Salon | Letters to the editor

_______________I WAS A LESBIAN SPERM DONOR BY HANK PELLISSIER (12/15/97)

There is something profoundly sad about the spectacle of women, who seem to find the idea of actual sex with a man too revolting to contemplate, desperately hungering for the sperm of an emasculated ninny who is so disconnected from his own pride and manhood that he can actually sit through a three-hour "processing" session in which three women (one of whom is his wife) discuss their designs on his sperm and his lack of rights to any relationship with the children it might produce. Good grief, he's not even going to get laid. And why is he so supine as to remain with a "dyke identified" woman who seems embarrassed to be married to a (yuck) man? What a doormat.
I don't know which is more pathetic: that these women can blithely demand his sperm and then forbid him to see the product of it, or that he is actually willing to agree to such a thing. The mind boggles.
This news flash just in: Children are produced in part from sperm generated by men. I know that it must gall some women to realize this, but until parthenogenesis becomes an option, women, lesbians or otherwise, are stuck with men. Of course, since actually choosing the right man to be the father of your children and having a loving, committed relationship with him is not au courant these days, there is always the fallback option: Find a brain-dead, spineless loser with no self-respect who is willing to be used as a stud animal and who doesn't care about the children he fathers. There are, sadly, enough of them around, and for the extreme anti-male wing of the dyke community, there is an added bonus to doing it this way: It neatly confirms the view that (except for the fact that they produce the sperm women need to get pregnant) men are a waste of protoplasm that could be put to better use. For aiding and abetting this view, Hank Pellessier is a disgrace to his gender who should be condemned to jerk off into a bottle for eternity.

-- Earl Hartman

_______________GANGSTA ATHLETES, ANXIOUS WHITES BY GARY KAMIYA (12/10/97)

First of all let me identify myself as an "African-American" male, like Marcus Franklin. However, unlike Mr. Franklin, I have no major problem with the bulk of Gary Kamiya's commentary. I don't feel that Kamiya's intent was to tell black people how to behave, as much as it was a critique of some black people's negative behavior. And it is entirely appropriate to frame the issue in terms of race, because far too many of us in the black community are the first to use race as an explanation for the worst excesses amongst us. Like David Horowitz, I think that if Latrell Sprewell had been a white male and his coach black, there would be no controversy at all. There would be no consideration of race, no accusations of discrimination or a "rush to judgement" by the NBA, and probably no real interest from the black community.
When a black person does something wrong, we in the black community should not automatically assume that racism is involved. If we in the black community really want to be treated no "differently" than anyone else, then we should be able to accept criticism from people of other races. The focus of any response to commentary on black people should be the content of the argument, not the race of the person. I feel that it is possible for anyone of any race to provide insights into our racial situation here in America. (And for the record, Gary Kamiya is not a "white" man, but a racially mixed individual. As we all are to some degree or another, but that's a topic for another discussion.)
My intent here is not to excuse white men from the evil things they have done, and sometimes still do. The point is that we are all human, and all capable of good and bad.
-- Andrew Ricks
SALON | Dec. 18, 1997

R E C E N T L Y+| GANGSTA ATHLETES, ANXIOUS WHITES BY GARY KAMIYA

If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor for publication,
please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com.
Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness.
If you do not wish the letter to be published, please say so.

_______________I WAS A LESBIAN SPERM DONOR BY HANK PELLISSIER (12/15/97)
	There is something profoundly sad about the spectacle of women, who seem to find the idea of actual sex with a man too revolting to contemplate, desperately hungering for the sperm of an emasculated ninny who is so disconnected from his own pride and manhood that he can actually sit through a three-hour "processing" session in which three women (one of whom is his wife) discuss their designs on his sperm and his lack of rights to any relationship with the children it might produce. Good grief, he's not even going to get laid. And why is he so supine as to remain with a "dyke identified" woman who seems embarrassed to be married to a (yuck) man? What a doormat. I don't know which is more pathetic: that these women can blithely demand his sperm and then forbid him to see the product of it, or that he is actually willing to agree to such a thing. The mind boggles. This news flash just in: Children are produced in part from sperm generated by men. I know that it must gall some women to realize this, but until parthenogenesis becomes an option, women, lesbians or otherwise, are stuck with men. Of course, since actually choosing the right man to be the father of your children and having a loving, committed relationship with him is not au courant these days, there is always the fallback option: Find a brain-dead, spineless loser with no self-respect who is willing to be used as a stud animal and who doesn't care about the children he fathers. There are, sadly, enough of them around, and for the extreme anti-male wing of the dyke community, there is an added bonus to doing it this way: It neatly confirms the view that (except for the fact that they produce the sperm women need to get pregnant) men are a waste of protoplasm that could be put to better use. For aiding and abetting this view, Hank Pellessier is a disgrace to his gender who should be condemned to jerk off into a bottle for eternity. -- Earl Hartman
_______________GANGSTA ATHLETES, ANXIOUS WHITES BY GARY KAMIYA (12/10/97)
	First of all let me identify myself as an "African-American" male, like Marcus Franklin. However, unlike Mr. Franklin, I have no major problem with the bulk of Gary Kamiya's commentary. I don't feel that Kamiya's intent was to tell black people how to behave, as much as it was a critique of some black people's negative behavior. And it is entirely appropriate to frame the issue in terms of race, because far too many of us in the black community are the first to use race as an explanation for the worst excesses amongst us. Like David Horowitz, I think that if Latrell Sprewell had been a white male and his coach black, there would be no controversy at all. There would be no consideration of race, no accusations of discrimination or a "rush to judgement" by the NBA, and probably no real interest from the black community. When a black person does something wrong, we in the black community should not automatically assume that racism is involved. If we in the black community really want to be treated no "differently" than anyone else, then we should be able to accept criticism from people of other races. The focus of any response to commentary on black people should be the content of the argument, not the race of the person. I feel that it is possible for anyone of any race to provide insights into our racial situation here in America. (And for the record, Gary Kamiya is not a "white" man, but a racially mixed individual. As we all are to some degree or another, but that's a topic for another discussion.) My intent here is not to excuse white men from the evil things they have done, and sometimes still do. The point is that we are all human, and all capable of good and bad. -- Andrew Ricks SALON \| Dec. 18, 1997