be elected in 2004 (remember he wasn't elected in 2000!) and Americans continued to ignore the domestic issues.
Will they make the same mistake in 2008 with McCain? How can you fight the world while your own house is on fire?