Why Are These Guys Associating Themselves with The Sexist Homophobic Rich Jerk?

Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:05:59 -0400

We all know that the Rich Jerk is just that. He has effectively used controversy to make a lot of money. What I don't get is why people like Yanik Silver, Dan Kennedy, Mike Dillard, John Reese, and Mike Filsaime are promoting and endorsing his "Playboy Mansion Party." (Search for it as I don't want to give it another link).

It's one thing to be controversial and even raunchy but the Rich Jerk goes over the line with his blatant sexism and homophobia.

Now, you might be thinking, "Oh, come on, he's just having fun and it's a great marketing technique--look he's got you writing about it giving him free publicity."

If that's you, let me ask you a couple of questions:

1) If you have a teenage or adult daughter, would you take her to the Jerk's party, where one of the primary attractions are the voluptuous young women scampering around in their bikinis and maybe (according to the sales letter) even removing their tops to give all the guys a look at their breasts. If you would feel completely comfortable bringing your daughter to this event, I'd love to hear your rationale.

2) The Jerk concludes a recent blog post about his party with "P.S. No gays allowed." You know, it wasn't that long ago that the Jerk might have written, "No Negroes allowed" or "No Jews allowed" and very few people would object because they either shared the view that African-American and Jewish-American people were inferior or, if they didn't hold those racist views, they didn't want anyone to call them a "Jew-lover" or "N----- lover" or to face similar derision.

Today the fear is that you'll be accused of being "politically correct" (what a fool!) or of being gay yourself, an accusation which most American men fear more than almost anything.

Well, I'm not afraid to say that while I could care less about the Jerk, I think all of the men (you noticed there are no women endorsing the event on the sales letters, right?) who are endorsing or promoting his event should state if they share the Jerk's attitude that women are merely sex objects available for a man's pleasure and if they also endorse the Jerk's homophobic/anti-gay beliefs. Then we would at least know where they stand.

If they don't believe either of the above, why the heck are they endorsing or promoting the Jerk's event at all? Are they willing to endorse a grossly sexist and homophobic businessman simply to make some more money?

Internet and Network Marketing Success Blog

Why Are These Guys Associating Themselves with The Sexist Homophobic Rich Jerk?