More Saturday Male Beauty

 

Texas Has an Infant Abandonment Problem

I have long maintained that those among the "Christian Right" - who are neither morally right or truly Christian - and the Republicans who prostitute themselves to such people are not "pro-life."  They may engage in a form of fetus worship and seek to force women to give birth, but once children are born, they oppose and would defund programs that actually provide care and support to infants and their mothers.  Their true motivation is to inflict their archaic religious beliefs on all and punish women who reject being subservient to men and surrendering control over their own bodies.  (LGBT individuals also are deemed deserving of punishment by these people and their political whores inasmuch as we reject their 12th century beliefs on human sexuality).  Nowhere is this phenomenon more true than in Texas with its draconian abortion ban that is depriving women of needed medical care, literally killing women in some instances, driving OB-GYN doctors from the state, and increasing infant mortality.  Indeed, the GOP controlled state government has refused to investigate the increase in maternal and infant mortality that has stemmed from the Christofascist/GOP jihad to punish women.  A piece in Salon looks at the ugly reality playing out in Texas which much of the GOP wants to make a nationwide problem:

Abortion bans don't just kill women. They kill babies. This is evident in the data, which shows a dramatic rise in the state's infant mortality after Texas banned abortion. As the Washington Post documented last week, it's also happening in a viscerally disturbing way, as the number of newborns found abandoned to die has spiked, as well. Babies, mostly dead, are being found in ditches and dumpsters throughout Texas, traumatizing the people who find them and the emergency workers who are called to help. 

Only the biggest liars in the anti-choice movement — and to be fair, there's stiff competition for that award — would deny that the state's abortion ban is the main cause of the sharp increase in dead, abandoned babies. The Washington Post also notes that Republicans have repeatedly cut funding for prenatal care and family planning services. In addition, draconian approaches to illegal immigration have led to undocumented women avoiding medical care, for fear of being deported. The result is what one Texas law enforcement official called "a little bit of an epidemic" of infant abandonment. 

One would think that the "pro-life" movement would be alarmed by all the dead babies, moving heaven and earth to make sure pregnant girls and women in desperate circumstances have safe alternatives to giving birth in secret and throwing the baby away. But that would only be true if anti-abortion activists were, in fact, "pro-life." Instead, the reaction of anti-choice leaders and Republican legislators so far has been a collective shrug, if they bother to acknowledge the problem at all.

There's one telling detail in the Post report that underscores how much Republicans don't care the slightest if babies die because of their abortion ban. As Molly Hennessy-Fiske reports, "Republican leaders who control state government have long declined to fund an awareness campaign so that new mothers know where to turn should they decide that they cannot keep their baby." 

Texas has a so-called safe haven law that allows women to relinquish babies to the authorities, no questions asked. For years, it was trendy for Republicans to pass these laws to create the illusion of concern for infant life, and to bolster their false claims to be "pro-life." But it was never a sincere effort to allow women in dire circumstances a chance to save a baby's life without getting into legal trouble. The programs are underfunded, barely advertised and subsequently barely used.

Texas Republicans show no interest in educating people about safe haven laws, however. Instead, as Hennessy-Fiske reports, they allocated $165 million to "alternatives to abortion," mostly so-called crisis pregnancy centers. The goal of a crisis pregnancy center is not to help women in crisis. It's to do whatever it takes to keep her pregnant until it's too late to get an abortion, including through lies, threats, bullying, shaming, and false promises of help. The goal is not "life," but punishing the young woman for perceived sexual transgression, either because she had consensual sex or because she "tempted" a man into raping her. 

Because the goal is punishment, there's no reason for Republicans to invest in safe haven laws, which shield young women from legal consequences for abandoning a newborn. . . . Given a choice between living babies or imprisoned women, Republicans pick the latter. Even the Republican who wrote the state's safe haven law, Rep. Geanie Morrison, explained that she has no interest in making it easier for women to use it.

The reaction to the Washington Post article from anti-abortion activists has been muted. The holidays are a busy time, yet many of them continued to post about what they do think matters. "Fornication and masturbation are self-abuse," wrote Lila Rose, an anti-choice leader and outspoken proponent of the Texas abortion ban, on the day the Post report came out.

From top to bottom, the Christian right's view of womanhood is a grim one. Even if a woman follows all their rules about waiting for marriage and eschewing birth control, her "reward" is being lectured about how it's immature to want sexual satisfaction within marriage. The vast majority of women take one look at this prescription of a life of thankless service to men and patriarchy and take a pass. That's why the GOP is so focused on abortion bans and other restrictions on sexual health care. If they can't get women to volunteer for lives of meaningless drudgery, at least they can punish them for trying to have something more fulfilling. 

The unwillingness to prevent infant abandonment is in line with the recent Texas decision to suppress investigations into maternal mortality after the abortion ban went into effect. Such investigations could result in a better understanding by doctors of how to treat pregnant women in a medical emergency, rather than letting them die. But in the GOP-controlled state, they're fine with a passive form of the death penalty for being a sexually active woman. It's unlikely there will be much investigation into the rising number of infant deaths, either. The torture of bringing a baby to term, only to watch it die, is also within the Republican realm of acceptable punishments for women. 

Saturday Morning Male Beauty

 

Post Key West Reflections

The husband and I returned on New Year's Day from a week long visit to Key West.  It was my 15th trip to Key West since 2009 and approximately my 10th stay at the Equator (pictured above), an all male, gay guesthouse/resort that later this month will change its name and become "all welcoming."  Indeed, the reason for the trip was to have one last hurrah, if you will at the Equator where we have made friends (mostly couples of varying age brackets) from around North America and Europe.  With the end of the Equator, only two gay guest houses will remain in Key West, the Island House up Fleming Street four blocks from the former Equator, and the Orleans House on Duval Street, both of which historically have catered to younger, often single travelers, and are far more open to hookups and the like.  Neither are really what the husband and I enjoy, which leaves us with the option of staying with friends who live in Key West or finding a different get away destination. 

What has happened to gay guesthouses in Key West that once numbered close to a dozen in some ways mirrors what has occurred with gay clubs in cities across America.  Locally, in Tidewater Virginia, only three gay clubs survive, down from twice that number or more a dozen years ago.  Part of what has happened is due to younger gays being more widely accepted socially and at other venues.  Part may be due to the wider public acceptance of gays and same sex marriage.  Frighteningly, with Donald Trump on the verge of returning to the White House with a circle of anti-LGBT extremists surrounding (and who seemingly now control the Republican Party), the need for gay clubs and gay guesthouses may be about to increase significantly if non-discrimination laws and public accommodation protections are stripped away under Trump 2.0.  Worse yet, if Project 2025 proponents surrounding Trump and the extremist cabal on the U.S. Supreme Court seek to end same sex marriage, the situation may become dire indeed. 

Here in Virginia with statewide elections in November - we never have a break from elections - we (I, the husband and other LGBT Virginians and our allies) will work hard to insure that a Democrat again occupies the Executive Mansion and that Democrats control the General Assembly so as to blunt some of the horrors that may flow from the White House and/or the the GOP controlled Congress.  Thus, I am not giving up, but the never ending battles do grow tiresome.  At the same time, the husband and I will continue to travel, but I suspect that Florida will not be a future destination. Perhaps Puerto Rico or Mexico or destinations in blue states such as New York and California to name but two. 

Stay tuned for future thoughts and updates.

More Friday Male Beauty

 

Don’t Let Terror Shut America Down

Recent New Year's Eve celebrations were marred by the terror attack in New Orleans  - a city that has ancestral roots for me and which I have visited numerous times - of an apparent ISIS convert that took the lives of at least 15 of the revelers, most of whom were young at the beginning of their adult lives.  The terrorist/murderer - despite the repeated lies of Der Trumpenfuhrer and many on the political right and at faux news sites such as Fox News - was U.S. born and raised and was a U.S. military veteran.  He was NOT an illegal who had "invaded" across the border.  Of course, none of this matters to Trump and his imitators and ass kissers.  Meanwhile, there are calls to in essence close down the country and/or limit public gatherings to deprive future terrorist of targets for their depraved acts.   I condone neither the lies about the perpetrator nor the calls to shutdown and stifle public activities.  The first is morally wrong - as is most of the Trump/MAGA agenda - and the latter hands a victory to terrorists whose agenda is aimed at disrupting the country and instilling fear.  In 2015 following the terror attacks in Paris, the husband and I and three friends traveled to Paris as planned in part because we did not want to give the Islamic terrorist a win.  As a piece in The Atlantic argues, the same mindset is needed now.  Yes, do all possible to minimize dangers by improving security protocols and learning from past mistakes (the New Orleans police definitely made mistakes in not properly blocking access to Bourbon Street), but do not erase rights of public assembly and public celebration.   In short, do not let hate and terror win. Here are article excerpts: 

Despite the devastating terror attack that killed at least 10 people on Bourbon Street in New Orleans in the early-morning hours of New Year’s Day, it seemed at first as though the Sugar Bowl college-football playoff game would continue tonight in the city’s Superdome, less than two miles from the carnage. This afternoon, officials announced they would postpone the game for at least 24 hours.

Getting on with activities as normal, to whatever extent is possible, is the correct approach. Responses to terror or violent attacks need to be based on the specifics of the incident, but the default should always be to remain open. A nation, any nation, must have the capacity to mourn and move forward simultaneously.

The question isn’t whether proceeding with scheduled events is disrespectful to those who have been directly affected by terror. . . . . the decision should be based less on emotion and more on the level of ongoing risk, and the available security, for those who are asked to continue with their lives.

First, can the situation legitimately be described as no longer posing a continuing danger? In 2015 in Paris, a wave of terror attacks over one long night resulted in 130 deaths. The entire country was placed under what amounted to a three-month lockdown, with most public events canceled. That made some sense, given the sophistication and planning behind those attacks, and the fact that a concert hall and sporting venue had been targeted.

In a statement, the FBI identified the [New Orleans] suspect as 42-year-old Shamsud-Din Jabbar, a U.S. citizen from Texas. He was killed at the scene by law-enforcement officers. An Islamic State flag had been located in the vehicle, the FBI said, and law enforcement is working to determine the suspect’s affiliations. Although what additional information might be available to the FBI remains unclear, the unified messaging suggests they are not overly concerned about continuing risk.

Second, if a city chooses to close down or delay events, does it have clear standards for what will allow it to reopen? This was the dilemma after the Boston Marathon bombings on a Monday in 2013 . . . . European cities such as Brussels have faced the same issue after major attacks. It is easy to close down but harder to have metrics for what is perfectly safe, because that is an impossible standard.

Third, can public-safety resources and planning be redeployed or reassessed in light of the terror attack without forcing the city to a standstill? A preplanned sports event, such as the Sugar Bowl, already has in place safety and security protocols that can be amended in just a few hours to allow for more resources from other jurisdictions and changes to vehicle access. Indeed, just a day after Boston’s lockdown, the Red Sox played at Fenway with a ramped-up public-safety presence. The Hall of Fame slugger David Ortiz memorably welcomed the anxious crowd by saying, “This is our fucking city.” He was reflecting a sense that terrorists elevate their cause if they can affect entire populations, and the best response can be an insistent normalcy.

There is no perfect answer to the challenge posed by an attack, but asking the public to stay put can be unnecessary. In Maine in 2023, after the tragic shooting of 18 victims by a lone gunman, the town of Lewiston and areas across southern Maine went into shelter-in-place mode for several days until he was found dead from suicide. Fear and isolation may have been unnecessarily amplified by the lockdown, originally issued for an indefinite period.

After the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush tried to calm a grieving nation by telling citizens to still “go shopping for their families.” The quote has been mocked as both tone-deaf (the term consumer patriotism was coined) and insensitive, but the for is often forgotten in the retelling. No matter how terrible an attack, we still need to be there for one another—whether that means gathering or grieving or, when the time comes, just watching a football game.

Friday Morning Male Beauty

 

Thursday Morning Male Beauty

 

Tuesday Morning Male Beauty

 

Monday Morning Male Beauty

 

Sunday Morning Male Beauty