Tom Hasman And The Rochester Gay Men’s Chorus — Hurry, Limited Tickets For Those 12 and Under!
I have read and commented on the recent stories about how Cheryl Dinolfo will have an opponent in her reelection campaign for County Clerk. I wanted to find out some more information on Tom Hasman, her perspective opponent. My research turned up his board membership listing for the Rochester Gay Men’s Chorus. Because I had never heard of this organization before, I decided to peruse the site for some more information on these musically inclined men. What I found was disheartening. They call themselves the “Rochettes” and on their about them page, they state a brief description about the “Rochettes,” it states, and I quote:
One of the most significant, and sought-after attractions of the Rochester Gay Men’s Chorus, is the sub-group known as the “Rochettes”. These multi-talented, imaginative men not only sing, but also swing and sway, bump and grind, and tap dance into your heart. Their tightly-choreographed moves are truly show-stopping!
They state that amongst the type of performances they do is a “Bump and Grind.” I have been around the block a time or two and that is exactly what its sounds like. You may remember R. Kelly, the R&B singer (currently on trial for soliciting child pornography) had a hit under the same name. In the online ticket section of the site they sell discounted tickets to children 12 and under. I quote and link
RGMC Child, June 14 2008, Here Us Now
Price - $6.00
Child’s ticket (12 and under) to RGMC’s twenty-fifth anniversary celebration concert. One performance only.
The Rochester Gay Men’s Chorus sells tickets to their performances in which there seem to be overtly sexual acts, to children under the age of 12. As a board member for this organization, he should know that this is inappropriate.
There are numerous organizations in our community that are worthwhile and deserving of our support. We have one of the highest child poverty rates in the country. And there was much fanfare over the fact that City School graduation rates climbed to 48%.
The fact that Hasman chooses the RGMC as the organization he donates his time to is amazing. If he shows this kind of judgment in his free time activity what can voters expect from him if he’s elected to run the County Clerk’s office? I know who I’ll be voting for this November.
19 Responses to “Tom Hasman And The Rochester Gay Men’s Chorus — Hurry, Limited Tickets For Those 12 and Under!”
Discussion Area - Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Bullwinkle
As usual you put a humorous spin on an issue. However I want to emphasis the serious aspect of this. I personally would not care if the theater act was gay related or heterosexual, the fact that people are indoctrinating children under 12 to sexual explicit performances shows a lack of judgment. The fact that Mr. Hasman is promoting this puts his judgment in question.
No doubt this is an issue in our society. Recently in Memphis Tennessee at a high school dance there was what is being referred to as a “Rape Dance”. I am providing a link to the local CBS channel 3 news station. This dance is so disgusting that the news channel has a “Viewer Discretion Advised” warning on it. This dance was being chaperoned by teachers and administrators, the video clearly shows the adults tolerating the activity. The superintendent of the school appears in the video and condemns it.
Click here for link to Memphis CBS News
I agree completely tiberius. The issue here is really the questioning of Mr. Hasman’s judgement when it comes to a show that includes inappropriate and suggestive physical interaction as viewed by a minor child. Although I am sure there are those who have a major problem with this whole concept, I, personally, am more concerned about the children. Adults can process mature themed material. We know that children cannot, and more importantly, should not be made to under the guise of what some consider “art”.
In the spirit of “Furthermore, I challenge you to point out any unfounded innuendo.” ( Cincinnatus // Mar 6, 2008 at 11:01 pm : in a comment to the post “NBC 10 Forum Removed…”) let me point out that Tom Hasman is Married and has a child, as is reported here:
http://www.rnews.com/Story_2004.cfm?ID=61054&rnews_story_type=18&category=10
Criticism based on his comments in regards to whether or not licenses should be renewed online or in person are legitimate. Insinuating that Mr. Hasman is gay (as did a comment to a previous post about Hasman) as a way to discredit him is way out-of-bounds.
Also out-of-bounds is insinuating that the RGMC promotes display of sex acts in front of minors. “Bump and grind” has many connotations — funny how you didn’t pick the one that names a County/Western line dance step, which is the first definition listed in wikipedia.
I’m not at all a member of the RGMC, nor do I know or have I met Tom Hasman, I’m just a reader who thinks you crossed the line on this one.
In his campaign annnouncement Tommy Boy had this brilliant explanation of why he is qualified to run for County Clerk:
“I’ve created and implemented security policies, so I’ve been a career-inside the government work with the government my whole life, so I understand how government works,” Hasman said. “And I am a professional as Joe noted; I am not a politician, I am a professional, so I would put politics aside.”
First things first. Tommy speaks with a sentence structure of which I am not aware. Maybe he needs to go back to Oswego and take English 101 over again.
Is this is the best and brightest the Liberal/Democrats have to offer?
“Lots of kids go to school for seven years”
“Ya. They’re called ‘Doctors.’”
Villager: You are absolutely right. I contacted Tiberius — he added a comment clarifing his original comment — he should have said whether is gay or not doesn’t matter. Our appologies.
Glad to see you are such a student of our work — I hope you continue to enjoy Monroerising.com.
Thank you for coming forward with your opinion villager. We’re happy to have you as a reader and hope that you’ll comment on other postings. Hopefully you are checking out all of the local political discussion blogs around Rochester. I’m sure you’ve seen some others that cross the line quite a bit. Sometimes people’s passion isn’t conveyed correctly.
MissManners has pointed out some of the malicious attacks on local female elected officials made by an area Democratic/Liberal/Progressive blog. I look forward to seeing your thoughts and concerns posted on those sights as well.
I can only hope they would take the appropriate clarifying steps as we have. Unfortunaely, some seem content to throw stones from their glass houses.
Any thoughts on some of the others you may have read?
Thanks again for visiting Monroerising.
Cincy / Peabody: I appreciate your kind responses. I think a civil discourse on real issues is engaging, which is why I like these forums, although I usually lurk rather than chime in. I agree the the personal attacks (regardless of the source) are unnecessary, and don’t condone them.
I also agree that the personal attacks on Maggie Brooks that I have read in D&C story chats and other blogs have crossed the line, and will gladly call people out when I see that as well… Well perhaps not in the D&C forums, as there’s too much lack of civility there from all political sides.
I personally didn’t see the “suckle with Maggie” — thats way over the line.
As far as the local democrats not supporting female candidates, that’s a bit out of my realm. I don’t know the politics of that district or the decision processes of the MCDC (or the Monroe GOP for that matter). I do know the dems ran a woman in my district for county leg last fall. As far as other candidates for other county positions (Clerk, DA etc), my assumption — which could be entirely incorrect — is that bodes more to the local democrats having a general difficulty finding and recruiting willing candidates — I think the lack of running a person against Maggie Brooks is an example of those difficulties…
Again thanks for the response & the welcome. And I’ll gladly chastise inappropriate comments from both sides of the aisle.
[“Bump and grind” has many connotations — funny how you didn’t pick the one that names a County/Western line dance step, which is the first definition listed in wikipedia.]
Actually, the first definition of “bump and grind” as listed on wikipedia is:
1. kayakingthrough rapids (however, we’d both agree this isn’t what they’re talking about.
Then:
2. aggressive car racing (I’ll go out on a limb and say not this one either)
3. a slang term for sexual intercourse (ding, ding, ding - I think we have a winner!)
As far as “naming a Country/Western line dance step” goes. Wiki says in “may refer to…”
However, the “line dance” link there never mentions the phrase “bump and grind” in the entire section.
Show of hands(???). How many guys here would let another guy “bump and grind” with your wife/girlfriend?
I’m clearly being rhetorical and sacastic here. Careful with your responses fellas. Especially if you wife visits here too.
Wow…
While I’m happy to see someone caring about local politics, I’m disheartened that you would slander a person and/or an organization to further your political bend.
The RGMC has been around for 25 years and is about singing and bringing music and inspiration to the Rochester community. It is in no way “soliciting child pornography”, nor do their shows have “overtly sexual acts” of any nature in them. Have you ever been to one of their concerts? Have you spoken to anyone who has?
There are several prominent political folks that have attended and enjoyed the performances of RGMC, including most recently Robert Duffy. Do you now suspect that he is a homosexual, or a child molester for “supporting” this group by attending a performance?
It’s sad to see in this day an age someone who still equates homosexuality with child molestation. Reality is that over 80% of children molested are girls who are molested by heterosexual men, commonly a father, step-father, uncle, guardian, or other male relative. Of the remaining 20% of children molested, less than half are boys molested by gay men.
I’m just stunned that someone in my community could take one small three word phrase like “bump and grind”, and use it to slander and brand a group of people they don’t even know as child molesters. That’s really sad.
Woody,
I don’t think the issue is equating what the “Rochettes” do, to child molestation Not one person in this post has stated that the “Rochettes” molest children. The issue at hand is whether or not it is appropriate for an organization who sells tickets to children, to perform acts of a sexual nature with minors in the audience. For you to say that they are being accused of molestation is a blatant mischaracterization of the comments that have been previously posted.
While I haven’t had the chance to attend a Rochester Gay Men’s Chorus performance, I have been to the bars in Rochester and have witnessed Bumping and Grinding. It is rude, crude and quite the sexual act. And if it is done in public or in front of people then it is also overt (overt meaning open, obvious, and unconcealed). Thus truly making it an overtly sexual act. I appreciate your caring for people caring about local politics but I don’t see how you can trul care if you’re accusing some here of being bigots. There are other sites in the Rochester political realm that specialize in being close minded and offensive.
I hope you can understand that this is about opening up debate on issues that concern the people of Monroe County. The well being of the children is surely one of the most pressing concerns.
Niceties out of the way, welcome to Monroerising and please continue to visit and post here. I’ll grant you that you may have missed the clarification of Tiberius’ posting and Cincy’s follow up comment. Regardless, I must take complete exception with the vast majority of your post.
Why do you consider the suggestion that a person might be gay as a slander against them? You seem to sound homophobic. Unlike you, I do not consider someone’s sexual preference or genetic sexual disposition to be a “slander” as you put it.
Equally disturbing are your obvious misrepresentations of the truth:
1. No one said they were “soliciting child pornography.” You did.
2. No one said that anyone who attends a Gay Men’s Coir show is a homosexual or a child molester. You said that too.
3. No one here equated homosexuality with child molestation. Yours again.
4. No one said that because these men “bump and grind” with each other in their shows that they were child molesters. Um, ya, you did.
As Mr. Peabody said, it’s not about whether he is gay or not. It is about “bumping and grinding” by adults possibly being done in front of young children and whether that is appropriate. Do you believe that it is or is not? Not in front of an adult-only show mind you, but one where there are children under twelve. I sincerely would like to know your opinion on whether or not you too support this.
This is clearly not the discussion I tried to begin by stating that the original two posts put forth some innuendo, which was agreed and clarified in a positive manner.
Then we went off the deep end on both sides. This is why I usually just watch from the sidelines instead of chiming in.
Here’s the bump and grind step…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MvYSumbQP78
or maybe this?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xRbNjAdBH8k
Boy that’s really risque stuff! (and don’t anyone feel the need to post a youtube of the nasty BumpNGrind, I know it exists as well). My point is that there is an implication that there’s nasty stuff going on at these concerts without any specific proof — based on three words on a website. This is wrong.
Now I’ll say that if there’s a single person here who can show that the RGMC does sexual body to body bumping and grinding at a public concert with minors in attendance, please chime in, and I’ll join you in saying that’s inappropriate. Otherwise, lets just end all this innuendo that’s going on.
And I’ll own up to my mistake for not correctly reading the wikipedia page. I missed the line above the bulleted list, which also listed definitions.
After reading more posts on here, I figured this was a big hate site, with this poster being one of the real mongers on it. And I really I can’t say my opinion has changed much based on recent posts. I’m not sure how long I’ll stay on after this to be honest, since really I have better things to do that listen to haters preach their bile.
@jennajacobsmd:
I think the problem is exactly that he’s equating gay men with child molesters. Not only does “bullwinkle” bring up the topic by reference, citing the R. Kelly case, he then implies in the next sentence that RGMC is explicitly selling tickets for an “overtly sexual” show to children. That to me looks like he’s saying RGMC is going after children, implying they’re child molesters.
@InsidePolitics:
I never said calling Tom “gay” was slander, those are “your words” as you’re so fond of saying. The slander is the implication that he and RGMC are child molesters, or are doing “overtly sexual” shows for children, having never seen an RGMC concert.
As for his implying Tom’s sexuality, again you are wrong. I based that on a previous comment from “bullwinkle” found here. So, no, I didn’t say it… he did.
If you can’t see the implication he made (citing child molestation, and then implying RGMC was inviting children to an adult show in the next sentence), then there’s no point debating that issue with you. It’s very clear what his intention was, especially given previous posts on similar topics.
And as for your comments about me being homophobic, you’re way off the mark. The fact is: I’m gay, and have been openly so for a couple decades now. I know many of the members of RGMC, and am involved in several different social organizations (gay and non-gay) in the city.
As for the rest of the comments, consider this: The RGMC site was created over 10 years ago, and the “bump and grind” reference was there most of that time. Years before R. Kelly had a song, or before the “popular line dance” cited here. Maybe, just maybe, it’s reference to the fact that they do dances with a little more body motion than the waltz. (The dances Elvis did were called “bump and grind” dances, and they didn’t involve anyone but him, all by his lonesome up on stage.)
Do you really think that a group, preforming in a public place several times a year for 25 years, to an audience including children, could have presented sexually explicit material and not been called on it by now? Of course not.
But “bullwinkle” clearly has a bone to pick. He picks a group consisting of gay men, which given his past comments he clearly feels negatively about. Then having never seen a show, and having no idea what their goals or operational structures are like, he states flat out that they are presenting “overtly sexual acts” to an audience with children. (And he does say that, regardless of if you think he’s implying they are child molesters or not.) Finally, he claims that Tom has poor judgment for donating time to the group, again not knowing anything about the support or in what capacity Tom is assisting the group.
Saying a group presents “overtly sexual acts” to children, a sentence after talking about child molestation, to me, implies something. That in itself is smearing at best, slander at worst.
Given “bulkwinkles” prior remarks about “is Tom in this photo” (see above), and implications that Tom is gay for volunteering some time to a non-profit group, that how I read it. (Personally I think his involvement has more to do with the fact that one of his neighbors happens to belong to RGMC, and both are involved in local politics…)
On second though, maybe “InsidePolitics” is right. I think there’s clearly a homophobe here. He just picked the wrong screen name.
Sadly, Woody, your attempt to coin us as a hate site is what is truly slanderous. It is sad and it is scary. We’re seeing more stuff like this everyday from the liberal/progressive movement. The accusations of hate are so frivolously tossed at people when they have a different opinion.
I don’t hate you Woody or anyone else, despite your apparent wishes that I did so you could use me to support whatever cause or political opinion you may have.
I am a religious person. You know, one of those people who is mocked and attacked by the liberal/progressive “hate mongers” who degrade my beliefs freely and openly, even though I and those around me have done nothing to hurt them in any way. You won’t read about that in the papers though.
As one who may very well have experienced some level of real hate from others yourself (maybe you personally haven’t), I would have thought you would not be so careless in accusing others the way you have accused everyone here.
But we both know that you have the benefit of support from various sources on your side. So you can say and do as you please without consequence. I actually envy that. We’re on our own over hear. But we are still allowed to have opinons, right?
Stick around and hang out if you like. We assume you will at least watch, possibly to exploit some comment into more than it really was intended for.
Thanks. It is good to have you. That was a good go round. It helps drive up viewership when you have additional opposing opinions and Tom got himself a little bit of free press for the race.
Besides, what good is a lousy one-sided blog anyway?
@PeaBody:
I’m not saying everyone here is a hate monger. There are a number of people on there that are conservative in their view, and can express their opinions without slandering others. For the most part, those replying here are reasonable. But a good chunk of the posters and repliers are not.
To say you disagree with Tom’s ideas or views is fine. To say you dislike the groups he supports (including RGMC), is fine as well. To call a group child molesters and/or claim they’re presenting sexual material to minors is slander, and goes over the line. Would you like it if I said I thought you were molesting your children? What if I said I thought your church was preaching it was ok to molest children based on an off comment taken out of context? Would that be fine? Of course it wouldn’t.
Why would you think my objecting to calling a group of people child molesters to be “exploiting some comment”? Isn’t that just what the primary poster that did; exploit a comment on the RGMC website by twisting it into a claim that they’re trying to get children to come to a show with “overt sexual acts”? So it’s fine when the original poster does it, but not fine when I call him on it? That sounds real fair.
As for me having “support”, you’re clearly not talking from experience. Do I have support when courts tell me I can’t adopt children that need care? Do I have support when police break up a fight (based on the sexuality), and let some of the offenders go free without even getting their names or IDs? Maybe I have support in the fact that if my partner gets ill or dies that his family (who he’s been estranged from for decades) can swoop in and take the house and all the join possessions because they’re related, and I’m just “the fag he lived with”. Sorry if I don’t feel the “support” you’re talking about.
And don’t play the persecution role, claiming you’re some minority for being religious or conservative. You don’t face discrimination based on your *choice* of religion or political bent. You’re not being fired because of it, or denied public services based on that. And if you were, you’d have legal grounds to sue. But my “choice” of orientation doesn’t merit protection? Your choices get you protection, mine don’t? Funny how the religious folks all seem to have this complex that they’re the ones being targeted, when reality is they’re the ones with the support and protection.
Woody: Happy to go one more round on this and will then have to move on.
“To call a group child molesters” - Show me exactly where this was said, or stop it. It’s a lie.
“I figured this was a big hate site” - Yep, you said it. Not a lie.
“Would you like it if I said I thought you were molesting your children?” - I never said Tom molested his kids. That’s a lie.
“What if I said I thought your church was preaching it was ok to molest children based on an off comment taken out of context?’ - I did not say RGMC said it was ok to molest children. Please stop it. Another lie.
The straw man arguments are just that.
I’m sorry you were fired from your job and that you aren’t getting requested public services because of your sexual orientation. As I’ve said ad nausium (sp?) I don’t agree with that. Let me know who did this and I will personally boycott the company or business.
You have no idea of what discrimination’s I have or continue to face in my life. You would be surprised to learn more about me that you seem to incorreclty assume is, or is not, the case. I will not get into a “I have it worse” debate with you though. I will suggest that you please tread lightly though along that thread.
Because I am religiuous and not a liberal, you have made an assumption about who I am. I will tell you right now that several of your guesses you might make about me would be indeed be completely wrong.
Once again, this has never been a discussion or debate about homosexuality. As much as some would like to draw it into that, it’s not.
Once and for all, I’ll disagree with you and anyone else all day long on various issues, but I don’t and won’t hate you or anyone else.
You need to just accept that.
You’re really projecting… Really.
I never claimed that you said or implied RGMC was molesting children. What I said was that the original poster, Bullwinkle, implied it by saying RGMC was presenting adult material to children directly after talking about a child molestation case. This isn’t about you, it’s about the article poster. When you didn’t see my point, I asked “what if I implied something about something you care about”, and you missed the point… again… claiming I said someone (you) something when you didn’t.
Speaking of assumptions:
I’ve never said I’ve lost my job or been denied public assistance because of my sexual orientation. See, you’re assuming that because I noted that someone can be fired/denied based on that. See how implication works? I wasn’t even implying that I was fired or denied assistance, and yet you assumed I was the victim of both. Amazing that you see implication there, but you don’t see the implication Bullwinkle made about RGMC and child molestation.
As for me assuming things about you, I’ve made no assumptions or claims about you. I don’t know you at all. I’ve challenged things you said here, and that others have said here, nothing more. You’re the one making assumptions.
And yes, this debate has been about homosexuality. When someone writes an article implying in one post that someone is homosexual, and then says they’re unfit for office because of their tangential association with a homosexual group, guess what: It’s about homosexuality. YOU may not be talking about it, but the original poster (Bullwinkle) was.
This is not about you. I did not claim you said anything about child molestation. I did not claim you have any view on any topic discussed here (aside from the persecution complex issue, which really is self fulfilling in this instance).
So, in essence, your point confirms that anyone can be fired for anything. No kidding.
Me, you, him, her, them, anyone.
Your point on this proves nothing then.
And I apologize for not adding the following in my other posts today:
“We don’t hate you Woody or anyone else and we’re not a hate site.”
I will now go and correct that.