LA gay chorus chair quits after sex allegations

John Duran, the mayor of West Hollywood, has resigned as chair of the Los Angeles Gay Men’s Chorus after three singers accused him in the LA Times of ‘inappropriate touching’.

Duran denies the allegations and says that, after 20 years, he was planning to leave anyway at the end of the season.

He has been the chorus’s main fundraiser. This will hurt.

More here.

share this

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on google
  • RW2013 says:

    When an opera singer friend was come on to by the conductor in her dressing room, she simply bit him. He never tried it again, warning others about the hazards of approaching her in an inappropriate manner.
    So how about a little LGBTQ&”§[email protected]€ self-defense!

    • Jack says:

      You’re missing the point quite badly. This kind of thing should not go on, and when it does (and even with your opera singer friend) it should be reported and the offending person properly dealt with. Since all people won’t do what your friend did, and since some will remain silent, bringing this out into the open is the only way there will ever be a chance of it not happening again.

      Self-defense is fine and necessary, but if it ends there, the offender will feel empowered to try it again. And again. And again.

    • You really ought to be able to get through a rehearsal without ever needing to bite the conductor.

  • Lance Wells says:

    What exactly does a gay person have to do to be accused of sexual wrongdoing? Enter into a legitimate (that is, male/female) marriage and have similarly legitimate intercourse?

    • Rimjob says:

      What the fuck?

    • Jack says:

      Lance, if that was an attempt at humor, it fell far short.

      • Lance Wells says:

        It’s just a question. Since homosexuality is by definition abnormal, deviant, and contrary to natural function, it stands to reason that healthy, respectable sexual activity would constitute an “offense” in the eyes of a gay person.

        • Eaglearts says:

          It’s an offensive and bigoted question, posed by an obvious troll. STFU and GTFO!

        • Bruce says:

          Lance:

          I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt — for now — and supply quotation marks for your description of homosexuality. If you truly believe what you’re saying, there is probably no point trying to reason with you. However, I’ll give it one shot.

          First, the “wrongdoing” part.

          “Sexual wrongdoing” is simply making unwanted sexual advances. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a gay person making a move on a straight person, or vice versa, or if the sexual orientations are a “normal” match. Unwanted is unwanted.

          If a person (of whatever persuasion) make a move on someone (of whatever persuasion) who isn’t interested, their job is twofold: (1) don’t disrespect the person’s dignity or bodily sovereignty, and (2) don’t persist after they have indicated their lack of interest. If you violate either of those two rules, that is wrongdoing.

          There are all kinds of additional sub-rules applying to the workplace, including, but not limited to: if you’re in the position of a superior, don’t hit on your subordinates — they may feel pressure, intended or not, to submit because of an implicit or explicit threat to their job. If you get involved with a co-worker and the two of you break up, don’t continue to pursue it in a way that affects the workplace environment. And so on. These rules may seem like they are endlessly proliferating; if they are, it’s because people keep demonstrating, through their boorish behavior, the need for them.

          Second, the “offense” part.

          Lack of interest in something does not automatically make that thing offensive. To make an analogy with going to the movies: If I’m not interested in superhero movies, does that mean I am offended by the mere existence of superhero movies? Not necessarily. If you invite me to go to one and I turn down your invitation, have you done something wrong? Not necessarily — if you let it go at that point. If I turn down your invitation and you keep asking me, now are you doing something wrong? Yes, because you are not respecting my choice. (At first, this is just a violation of etiquette, not of law.)

          Sometimes a person likes going to the movies, just not superhero movies, and they’d be happy to go to a romantic comedy with you. Sometimes they like superhero movies, but they don’t want to go to one — or any movie — with you. Sometimes they simply aren’t interested in movies, period. Whatever the case, you should respect their preference, just as you would want someone to respect yours.

          Just as there are straight people who are offended by the mere existence of homosexuality, regardless of whether anyone is interested in having gay sex with them, there surely must be gay people who are offended by the existence of heterosexuality. In neither case is this rational, but… well, people are not always rational.

          Now, I don’t actually believe that your naiveté is real, but I’ve taken the trouble to respond as if it is, just in case.

          • Lance Wells says:

            So you don’t believe that those who commit homosexual acts should be criminally prosecuted?

          • Bruce says:

            “So you don’t believe that those who commit homosexual acts should be criminally prosecuted?”

            Hahahahahahahahahaha.

            Have a nice

          • Bruce says:

            Something went wrong with my original attempt to post a response. Should have said:

            Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

            Have a nice day.

          • Lance Wells says:

            That’s understandable; something was wrong with all your other comments, too.

  • >