Archive for the 'Rants' Category

Parker? I don’t even like her!

Sex and the City has now been in theaters for almost 48 hours, and gay guys are supposed to be part of the target audience, so I feel this requires some acknowledgement. I have almost no active memories of sitting down and watching the show during its 1998-2004 run, but I know I’ve seen just about every episode somehow.

I’m not going to bother with spoiler alerts in this post. My guess is that roughly 30% of the people who want to see this movie went yesterday, in Stoli Raz-soaked groups of 10 or more.

Curious but wanting to avoid the throngs, I skulked into a 9:30 a.m. show this morning by myself, unshaven and clutching a 24 oz. coffee. In a 400-seat cinema, 15 were filled, and I was the only dude. With moderately fond memories of all but the show’s final season - when the focus shifted from serial dating and promiscuity to monogamy and garden-variety bridal/motherhood porn - I braced myself for the worst.

A couple of thoughts before we get to the gay stuff: Did all the characters get 30% dumber during the transition from small to big screen? Why is demure Charlotte squealing in every scene that she’s in, and why is she onscreen so much less than the other characters? Does anybody actually think that the Carrie/Big romance is one for the ages, and should represent the main thrust of the movie, even after we thought we put that puppy to bed eight times already?

If the movie is called Sex and the City, why is everything about monogamy, marriage and children (you don’t even see Kim Cattrall’s nipples, for God’s sake)? Why have all the men been castrated and lobotomized (like Harry and Big), or altered to fit the machinations of what passes for a plot (like Steve)? I realize the show was celebrated for its trendsetting approach to style, but does the movie have to flash 10 designer logos at us per shot, and stop dead in its tracks for a wardrobe-change montage every reel, thus bloating the running time to 145 minutes? Fashion brand obsession is one thing, but does it have to extend to bang-you-over-the-head-with-a-tire-iron plugs for Smart Water, Starbucks and Apple?

Does Miranda actually blame herself for causing Big’s cold feet - and when it becomes clear that Carrie does blame her, why does Miranda put up with Carrie’s bullshit (this, in fact, may be the central question of the entire series)? Did anybody, at any point, think that casting Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson as Carrie’s wide-eyed slave girl…I mean, assistant…whom she actually deems a “saint” may not be the most up-to-the-minute means of diversifying the cast?

And while we’re at it, what’s with the Andre Leon Talley cameo? And the “Charlotte shits her pants in Mexico” joke? And the “Sorry we made you wait till the 2-hour mark for male nudity but oh my God don’t look we’re showing you a penis!” scene featuring Samantha’s hot neighbor (fuck it, I’ll take Jason Segel any day)? Why does no one laugh at Carrie’s hideous Vivienne Westwood bridal abortion with the dead bird on top, until an hour later, they do? Why does Parker, so crafty and offbeat in movies like Miami Rhapsody, steamroll through this like Evita Peron’s preserved corpse? Why does no one laugh anywhere, least of all in the audience, in this jokeless comedy?

I take umbrage with the accepted wisdom that Sex and the City is a cult item among gays. Golden Girls (a show that is arguably less dated in 2008 than SATC)? Sure. Designing Women? Yup. But Sex: The Movie takes a weirdly retrograde approach to homosexuality.

Not far into the film, the old gals are strutting down a Manhattan sidewalk in their ridiculous outfits when Samantha starts checking out a guy, only to watch as he says hello to another dude and - DRAT! - kisses him! (It’s not your self-absorption that’s the problem, mall-dwelling flip flop-wearers in the audiences, the problem is that all the hot guys are gay!)

The only two gay guys that Carrie and company apparently know, dweeby Stanford and shrill wedding planner Anthony, eventually make walk-on appearances, and a split-second scene at a New Year’s Eve party implies that they have become a couple. Why? An episode in which Charlotte tried to set them up with each other established that they have nothing in common. It’s supposed to be five years later, and the lonely queens are finally settling for each other to go pink tuxedo shirt-shopping with?

The movie is so filled with off notes, misjudgments, inconsistencies, irrelevance and Fergie songs that this post could turn into a novel. I’m disappointed in writer-director Michael Patrick King, the SATC showrunner who later went on to create HBO’s brilliant The Comeback. The smarter characters on that show would have called bullshit on this movie, and the dumb ones would have loved it.

All I’m saying is, since it’s a hit, please don’t blame the gays.

Suckers and Spice

The Spice Girls are officially back on tour, thereby implementing Phase 3 of succubus Victoria Beckham’s plan for wall-to-wall saturation of all major (sorry, may-juh!) forms of media. And the amount of attention this reunion has received - to say nothing of substantial ticket sales - leads me to revisit the old Warhol saw about everyone having 15 minutes of fame.

I don’t think it’s true. I think, if anything, we’ve passed the point where everyone had 15 minutes. That paradigm worked for the Darva Congers and Omarosas and Kristin Cavallaris. No, I believe that in today’s brave new world, the howlingly mediocre get famous and stay famous.

That’s how a ferret-faced cockney slag like Posh can have a higher Q rating with America’s schoolchildren than 9 out of 10 Presidential candidates (okay, I made up that statistic, but it sounds true, right?).

I think one of the reasons I’ve been posting on this blog less frequently is that I’m starting to feel more and more alienated from pop culture. I can’t even find my satirical entry point into a world where people buy tickets to Spice Girls reunion concerts.

The tipping point, for me, was last month’s death of the Osmond paterfamilias. I was still confused as to how Dancing With the Stars had fostered a weird Marie Osmond renaissance, when the next thing I knew, Entertainment Tonight was on at my gym and there was her brother Donny, crying about his dead daddy (who had just expired that day) to Mary Hart in an “ET exclusive.” Then the Dead Osmond press tour continued on Oprah and Larry King, which led to the “Marie’s son is in rehab!” heartbreaker. Then Marie got kicked off Dancing and somehow Donny popped up in the trailer for the next shitty Martin Lawrence movie.

How had these incesto-creepy ’70s throwback Mormon-bots catapulted from obscurity to omnipresence in just a few weeks? If someone had told you, in 1978 (four years before I was born), that Marie Osmond would be receiving widespread media attention in 2007, how would you have handled it? I probably would have headed straight to Jonestown.

At least there the Kool-Aid didn’t come with Spice.

They don’t call it the VatiCAN’T

Another day, another story proving my point that every conservative and/or super religious person ever is really, really gay.

Today’s “wide stance” story comes from the highest of the high, the holiest place outside of Salt Lake… or heaven. We’re talking the Vatican. (”What?! Gays in the Vatican?! Next you’ll try telling me those women with the big watches and nice calves that bought all my fleece sweatshirts at my garage sale were lesbians! Ridiculous!”)

Monsignor Tommaso Stenico, a Vatican official, has been suspended after being caught on film hitting on a young man. The case is pending investigation, but, guys, this one really looks like a slam dunk. I mean, we’ve got (1) a guy who dresses like a priest (2) hitting on boys (3) on camera, (4) addressing the “gay sex is a sin” obstacle by, uh, telling them it’s not. I don’t see how he could possibly get around this, other than, heh, putting out a statement saying that he was pretending to be gay for research purposes or something like that…

Oh god. This is embarrassing. The Good Monsignor has just put out a statement claiming that gay baiting was part of his ongoing research into the gay psyche, which he conducts in order to better understand “those that damage the image of the church with homosexual activity.” And that he also didn’t tell his boss about. And that he also didn’t acknowledge for about 48 hours after he was busted. And that he learned his mad research skillz from the likes of Sean Cody, Corbin Fischer, and the dudes that run the Bait Bus. (If you don’t get those references, a little googling from the privacy of your own home will go a long way. Just keep your wallet in your pocket.)

So, thanks to Larry Craig, this Vatican guy, and Wentworth Miller, we all now know that it takes anywhere between 48 hours and 3 months to come up with a completely reasonable (read: hetero) story for why you might have been caught trying to solicit gay sex.

And in case you’re keeping track, that’s: Mark Foley, Bob Allen, Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Joey DiFatta, Tommaso Stenico, and a few thousand Catholic priests that are still all completely into chicks.

And these are the ones that got caught… being misunderstood as gay.

Update: And just because I might not have another chance to post today, I’ll add Monday’s GOP arrest to this post: Donald Fleischman, the chair of Wisconsin’s republican party, has been charged with performing sexual acts on an underage boy. In 48 hours, we’re expected to have a story of how he came home from an event at an orphanage a little drunk, crawled into bed, and dismayed to find (after the deed had been done) that instead of his wife in bed next to him, one of the neighbor boys had crawled in through the window to retreieve a frisbee, and was suddenly overcome with sleepiness.

Craig-proof bathrooms and other pressing issues

bathroomThe slew of recent gay sex scandals has recently brought a disproportionate amount of attention to the world of public men’s rooms. I mean, because the real problem here is that the construction of public bathrooms just makes it too damn easy to have the homosex. Apparently a nice married gentleman that enters the bathroom to, say, blow his nose might notice the hole in the bathroom stall and think, “Hey, I bet I could fit my penis through that hole.”

And now, the public outcry for fag-safe public bathroom stalls begins. This is fascinating to me. There’s Jim Naugle’s plan for doors that automatically spring open if you’ve been in there longer than the standard time it takes to drop the kids off at the pool. Then there’s the MSP airport’s plan to install floor-to-ceiling fortress walls between stalls, making foot stomping and hand gestures things that are only used by Mummenshanz.

We here at the PEN15 Club don’t think automatic doors and tall walls are going far enough, so we’ve developed our own list of things to keep our bathrooms safe:

  • Don’t patch gloryholes. Just rig the other side with something unpleasant to put your penis in, such as: a box of clawed kittens, tapioca pudding, something knitted by a grandma, or a vagina
  • Play “Don’t Go Chasing Waterfalls” on a loop to remind all of the “straight” bathroom patrons how gay they really are
  • Toilet seat covers that resemble Perez Hilton’s thighs
  • Posted signs with alternate, more innocent meanings for all hand signals that may be used to illicit sex: “Oh! You want me to make running water noises to help you?” or “I see you’re asking for a courtesy flush.”
  • Change all “family” bathrooms into gay sex bathrooms. Because, really, what’s weirder?

And of course, the most obvious solution…

  • One sign: NO REPUBLICANS ALLOWED

The View - Now 30% less satisfyingly dykey

200607-barbararosie.jpgRosie, dear. For my birthday, I asked for you to make Elizabeth Hasselbeck cry. But now I realize I should have been more specific. Because I didn’t mean tears of joy. And I didn’t mean by leaving the show. Way to ruin the first quarter-century of my LIFE Rosie! Gosh!

In all seriousness, it’s kind of sad to see televisions most fantastically drama-laden show lose the one thing that didn’t suck about it. In her year-long tenure, Rosie was able to drive ratings through the roof and crack walnuts in Hasselbeck’s tightly clenched ass cheeks. She caused Trumpgate, Chingchongate, Murdochgate, and Generalmeanlesbiangate. She gave us something more interesting to search for on YouTube than “teen boy in boxer briefs flexing muscles.” Oh, Rosie!

The only thing happier than Hasselbitch and Rosie’s seat cushion has got to be Babs herself, who will no longer be called out on her WASPy two-facedness on the air. Because everyone the only thing more important than ratings is making sure you can still call in a threesome with Trump and Murdoch.

Au revoir, Rosie. I expect you to spend your newfound free time launching more gay family cruises to countries that, uh, hate gay families. Meanwhile, I’m going to bury my sorrow in… cake.

 O’Donnell leaving ‘The View’ [CNN]

How not to advertise to gays

gay ad

Click on this photo to get the full effect.

Now, I understand that the tome of gay-directed advertising isn’t exactly anything to brag about. There are a few golden moments (and the Commercial Closet does a fantastic job of cataloging them), but for the most part, we’re reduced to shirtless, hairless, beaded necklace wearing men walking along a P-town beach, sometimes with a reptile thrown carelessly over the shoulder. No matter the product. Most of the time, the message is something along the lines of, “Despite your AIDS, our obscenely expensive drug will help you do this!”

I’ve learned not to expect much from the drug companies or the pop and pop B&Bs with low ad budgets and even lower creative inspiration.

But when an ad monolith such as Pepsi devises something so terribly insulting that I virtually can’t get any work done, I’ve got to say something. Take a look at this ad for Diet Pepsi. And if you’re not outraged, allow me to tell you why you should be.

The Backstory
What you’re looking at is a picture of an old Diet Pepsi ad attached to someone’s refrigerator. Closer inspection reveals that the ad on the fridge appeared in Out magazine in April of 2005… on page 24. This led me to believe that the ad is fake, recreated for this new ad, because when’s the last time you saw a print ad in a magazine with a page number on it?

I was wrong. This ad did appear in 2005 (sans page number). And even then, it’s headline “Number of Diet Pepsi six packs consumed a week to keep this ’six pack’: 2″ sucked. Is Pepsi trying to suggest that drinking Diet Pepsi will actually give a guy a six pack? All I know is that I’m more bloated than Al Gore after a single Diet Pepsi.

Continue reading ‘How not to advertise to gays’

Stefano Gabbana bites the hand that holdes the Amex

gabbanaDear Leatherface,

I don’t really have the right to talk because the only thing I’ve ever owned by Dolce & Gabbana was a well-used print ad from a 1998 copy of “Out” magazine, which my 16-year-old self kept folded up in the glove compartment of his Oldsmobile. It was there to remind me that there were marketers who actually valued the gay community, and that one day I might be able to form the pelvic ‘vee’ that is so necessary for owning a pair of your lovely, low-rise dungarees.

But today, I read on the interweb that you don’t think gay couples make good parents. In fact, you even used the same rhetoric employed by what we here in the U.S. like to call the Radical Right: the whole idea that children need to have a mother and a father in order to be healthy and, uh, not self-loathing.

Now don’t get me wrong. It’s fine with me that your incredible ego drives you to desire a child that is the “fruit of [your] sperm” rather than those low-rent pretend children born in fly-over countries, but don’t you think that if your head gets any bigger, you’re going to have a hard time fitting it through the neck-hole of your own clothing?

Here’s the deal: fuck you. You may have some terrible, skewed, Brian Kinney-esque impression of the gay community, but not all of us spent our young adulthoods blowing rails of coke off anonymous asses in bathroom stalls and thinking that “open” relationships are more healthy than monogamous ones. Some of us do aspire to create a family with our partner, and nurture a child in the same loving atmosphere that we were brought up by our boring, hetero parents. I applaud you for recognizing that children need a solid family for a healthy upbringing, but I think you’re kind of a cock for thinking that’s only attainable for straights.

Do you really think it’ll actually be healthier for your child if he had to stay with Mommy while Daddy went to Ibiza the man he really loves? Gimme a freakin’ break.

The gays are going to boycott you now. And I don’t blame them. No more pink dollar for you! But good luck making a new line of 40×30 jeans to fit your new best friends in the Bible belt.

Love,

Jordan

Gay designer Gabbana is against same sex parents [Daily Mail] via Towleroad

Save the Queerleader, Save the World

zachWe here at The Club were just giddy when Thomas Dekker’s character, Zach, the adorable outcast on NBC’s “Heroes,” outed himself in an episode that aired about a month ago. It was only a matter of time; they had been hinting at his sexuality all season, and the show’s writers had confirmed his sexuality in various interviews.

But now it’s being reported that Zach’s expressed sexuality will be reneged when the show comes back in January. Perhaps he had a latent heterosexualizing power that he inadvertently turned on himself during an exercise in self-exploration. Or that the writers just didn’t find the power to bedazzle an old Ramones t-shirt in mere seconds compelling enough to pull the character through the rest of the season.

It’s unclear whether it’s NBC or Dekker’s representation is responsible for luring the lad back into the closet, but one thing’s for certain: everyone feels that having a gay character on a TV drama about embracing individuality and uniqueness is just redundant. Fuckers.

Somewhere, Dominic Monaghan and Kyle KY feel slightly more normal.

Heroes Straightens Up Its Gay Character [AfterElton]

Shot into the back of my throat and down my esophagus, not stirred.

Daniel Craig Nude1-ThumbContact Music, the only news source more reliable than the batshit crazy homeless lesbian outside of the Dunkin’ Donuts at the end of my street, reports that Daniel Craig is interested in filming a gay bond scene, possibly complete with full-frontal nudity.

[Note: While the report does not specify whether it is he that wants to be involved in the gay scene, we’re going to work under that assumption because, well, it lends itself better to this post.]

Said Craig, “Why not? I think in this day and age, fans would have accepted it. I mean, look at (British TV series) Doctor Who - that has had gay scenes in it and no one blinks an eye,” a statement he quickly followed with several eye blinks.

Daniel. Listen. We were really okay with what you gave us: tight blue go-go boy swim trunks, shoulders that should be covered in A1 and devoured, and a nude scene in which you taunt a fey villain into repeatedly whipping you with the world’s largest anal bead. It’s kind of you to offer, but you must understand that your unattainability is what makes us fags love you. Because if you were gay, clearly you would be within the realm of attainability. You would join the ranks of Jack Nasty and Anderson Cooper, and we won’t be allowed to talk about you on DataLounge anymore!

James Bond wouldn’t be James Bond if he weren’t sponged in pussy galore, swimming in Octopussy, and always guzzling ‘tang. If he occasionally passed on the poon to get to know Rimmy l’Anus, he’d just be plain’ ol Daniel Craig.

As for the full frontal, by all means. Don’t let me hold you back on that one.

Craig Wants Gay Bond Scene [Contact Music] via Towleroad

Idiot bigots confused as to why people are laughing at them

family.jpgWith Tuesday’s elections having gone the way they did (and seriously, having Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House is going to have the same impact on Congress that Heather Locklear’s addition did to Melrose Place), it’s time for Republicans, right-wing zealots, and bigots of all kinds to start whining about how maligned they are.

Two cases in point today:

1. The owners of Houston’s Garden Guy landscaping company are shocked - shocked! - that anyone would take offense to their avowed refusal to work for gay clients. They’re also doubly shocked at the virtual vicious face-slapping they’ve received after a justifiably miffed pair o’ queens emailed the world when Garden Guy declined to give them an estimate.

And of course, the squeaky wheels among us couldn’t help threatening to ass-rape the bigots’ children. Which was really traumatic for them or something. This is the kind of example that makes you wish there really was a Gay Agenda to recruit the unconverted, just so Garden Guy would have to go out of business.

2. Remember those nasty frathouse chuds from Borat? The ones who complain about how minorities have all the advantages in America, and suggest that slavery should be re-instated? They’ve seen the movie, been (duh) humiliated, and are suing 20th Century Fox and One America Productions. Obviously they and many other interview subjects were lied to in order to secure the damningly hilarious footage that makes Borat so cathartic. But they’re also stupid for not figuring out the joke, for not knowing who Sacha Baron Cohen is, and for saying such things in front of a video camera.

If, legally, the boys do have a leg to stand on, then Fox should take the hit and continue to stand by its movie. Because the giddy thrill of Borat comes from watching normal, everyday, loathsome people get humiliated on the big screen. And a work of art isn’t really transgressive until it loses a lawsuit.

Houston landscaper accused of bigotry [AP]
Borat lawsuit - high five!!! [TMZ]