Eddie Long, Pastor of New Birth accused of being on the "down low" (Franklin: store, teacher)

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by Tarheelhombre

It doesn't make a different to me, but to many it does matter who is giving and who is receiving.

The lawsuits say "During the overnight trips, Defendant Long shared a bedroom and engaged in intimate sexual contact with Plaintiff ____ including kissing, massaging, masturbating of Plaintiff ____ by Defendant Long and oral sexual contact."

I'm assuming that means Long was the one performing the oral sex but I'm with you. Why would people think it makes a difference?

[GrandviewGloria]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Not that it really makes a difference but I thought the allegations were that Long was performing oral sex on the boys.

That's maybe what they're admitting to (probably on the advice of Counsel, who know how to work it for all it's worth). That's part of 'The Culture'. Just (admitting to) 'being serviced' lets you still 'be a man'. In fact, back in the McCarthy era, judges distinguished between the one getting 'serviced', and the one actually 'performing' the act. The one 'performing' was the criminal, and the one 'being serviced' was 'Heterosexual', and therefore innocent. All of this is, of course, total foolishness. It's just as homosexual to receive as it is to give.

Meanwhile, in Africa, men are gang-raping other men (and sometimes baby boys), but it's not homosexual, because they're doing the raping. At least, that's how they see it. Of course, that's total foolishness.

Again, having watched, over decades, the stories of the hypocrite moron homophobe bodybuilders at my gym, (and hearing firsthand accounts from my Gay and bi-swinger friends who'd been involved with them...and a couple of their ex-wives...and my DH telling me what he'd seen and heard in the showers), it seems that men of a certain sort first admit to 'getting h---' from other guys, then this, then that, and after about three encounters, they're "being the girl"..."taking it up the....".

Watching these stories unfold is like watching a rosebud slowly open, to finally become a full-blown rose, with all those Stamens in the middle showing. You always expected a couple of petals to obscure your view all the way to the middle. But there it is....

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by GrandviewGloria

That's maybe what they're admitting to (probably on the advice of Counsel, who know how to work it for all it's worth). That's part of 'The Culture'. Just (admitting to) 'being serviced' lets you still 'be a man'. In fact, back in the McCarthy era, judges distinguished between the one getting 'serviced', and the one actually 'performing' the act. The one 'performing' was the criminal, and the one 'being serviced' was 'Heterosexual', and therefore innocent. All of this is, of course, total foolishness. It's just as homosexual to receive as it is to give..

That shows how little I know. I would have assumed that if Long is the one performing the oral sex, then he is the one doing the "servicing" and that the young man is the one "getting serviced."

So if Long is simply going down on these young fellows (to use the vernacular of my day) he still gets to "be a man"?

How curious.

[GrandviewGloria]

Originally Posted by arjay57

That shows how little I know. I would have assumed that if Long is the one performing the oral sex, then he is the one doing the "servicing" and that the young man is the one "getting serviced."

So if Long is simply going down on these young fellows (to use the vernacular of my day) he still gets to "be a man"?

How curious.

No, you had it right. We're singin' off the same page. The guys, apparently, are admitting to 'being serviced' by Long. And I'm assuming they are editing what they're admitting to so that they still "get to be the man".

But why a man with a body as beautiful as Long's would need to 'coerce' anyone is beyond me. And it seems to me that if sexual predation is the thrill for him, he would choose acts less 'passive', once he'd downed his prey. But maybe not. Any firsthand accounts of encounters with that personality type out there? Inquiring minds want to know!

[Newsboy]

I was glad to see a lot of New Birth members intervied on the news last night expressing doubt and disappointment in Long's address to the congregation. As several pointed out, and I noticed as well, he did not deny anything -- just said he was going to "fight" (and the whole reference to David and casting stones was very self-righteous IMO). Anyway, I came away with a more favorable impression of New Birth membership. Many of them are clearly thinking this thing through and have not drunk the Kool-Aid. Smart.

[Tarheelhombre]

Originally Posted by arjay57

The lawsuits say "During the overnight trips, Defendant Long shared a bedroom and engaged in intimate sexual contact with Plaintiff ____ including kissing, massaging, masturbating of Plaintiff ____ by Defendant Long and oral sexual contact."

I'm assuming that means Long was the one performing the oral sex but I'm with you. Why would people think it makes a difference?

It depends upon which group you talk about. To the church, it probably doesn't matter that much, but in many peoples' minds, who is giving and receiving plays into notions of power versus weakness, pleasure versus giving pleasure, dominance versus submissiveness, Alpha Male versus Beta Male. It's not rational, but a large compenent of how people view such situations.

[Tarheelhombre]

Originally Posted by GrandviewGloria

That's maybe what they're admitting to (probably on the advice of Counsel, who know how to work it for all it's worth). That's part of 'The Culture'. Just (admitting to) 'being serviced' lets you still 'be a man'. In fact, back in the McCarthy era, judges distinguished between the one getting 'serviced', and the one actually 'performing' the act. The one 'performing' was the criminal, and the one 'being serviced' was 'Heterosexual', and therefore innocent. All of this is, of course, total foolishness. It's just as homosexual to receive as it is to give.

Meanwhile, in Africa, men are gang-raping other men (and sometimes baby boys), but it's not homosexual, because they're doing the raping. At least, that's how they see it. Of course, that's total foolishness.

I was trying to dance around that, but many guys think that it can be manly to "receive oral" from a dude, but not give it. In fact, there is a popular phrase among men, "A mouth is a mouth," or more crudely, "A hole is a hole."

[Tarheelhombre]

Originally Posted by GrandviewGloria

But why a man with a body as beautiful as Long's would need to 'coerce' anyone is beyond me.

Not trying to be funny, but you think his bod is "beautiful." Big and puffy, yes. but beautiful???

[spotch]

LOL! Man, that is so not funny when you really think about it. Right?!

No, you're absolutely right. The whole prosperity gospel thing is actually really, really sad Talk about creating a justification for doing terrible things and ripping off your 'flock' so you can buy jets and mansions and stuff.

Nytimes has more on it, for anyone interested.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/us/16gospel.html

[mrdkb]

Originally Posted by scheidhaeuser

the truly sad thing this sort of RIP OFF is common in the white community and in the black community- just all over

just look at the clowns professing their love for Jesus on TELEVISION !


even the Jewish community is on television clammering for support for eastern european Jews, and begging everybody to send their hard earned money to these fools



but I did always like Reverend Ike LOL

Per my Dad - at least with Reverend IKE you know what to expect.