Darkside Rainbow

Today’s guest post is by Lessa:

What do you get when you toss sixteen people into a house, cut them off from the outside world - no TV, no internet, no radio, no movies, no books (other then the Bible or a single other religious text), put cameras and microphones on them 24-7, show the footage both on the Television networks and online via internet feeds? You get Big Brother, USA, and all of the drama that goes along with it, of course.

I am a HUGE Big Brother Fan. I have been for the past 3 or 4 seasons or so, and in Season 8 last summer, I began covering the show for 451 Press over at Big Brother Craze. Due to that, I’ve gotten the live internet feeds, and for three months I live and breathe the antics of the ‘Hamsters’ in their cage, while trying to remember to feed my kids and what ‘outside’ looks like. It’s like the real world, only intensified as they’re forced to deal with one another on a daily basis, plus compete against each other for the big $500k prize.

I know, I’m a total nerd. I’m ok with that.
Also - stick with me here, this post relevant to DSR, I swear!

Anyway, we currently have a special first Winter Season of Big Brother, and they threw another twist in there to juice things up - the House Guests play in couples, that they have been told are their “Soul-mate” due to personality questionnaires they completed as part of the application process.

I know, right?!? The possibility for drama just increased 100fold! Happy Lessa!

The fans, like myself, were THRILLED to discover that, though they’ve had gay and lesbian houseguests before, they actually paired two gay men together as soul-mates in the house, among the 20-somethings, and one 45 year old Penthouse Pet (1984) and self proclaimed ‘Cougar’. We were excited to see a different dynamic play out in the house, and how these hamsters would work with their partners, and who would hookup. Showmances (romance done primarily for game-play, on a reality show) were BOUND to happen in that situation, and the Feeders were BRIMMING with excitement!

Then one of the gay men, Neil, had a family emergency and left the show, leaving our poor Joshuah playing straight man with his new female partner. They formed a solid friendship, and their game-play is strategic while they work incredibly well together. After all, they no longer have to deal with sexual tension! The fans were notably disappointed, and bemoaned the chance for a gay showmance had gone down the tubes. Then, these very same people, turned on one of the other men in the house, showing their true colors, and double standards.

James, sporting his pink Mohawk and crazy tattoos, who’s taking a break from biking around the world on just $100 dollars and a belief that we are too materialistic, promoting peace and good will, seeking the elusive ‘good’ in the world, paired with the lovely rocker chick Chelsia with her bi-tendencies - James was discovered to have starred in porn.

Gay porn.

The internet went WILD with this information. I’ve not broached it at BBC, because it makes me so angry the way people have turned on a man they didn’t think they would like, discovered they kinda did like, but now OMG HE DID PORN AND IT WAS GAY! (That sound you just heard? My eyes rolling.)

James and his partner Chelsia have hit it off, as well. He’s said often how much he likes her, how he wishes he had more to offer her outside of the house. It goes both ways, and they have a solid friendship building, and some make-out sessions, too, as they get to know each other better. You’d think this would make Feeders happy - but Feeders, they are a fickle bunch. Now all they can think of is what she’ll say when she discovers he’s been in GAY porn, when she finds out she’s being played by a man who is either gay, or just gay for pay, and what must her parent’s be thinking OMG!

It irritates me to NO END. These are the SAME Feeders who liked him before, who appreciated how comfortable he was with himself, how open he was to this experience, and how smart he’s playing the game. Now, because the GAY Porn, he’s nothing but dirt to them. I’m saddened, and angered, and outright disgusted at times by it all.

People have asked me how I can like James, especially since he’s done GAY porn. It’s as simple as this: I think he’s extremely comfortable with himself, and he’s got a good head on his shoulders (…I’ll not make any jokes of how he gives or receives the same, of course. Or how he’s hung. Though — DAMN. He proves the Black Man Myth is a lie - it’s all about the skinny white boys. Trust me. I know. I married one.) He understands people, he’s friendly and outgoing, he genuinely cares for folks and their stories, he wants to know YOU, and not the you that you feel safe showing. He listens, he understands the dynamics of the game, and of relationships and how to work both to his advantage. I find his sexuality (which I think is best defined as ‘fluid’ then gay, straight, bi) to be completely beside the point. He’s REAL, and he’s true to himself, always.

Case in point - one of the houseguests collapsed and had a seizure. He was first to her aid, he held her, he was calm, he was prepared to do CPR, he aided the nurse in bringing her back. Afterwards, he was shaken, and upset, and took a lot of what happened to heart. This houseguest that collapsed is someone he could not stand - he didn’t like her at all, but when she needed him, he was there.

That, my friends - not who he fucks and when, where, how and for how much cash - that is what defines a good man. He’s the epitome of why we shouldn’t judge a book by its cover. Would that all the Feeders could see him as I do.

~Lessa
http://bigbrothercraze.com

What, you mean I still have to tag this crap even if someone else wrote it?

Sorry I’m late today, guys. Conference calls are the bane of my existence; conference calls that demand voluntary agreement to an illegal invasion of privacy and sacrifice of confidential personal information just leave me steaming and ready to tear someone’s head off. But since I can’t talk about that here because 1. it’s not topical, 2. it would violate confidentiality, and 3. I have to hurry and go finish some work for my new job (which is creating its own difficulties that I can’t discuss due to being gagged by an NDA), instead we’re going to indulge in a little frivolity with the end goal of inviting you to participate (you people have been way too quiet lately) and distracting me from shanking a b*tch.

I’ve mentioned before that I probably identify as a Kinsey 5, meaning it would take a female version of Vin Diesel to turn my head towards the fairer sex. People jokingly ask who straight people would go gay for all the time, though, so I have to wonder: if you’re gay, who would you go straight for? (Or if you’re straight, the age-old question of who you’d go gay for. If you’re bi, just pick the three people you’d like to get the horizontal monkey on with the most.)

My top three women:

1. Michelle Rodriguez.

She’s tough, she’s fierce, she’s tight, and she’s gorgeous. She plays hard, gritty characters rather well, with a bit of a wild side and definite hard-as-nails core. I have no idea what she’s like outside of the characters she’s often typecast as in various action flicks (The Fast and the Furious, Resident Evil, the atrocity of Bloodrayne that not even she could salvage with that horribly faked accent)…but that doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy looking.

2. Milla Jovovich.

I’m not sure what it is about Milla that gets me. Maybe it’s because she has the same air that Michelle Rodriguez does, only packed into a more graceful, elegant package: that mixture of ferocity and delicacy with a sharp dash of playfulness. (It probably helps that she looks like a young man sometimes and I love androgyny, although I find her beautiful in a way that transcends gender. Oddly, I didn’t like her when I saw her as Leeloo in The Fifth Element (I was paying more attention to Bruce Willis anyway), but after the Resident Evil films and a few others, I’d gladly switch teams if Milla offered - even if her eyes creep me out a little.

Not…that she’d even give me a second glance. But a boy can dream, can’t he?

3. Lucy…no…um…Drew…no…er…oh, damn. I really don’t have a third; I guess those two ladies are it for me. Anyone got any suggestions for a third?

Who would you reverse your sexuality for?

@*%$#!~!!!DAMMIT.

Kids? I got nothin’ today. I’m burnt out, drained, and out of whatever juice it is that fuels my random bouts of eloquence. I blame the fact that I just started a fourth new writing job (good, more good than I’m at liberty to discuss here) but for now am still working my old non-writing fill-in-the-gaps-in-the-bills job at the same time until the first check for New Writing Job clears (bad, very bad, my stress levels are through the roof), and the only thing maintaining my sanity (and staving off my infamous temper) is remembering that I’m doing all of this so I can move out of this Texan hellhole and back to Chicago, and remembering that hey, once the dust settles, I’ll finally have achieved my goal of being a full-time writer (if…not quite in the way I’d originally planned).

Gods, that’s a lot of parentheses. Why do people pay me to write, again?

In the interests of actually posting something topical rather than whining about “oh my god, earning a paycheck is so hard”, though, I did want to run through a few news articles that touch on things that have recently developed regarding issues discussed here in the past. So without further ado (and ’cause I have sh*t to do and need to get going):

CDC Disputes Study of Staph Infection Among Gays: Remember that CWA article quoting rates of MRSA infection among gays and using it as evidence that we’re all going to hell because we’re nothing more but unclean, disease-ridden sinners who spread the plague via our unnatural ways? The CDC has pretty much said “slow your roll, biatch” and is taking a closer look at those statistics and how they might have been skewed to point to those results and make MRSA out to be the next big AIDS-style “gay cancer” scare.

Gay Canadian Health Minister Offended Over Donor Ban: In another instance of official parties getting involved in the news and taking a stand against possibly skewed preconceptions and prejudices against the gay community, the Canadian Health Minister is prepared to actively fight the ban on sexually active gay men as donors of healthy, viable organs. Damn straight…er…well, not so straight, but you get the idea. It’s about time someone in politics showed some common sense, rather than persisting in cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face, as the old saying goes. It would be nice if that “someone in politics” would crop up here in America to brandish a flaming cluebat of common sense, but I don’t see that happening any time soon.

Anti-Gay Westboro Baptist Church to Picket Heath Ledger Funeral: Here’s one that’ll really piss you off. Del mentioned in the previous post about Heath Ledger’s death that the WBC (that’s right, Freddy Phelps is back again) is already making plans to picket Ledger’s funeral, accusing him of being hellbound because he promoted acceptance of gays as a “fag enabler” through starring in BrokeBack Mountain. Here’s the worst part:

That…that’s real classy, right there. Just in case you weren’t feeling the Love of God^TM (oh yeah, I’m feelin’ it, like a North Carolina glory hole), it now comes in pamphlet format, just to make sure the grief of Ledger’s family isn’t trivialized enough by these filth-spouting, batsh*t crazy nutjobs. You’re going to hell, kiddies. I’ll be there, too. Bring your own munchies, but the martinis are on me.

Man Probed On Water Polo Photos On Gay Sites: Lastly, here’s something new to help dispel the palpable air of gay martyrdom that’s starting to float around here like some choking miasma of smugness. As if the “probing” pun in a gay headline wasn’t bad enough, UC Irvine dispatcher Scott Cornelius is under investigation to find out if he took pictures of teenaged - teenaged, people - water polo players and posted them on gay websites.

…

Thanks, Scotty. As if we didn’t have enough flak to deal with with people considering all of us to be dirty, perverted pedophiles. Yeah, okay, now and then a piece of jailbait is nice to look at as long as he at least looks over eighteen, but fer Chrissakes, you don’t take pictures of these kids and post them online as potential wank material! Good gods, didn’t your Momma ever teach you better? Hell, if she didn’t smack you upside the head enough, I’d be happy to volunteer to compensate.

Idiots. Frigging idiots. The worst part is that of course someone will sound the alert, wave the torch, and raise the flag, and eventually Cornelius will come to be considered yet another example of the gay community who proves that we’re filthy pedophiles who want to make hot, sweet love to their children (typing that made me gag). If Cornelius hadn’t done anything gay-oriented, he’d just be considered another sick individual, with his sexual orientation not even a consideration.

The worst part?

There were people out there looking for photos like that.

I just hope they didn’t know that the boys were underage. I need to retain at least some faith in humanity and in the gay community, because right now I’ve barely got the thinnest thread left.

That’s it, I’m out. Ciao bella, and see you tomorrow with something of more substance.

I haven’t gotten a hit off a Technorati tag in months, so why do I tag this shite again?

If you haven’t heard, actor Heath Ledger is dead at the age of 28; he was found in his apartment last night, face-down and naked with a bottle of sleeping pills nearby. Police are are speculating drug overdose, among other causes; final cause of death is pending investigation. Ledger is known to the gay community as one of the leads in the award-winning film Brokeback Mountain, although for some reason this makes me think of Jonathan Brandis, child star of Seaquest DSV and The Neverending Story. It seems as if there’s at least one in every generation - an actor found mysteriously dead, although with Brandis they were quite sure it was suicide. With Ledger, no doubt we’ll know soon enough.

I can’t help but think, though, that these sort of stories are always tied to celebrities - who are always caught in the news fronted by sordid headlines about drinking, drugs, partying, wild sex, and domestic abuse. Celebrities are always in the public eye, always scrutinized, and often held up as examples of how we should look, dress, think, and feel, even while demonstrating exactly why their habits make them less than ideal role models. The funny part?

All of the celebrities that people so love to hate lead the exact lifestyle that the entire gay community is accused of living.

While Ledger wasn’t exactly known for a wild lifestyle, the fact that he was a celebrity immediately makes his death a tragedy to be mourned by the general public; no one suspects anything despite the fact that there were drugs involved and he could have been abusing them, although regardless of the reason any death is still a great loss. But had he been a gay pop culture icon, sordid rumors would already be flying and too many people would say that he likely brought it on himself for his profligate ways.

Then again, that’s just speculation. I’m not going to say any more, as I’m not going to use the death of a man to wave a torch. I’ve said all I wanted, and I’m done.

heath ledger, death, ambien overdose

You know what? I’m not in the mood for serious discussion this morning. It’s Friday, it’s been a horribly long and busy week, and I have one more day of work to get through (and about six articles to finish) before I can go anywhere near my Don Rodolfo Malbec and a few chunks of nice, aged asiago. So you’ll have to pardon me if today, I randomly blurt out pretty much anything that comes to mind, tongue firmly in cheek and heavy on the snark. It will likely be silly and pointless, but most of life is anyway.

First, I really can’t imagine why anyone would care if Lindsay Lohan is potentially swinging from the fence. Who gives a rat’s? Celebrities play on ambiguous sexuality all the time, especially those noted for bouncing in and out of rehab like yo-yos on Prozac (or LSD, or heroin, or whatever the trendy drug of the week is…). They’re not gay/bi, they’re just vapid and indiscriminate in their partners, and think a girl/girl kiss makes them as edgy as Madonna. This is news pretty much only to Slashdotters and other such socially inept dwellers in the parental basement, who’ve just found new fodder for their Lindsay Lohan girl-on-girl fantasies. Make sure to lotion up, boys. Your palms will start to chap pretty quickly.

Despite aggressive spam filters, I routinely get hundreds of spam e-mails a day. The majority of them are overly concerned with the size of my endowments, with a fixation oddly reminiscent of my cat’s unhealthy obsession with watching me undress. (Or unsure of what they want to say about my pen, as they start out so often with “Your Pen Is…” My pen is what? It’s right there, on the desk. What about it?) The concern is admirable, really. Too many men aren’t concerned enough about their sexual health, so all these lovely solicitous e-mails are a heart-warming reminder to schedule my annual doctor checkup.

I’m horribly distressed to see, though, that my spam e-mails just aren’t politically correct enough. They always assume that I have a girlfriend or a wife, or am desperately seeking one, or just “want to know her how she is from the inside”. For shame, spammers, for shame. Have you ever thought that I, your target customer, may not be interested in the young woman whose image you’ve kindly provided to illustrate your point, however lovely she may be? What if I want to know him how he is from the inside? I’m shocked and hurt by your lack of consideration, really. Especially since your constant comments that Concetta has a conspicuous f***stick are really quite insensitive to MtF transgenders.

Or is it a veiled compliment? Are you somehow implying that not a single gay man on the face of the earth needs your enhancement products, and that our online profiles tell the truth and we are, in fact, all gifted like John Holmes?

A weighty point to ponder, indeed.

Any transgendered individuals who read Darkside Rainbow will no doubt be relieved to know that, according to American Daily, your gender dysphoria is just an affliction indicating a disconnection from reality that should be treated and ultimately cured with therapy and prayer. Liberalism is also a mental disorder, transgender rights are ridiculous, and gender identity is pure nonsense. Prayer should be able to fix that, too. The FtM gay male he’s talking about in the article? Just a confused straight girl in plaid shirts and dockers who’s an absolute fool for trying to do anything that would allow her to live more comfortably with the lot she’s been given. There. Don’t you feel better now that Matt Barber’s cleared that up for you? Run along now, pray for a few hours, and maybe his God will be kind enough to “cure” your gender dysphoria and make you so happy with your birth gender that you’ll happily fall into your appropriate 1950s-esque gender role. Remember to start your prayers with “Dear Lord.” He likes being called “Lord.”

To close things off on a more serious note: I’m not a praying man despite my seeming familiarity with the Captain’s Almighty’s titular preferences, but if any of you out there are (well, or praying women, considering the demographics of my reader base) , keep Mehdi in your thoughts; the young gay Iranian is awaiting the decision of a Dutch court over whether to return him to the UK, where he will likely be summarily packed up and sent right back to Iran - and we all know that gays don’t exist in Iran.

I’m done, and out. See you Monday. Yes, I’m posting a comic on Christmas Eve. Just call me Scrooge, baby, and get your plebeian butt back to work.

~Adri

lindsay lohan, gay celebrities, spam e-mail, gender dysphoria, transgenders, transsexuals, mtf, ftm, m2f, f2m, gender identity disorder, matt barber, gay iranians, mehdi

[facepalm] I’m so not into Harry Potter. Don’t ask me why; I don’t have a problem with J.K. Rowling, I respect her talents and her accomplishments, I think she wrote a very good series with engaging characters…that somehow failed to engage me anyway. I guess it’s just not my thing. However, I just couldn’t pass this up. Half of my fandom-enamored friends are just about wetting themselves over the news that apparently, Rowling has announced that Albus Dumbledore is/was gay. (Is? Was? Series is over, so I guess “was” is appropriate.)

That’s right, the revered headmaster of Hogwarts was gay - and now it’s canon. As someone who adores seeing strong gay characters in fiction who aren’t wholly defined by their sexuality and whose sole point in the story isn’t just to be gay, I love this revelation. I also understand why Rowling would wait until the end of the series to make this announcement; I doubt Dumbledore’s sexuality had anything to do with the story, and if it had been known before he end of the series, he might have been seen as the token gay character. (…it might also have encouraged even more Dumbeldore/Harry fanfic than there already is, although I shudder to think that there may be a sudden upsurgence in such fics now that fandomers have this to work with. Scary.)

Now as someone who doesn’t quite get the obsessive nature of fandom…I’m just staring in wonder as certain corners of the internet practically explode with the buzz. Hell, I had to skip reading half of my LiveJournal friendslist because all they were talking about was this.

So there. If you’re a Potter fan, now you know, and I’ve done my duty by reporting on gay news in an one of my areas of personal interest: popular fiction. Incidentally, no, Richard Harris (pictured above) - the actor who played Dumbledore in the Harry Potter films - was not gay.

Everything’s news to someone, I guess.

harry potter, j.k. rowling, hogwarts, dumbledore is gay, gay characters in fiction

I haven’t had much to say about the lives of the rich and the functionally stupid lately, have I? I can’t help it; I’m really not much of a celebrity gossip-monger. I don’t care if Britney lost custody of her kids or if Milla’s huge as a barn (if she’s pregnant, of course she is, dolts); I don’t even follow the rumors of who’s gay this week despite it being my area of interest (unless it’s Vin Diesel or Wentworth Miller, and that’s more for the sake of my daydreams than anything else). Besides, the girls over at Trashy Celebs are much better at following that hot mess than I am. Every once in a while, though, I run across a steaming pile of idiocy that just demands that I open my mouth and say something.

ANNA’S EX SUES OVER GAY CLAIM - New York Post

October 3, 2007 — ATLANTA - Fiercely denying gay allegations, Anna Nicole Smith’s lawyer and companion, Howard K. Stern, slapped former MSNBC host Rita Cosby with a $60 million libel lawsuit yesterday.

Cosby’s book, “Blonde Ambition: The Untold Story Behind Anna Nicole Smith’s Death,” claims Stern and Smith’s ex-boyfriend Larry Birkhead had a sexual encounter.

The suit, filed in Manhattan federal court, seeks $10 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages from Cosby and Hachette Book Group USA.

[...]Stern’s lawsuit says the book falsely accuses him of criminal lewd acts, homosexual acts, illegal possession and use of cocaine, conspiring to commit murder and kidnapping for ransom.

You can keep rollin’ your eyes till they fall out of your head, baby; that still ain’t gonna fix the stupid.

It’s not just the topic of the article that I find wholly idiotic, although really - first, I don’t know why these people write celebrity tell-alls without grounded evidence when they just know they’ll be called liars and quite possibly sued for more than they made on the book, even if they’re telling the truth. At the same time, though, what’s the point of suing over it? When there are celebrities, there are going to be celebrity tell-alls. Anyone read that horrid book by that woman who claims to have had sex with some hundred-odd celebrities (including my adored Diesel)? I can’t remember the title of it, but it penned multitudes of badly-written graphic sexual encounters and claimed them all to be true. Stern should just be glad he wasn’t involved in that, but then he’s probably not big-name enough.

Here’s what really gets me, though. Go skim that excerpt again. It says “Stern’s lawsuit says the book falsely accuses him of criminal lewd acts, homosexual acts, illegal possession and use of cocaine, conspiring to commit murder and kidnapping for ransom.”

Now check the title of the article.

“ANNA’S EX SUES OVER GAY CLAIM”.

Really? Is that all he’s suing over?

My nerves are getting twerked, kids, and when my nerves start twerkin’, my temper starts rising. What’s the point of sensationalizing the lawsuit to highlight just that one part of it? Frankly, I’d think Stern’s main concerns would be the drug use and murder conspiracy claims, not that he had a romp in the sack with another guy - but this article’s all about making it sound like Stern’s after $60 million just for a claim that he engaged in homosexual sex, and forget the rest of it.

Fine. Where’s my $60 million for the girl who thought I was straight enough to start flirting with me yesterday? I’m insulted, too. My name has been tarnished. I need money.

See how ridiculous that is? Frankly, I would pay to see the day when “gay” stops being such a culturally sensitive and insulting word that people in the news media feel the need to hype it up like that. Whatever happened to objective reporting? Jesus honkin’ Christ, guys, you’re really not doing us a favor, here. Most gay activists are struggling to get mainstream America to accept homosexuality as a commonplace, everyday thing, not a killing offense, and here you are screeching about it as a 60 million dollar insult.

But I suppose the article would bore people otherwise, wouldn’t it.

That’s just sad.

anna nicole smith, howard k. stern, rita crosby, larry birkhead, Blonde Ambition: The Untold Story Behind Anna Nicole Smith’s Death

You may recall that a while back we talked about rumors of a gay couple joining the Desperate Housewives cast, and that I was more interested in Nathan Fillion than in the upcoming entrance of DH into the realm of the pink triangle. Well, for those of you with a more vested interest in these things, it’s been confirmed that Kevin Rahm (Judging Amy) and Tuc Watkins (One Life to Live) will be playing the desperate duo joining the desperate wives.

Allow me, dear readers, a moment to abandon my principles. Allow me to step down from my soapbox on which I preach about substance, rhetoric, philosophy, politics, all things beyond the physical. Allow me, in fact, to be entirely and wonderfully shallow. And once you’ve given me that leeway, take a look at just why:

    

What I’m going to say next will probably get me skinned and crucified as a racist, even though I’m not: I’m not normally into white guys. It’s not a hard and fast rule; your average white guy just doesn’t appeal to me because they tend not to be my type (and everyone has a type; you might as well admit it before you point fingers at me), but I’ve made exceptions to that rule both for personality and for appearance.

Rahm (left) and Watkins (right, the one without the upper body attachments, thanks) are definitely exceptions to that rule.

I have to wonder just how much of their relationship will be portrayed. I’d be amusingly interested to see a bedroom scene a la Bree’s BDSM hijinks; voyeurism aside, I am clinically interested to see how the producers will portray the sexuality involved in a gay relationship - if they even have the balls (no pun intended) to touch on that in prime time TV. Mainstream America does tend to protest such things, you know, and television broadcasters do have to play it safe with their ratings.

I also wonder what kind of on-screen dynamic the two will have, and how well they’ll act the part. It always heightens the character relationships when there’s a natural chemistry between the actors, and that can be a bit more difficult to find when same-sex relationships are portrayed by one or more straight actors (though really, I don’t know much about these two - anyone know anything about their off-screen orientation?).

The more press this gets, the more curious I become. Considering the odd humor of DH, the introduction of a gay couple provides many opportunities to explore serious issues laced with a few good laughs.

desperate housewives, kevin rahm, tuc watkins, gay tv, eva longoria

I admit, I haven’t watched Desperate Housewives since the first season. I’m not normally into prime time dramas, but there was little not to love about DH; it had dry humor, neurotic redheads, a dash of mystery, and the absolutely incandescent Eva Longoria. It was a guilty pleasure* that unfortunately had to fall by the wayside when conflicting work shifts overlapped its broadcast schedule, and I was far too absentminded to remember to tape it every week. By the time that I was able to watch it again, I was too far behind to really spend the time to get caught up, and I’d been distracted by my other guilty pleasure: House, Hugh Laurie, and those devastating eyes.

That may have to change, though, and I may find myself taking a crash-course in Wysteria 101 in order to get caught up in time for the new season and two promising new cast additions: a gay couple, and Nathan Fillion.

The only way that could make me happier is if Nathan played one half of the gay couple; I’ve loved him and his wry delivery of lines ever since Firefly, and I think I’d just about melt my jockeys if I saw the man who played the role of Malcom Reynolds in a liplock with another bloke. (I can think of a few million slashficcing fangirls who’d be reviving all their old Mal/Jayne fics, too, and pairing poor Nathan off with Adam Baldwin for the millionth time.) Fillion, however, will be playing Dr. Adam Luther (with wife played by Dana Delaney), while casting is still open for the two house-husbands desperate to make their debut among the desperate housewives.

I should probably be ashamed that I’m more excited about Nathan Fillion than I am about the bump to the gay quota on mainstream TV’s prime-time lineup, and I’m sure Auntie Noxie will be along presently to revoke a few of my princess points for that transgression - but I can’t help it. My geek-fu is strong, and tends to trump my pink pride nine times out of ten.

Fanboy crush on Fillion aside, though, I think I will try to make time for the upcoming season of DH, because I’m always curious to see how gay couples are portrayed on television. I can’t help but wonder if one of the men will be slated as the “wife” to keep with the theme of desperate housewives, and if they’ll be portrayed in stereotypical fashion. I hope not; there’s a bad habit of slotting the two halves of a same-sex couple into preset male/female roles, as if that’s the only dynamic that’s workable, acceptable, and understandable to mainstream viewers.

I’m going to hold out hope that the producers of Desperate Housewives won’t fall into that trap, and anticipate a fresh and innovative portrayal of gay life in suburbia. Will I be disappointed? Who knows. But I know that I will fairly soon be settling down with borrowed DVDs of the seasons I’ve missed, a tub of popcorn, and a weekend of completely wasted time indulging in my guilty pleasure.

…and I call my boyfriend a pop culture whore?

*Anything involving TV is a guilty pleasure for me. I don’t like broadcast TV. Give me a book or film any day.

desperate housewives, nathan fillion, gay tv, eva longoria

My boyfriend is such a pop-culture whore. From the way he was squealing about Paris Hilton’s disinheritance, you’d think he’d just been crowned Miss Drag Queen of America on his birthday. [insert headshake here]

Late start today, but sometimes the combination of pillows + snooze button is just too damned seductive. It took paws batting at my face (my cat hates my alarm) and the prospect of French roast to get me out of bed and browsing the headlines to see just who’s spilling crazy all over the news today.

So…I have a question for you. How would you feel knowing that your sexuality is now a matter for national security?

Unfortunately, that’s not a hypothetical question. Travelers in the U.S. and the European Union may soon be required to vouchsafe such information for the sake of passenger safety and counterterrorism initiatives.

Travelers Face Greater Use of Personal Data - Washington Post

The United States and the European Union have agreed to expand a security program that shares personal data about millions of U.S.-bound airline passengers a year, potentially including information about a person’s race, ethnicity, religion and health.

Under the agreement, airlines flying from Europe to the United States are required to provide data related to these matters to U.S. authorities if it exists in their reservation systems. The deal allows Washington to retain and use it only “where the life of a data subject or of others could be imperiled or seriously impaired,” such as in a counterterrorism investigation.

According to the deal, the information that can be used in such exceptional circumstances includes “racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership” and data about an individual’s health, traveling partners and sexual orientation.

This is taking paranoia too far. The article goes on to cite that a simple request for a wheelchair for a handicapped passenger could be recorded in their file, with the explanation that passengers could use wheelchairs or casts to hide explosives. Suddenly anyone who doesn’t fit the profile of the perfect, healthy passenger of X race and Y faith is a potential terrorist.

Now…I can understand some of those criteria, even if they do involve racial profiling; it can still be an unfortunate necessity. But the data on health and sexual orientation is just ridiculous. What, are they afraid a fag with a McDonald’s addiction is going to bring down an airplane because he’s upset about his high cholesterol and loss of his girlish figure, and wants to destroy the capitalist pigs that made McDonald’s possible?

Uh-huh. Sure.

Someone explain to me how your health or sexual orientation could increase the possibility of terrorist activity. Please. I’d just love to hear this one.

paris hilton, hilton hotels, counterterrorism, united states, european union, travel restrictions

Anyone remember that whimsical little song? They’re coming to take me away, ha-ha; they’re coming to take me away, ho-ho, hee-hee, ha-ha! To the funny farm, where life is beautiful all the time and I’ll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats! With any luck, members of the GBLTQ community will no longer have to worry about those nice young men just for discussing their sexuality with their mental health professionals. The American Psychological Association has a decade-old policy that has allowed for mental health professionals to view homosexuality as something that can and, at the discretion of the psychiatrist, should be ‘cured’ even if it isn’t classified as a mental illness. This is known as reparative or conversion therapy. The policy, however, is thankfully coming under review:

Psychologists To Review Stance On Gays - 365gay.com

(New York City) The American Psychological Association is embarking on the first review of its 10-year-old policy on counseling gays and lesbians, a step that gay-rights activists hope will end with a denunciation of any attempt by therapists to change sexual orientation.

[...]The current APA policy, adopted in 1997, opposes any counseling that treats homosexuality as a mental illness, but does not explicitly denounce reparative therapy. The APA has decided to review the policy at a time when gay-rights groups are increasingly critical of such treatment and groups that support it.

Conservatives contend that the review’s outcome is preordained because the task force is dominated by gay-rights supporters.

I, for one, could not be more relieved. For the American Psychological Association to emphasize that homosexuality is not something that can or that needs to be ‘fixed’ should go a long way towards fostering acceptance in the United States. We are born this way, and we shouldn’t have to feel as if there’s something wrong with us for being the way that nature (or God, depending on your beliefs) made us. It would also be a slap in the face of ex-gay ministries…which is probably why many conservative and religious organizations are up in arms about this.

I don’t understand why they insist that reparative/conversion therapy remain a viable option; their argument is that therapists and other psychological professionals should retain practices that respect patients whose religious views conflict with homosexuality. I think it’s quite possible to retain a respect of those views in mental health/counseling practices without actually enacting conversion. It’s quite possible for a therapist to counsel a religious homosexual on their sexuality without engaging in possibly harmful therapy to turn them straight. A balance can be struck here; it just requires a willingness to consider both sides and a basic understanding of human rights.

I only hope that the review yields favorable results.

Moving on - if you’re not doing anything on the evening of August 9th, I hope you’ll be parked in front of your TV or your computer tuned into either the LOGO network or LOGO website. Both the channel and website will be broadcasting the very first ever presidential candidate debate dedicated solely to GBLTQ issues. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards will be participating; other Democratic candidates may also be involved. The broadcast is at 9 p.m. ET (6:00 p.m. ET) and I know I’ll be glued to LOGOonline, watching the streaming broadcast.

Anyone else wondering why the Republican candidates won’t be involved in that debate? [snrk]

apa, american psychological association, reparative therapy, conversion therapy, homosexuality, therapy, presidential debate, democratic candidates, GBLTQ issues, 2008 presidential election, LOGO, hillary clinton, barack obama, john edwards

I’m not in the mood to be pissed off about gay news today. Being a blog columnist with a topic so political and divisive can be damned depressing sometimes, and today I refuse to do that. It’s my day off from my other jobs and I have all I need to relax right here: a huge mug of coffee, Haagen-Dazs flavored like Bailey’s Irish Cream (no, it’s not alcoholic), and some serious boy-toy eye candy to look at:

That, my friends, is Wentworth Miller, star of Fox’s Prison Break. I’ll confess, I had never taken more than a passing glance at the boy until now; I don’t watch TV, really. It’s just not my thing. I’m a book-nerd, I download a few hundred gigabytes of movies at a time on Vongo and love going to the movie theatre across the street from my apartment, and when I’m not reading I’m working on the novel or bumming around with the boyfriend. (Yes, I have one now. Long story.) But oh my, that piece of pretty right there might just change that when season three rolls around. I’m allowed to be shallow every once in a while, and I’d watch the show for him even if rumors weren’t floating around that he’s definitely gay and dating Luke McFarlane. That boy sets my adrenals off almost as much as Hugh Laurie or Vin Diesel. Yes, Vin Diesel. Every once in a while I get the hots for a big dumb lunk of smooth, bald-headed, gritty-voiced muscle.

While my mind is firmly entrenched in the gutter, though, let’s take a serious second to divert and talk about something sexual that’s not so sexy: STDs. You know it’s a serious issue in the gay community, unless you’ve had your head firmly buried in the sand. And it’s getting more serious:

U.S. tracks serious form of syphilis in gay men - Yahoo News

A particularly serious form of the sexually transmitted bacterial disease syphilis has been detected in gay and bisexual U.S. men infected with the AIDS virus, federal health officials reported on Thursday.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracked 49 HIV-infected gay and bisexual men who had “symptomatic early neurosyphilis” from January 2002 to June 2004 in four cities — Los Angeles, San Diego, Chicago, New York.

The CDC cited the report as further evidence that gay and bisexual men, many also infected with HIV, are the driving force behind increases in U.S. syphilis cases this decade.

The findings also indicate that these men are engaging in the same risky, unprotected sex that can spread the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS.

I can not stress enough that no matter how invincible you think you are, no matter how much you might think it’ll be okay “just this one time” because hey, what are the odds: always practice safe sex. I have too many friends, my generation and older, who are just too careless and reckless - in fact, it’s an unfortunate stereotype of the gay community that too many of us reinforce. Indiscriminate and unsafe sex. Why do we do it when we know the risks? Because it feels better that way?

Yeah, and I’m sure dealing with whatever disease you picked up, every day for the rest of your life, feels great. Guys: please, please make sure you use a condom. It’s not just there to prevent pregnancy, as that sure as hell ain’t a concern when you and your partner have the same junk ridin’ around in your jeans. Guys and girls: get tested regularly, whether you’re frequently sexually active or just have a one-nighter here and there, and be careful whose bodily fluids go where if you’re with someone that hasn’t been recently tested and that you don’t trust implicitly. Even if you’re in a long-term relationship and you trust the other person enough to have unprotected sex with them, both of you should be tested regularly not because you don’t trust each other, but for your own health. Sexually transmitted diseases are not to be taken lightly; they can infect you for life, and shorten that life expectancy severely.

I shouldn’t have to tell you that. But considering the statistics of STDs in the gay community, obviously many of us are far too careless, and we need all the reminders we can get.

Be safe. Care enough about yourself, and about others, to take that little extra step.

I am out of here, kids, so have a good weekend and I’ll see you Monday with a new No Style comic.

Don’t do anything I wouldn’t do before a few tequila shots,
~Adri

wentworth miller, luke mcfarlane, prison break, stds, unsafe sex, sexually transmitted diseases, hiv, aids, syphilis

Look, my subject line vaguely rhymes. Special. Didn’t I say I’d stop doing that many posts back? Anyway…before I dive into what I really want to talk about, let me just say that Isaiah Washington is full of you-know-what.

Washington says ABC should have fired cast mate Knight instead - Houston Chronicle

Isaiah Washington, fired this month from “Grey’s Anatomy” following the firestorm he started with a homophobic invective, hit back at the network Thursday.

“They fired the wrong guy,” the 43-year-old actor said in an interview with the Houston Chronicle.

He blames former cast mate T.R. Knight for stoking the scandal that led him to lose his role in the ABC hit. Knight is the one who should have been let go, he told the newspaper. [...] Washington, who said he is considering a lawsuit, accused Knight of exploiting the controversy in order to get a salary increase and to enhance his role.

I am so sick of hearing about this. Do I think he should have been fired? Honestly, no. He did his time, and the incident could have died down. He made the appropriate reparations and he’ll think twice about making idiotic comments afterwards. Do I believe his conspiracy theory about T.R. Knight exploiting the situation for a raise and an enhanced role?

[snort] Puh-lease. Tell me another one. Sour grapes, sour apples, whatever you want to call it, that’s just bitterness talking, and it’s as ugly as the backdrop in that press photo. I’d contact Washington myself to see what he would say in response to that (since he is a “hometown” boy and maybe his publicist might speak to someone local if they thought I had any press cred, since they spoke to the Houston Chronicle) but I doubt I’d even get a form letter in rejection.

Now that our daily dose of celeb gossip is out of the way, let’s move on to being ever-so-serious in discussing social perceptions and stigmas surrounding homosexuality. Specifically, I’d like to take a look at a recent little kerfluffle in Kentucky that probably won’t ever make it beyond local media coverage, but that I think illustrates the point I’d like to discuss rather well:

GOP chief accused of implying two Democrats are gay - Kentucky Courier-Journal

State Republican Party Chairman Steve Robertson drew bipartisan condemnation today for what critics said was a veiled effort to imply that two Democratic candidates are gay. … [In] a column he distributed to some newspapers, [it] draws an analogy to the fairy tale “Hansel and Gretel” and says that if Stumbo is Hansel, then attorney general candidate Jack Conway and Dan Mongiardo, Beshear’s running mate for lieutenant governor, “could easily play the role of Gretel.”

Conway, a Louisville attorney, reacted angrily, saying he resented the implication that he is gay.

“They start a false rumor and they peddle it,” he said in an interview, referring to Robertson and Gov. Ernie Fletcher. “When they can’t lead, they lie. They are hate-mongers and fear-mongers that owe my wife an apology.”

It’s not the first time Republicans have made such a suggestion about Mongiardo.

They were accused of gay-baiting in his 2004 campaign against Republican U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning. State legislators campaigning for Bunning said that Mongiardo, a state senator from Hazard, was “limp-wristed,” a “switch-hitter” and “not a man.”

You know what bugs me the most about this? It’s not the childish, dirty politics, though that alone is annoying enough. It’s the fact that not one side, but both viewed any allegations of being gay as an insult. Honestly, the whole thing is ridiculous and blown out of proportion, and I think they’re looking for things that aren’t there with the Hansel and Gretel reference implying homosexuality–though I can understand if they’re sensitive to it after the more obvious slurs used in the past. But it wouldn’t have been blown so out of proportion if “gay” wasn’t seen to be as grievous and blatant an insult as “your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries!” (If you don’t get the reference, you need to watch Monty Python.)

If the possibility of being gay wasn’t considered by society to be such a negative thing, then this wouldn’t be an issue. Even people who are supportive of gays and our rights will often recoil, insulted, if you ask if they’re gay. Why? Asking if someone likes the same sex should be as much of a personal insult as asking if someone likes broccoli. (For the record? I hate broccoli.) Don’t like it? No? Then say so and move on. It’s not something to be mortally offended over, and it shouldn’t be a question that would somehow cause harm to your personal reputation. Thinking someone is gay is not something that you should have to apologize to them or their spouse for, at least not in such a serious manner. A simple “Oh, you’re not? My bad” should suffice for both parties, and then it’s forgotten.

But it’s not so easy as that, is it? The pink triangle has become the scarlet letter of the twenty-first century, a label that no one wants to be slandered with, and even those who are “guilty” face being stigmatized for wearing the label proudly. How do you change the mindset of an entire culture? How do you educate millions - even billions - of people to change the deep-set stigma against the possibility that one might be gay? This stigma is why children are afraid to come out to their parents. This stigma is why even those who are openly gay are often insecure about it. This stigma is why, even if you ask a “tolerant” person if they’re gay for some reason or another, they often can’t just brush the question off with a laugh and will instead behave as if you just accused them of some perversion. This stigma is why people face insecurity about their sexuality, whether gay or straight, with violent rejection.

This stigma is, in a large part, why homophobia exists.

Being gay is not wrong. Being gay should not be an insult. Whether being gay is or is not a part of who you are…mere allegations of homosexuality should not be a cause for a scandal.

Confirm or deny, but don’t take insult to something that never should have been an insult at all.

isaiah washington, t.r. knight, grey’s anatomy, homophobia, gay slurs, bunning, mongiardo, steve robertson

The following was submitted as an “Ask Adri” question, but while I’m honestly not sure what constructive opinion I could offer on this, I wanted to share it with everyone anyway. (Warning: graphic imagery ahead.)

Dear Adrian,

I wanted your take on the anti-discrimination campaign that started here last week to make people aware of the new laws Europe instated.

There’s posters, post cards, spots on tv and banners on the internet. The slogan is ‘Discriminating is illegal. And inhuman.’
In these pictures, people’s bodies are shown, and they have labels sewed on.

Amongst others, there’s a woman in a wheelchair with the label ‘dead weight’. There’s a coloured boy labeled ’scum’. There’s a young mother who’s pregnant with her second child labeled ‘takes advantage’. And there’s two guys kissing. One is labeled ‘abnormal’, the other ‘contagious’. (I added the picture, the only one I could find was of the gay couple, it’s the French version though.)

In the TV spot The label he get’s sewed on says ‘different’, and the voices in the back are saying:
‘They just don’t want to work, those parasites…’
‘If I get to choose, I’d rather hire a man for this job…’
‘You can never be too carefull, with all that AIDS and stuff…’
‘Those people don’t care about getting a job, they’re all scum.’

You can imagine the reactions. Half the people don’t care, one quarter is shocked and appalled, and the rest of us think it’s brilliant, daring, will open many eyes.

Me, I cringe when I see the spot on tv. You actually see them sew the label on. I’m not sure what to think. It could be good, really good. But it might be too much. Harsh images and shock effects can certainly work, but… It’s a double edged blade.

What do you think?

The TV spot in question:

Give me a second to stop squirming. Oh, jeebus. The video itself isn’t that bad; I just have issues with needles going into anything other that cloth. (Adri + syringes = NO.)

Truthfully I don’t even think there’s that much shock value involved, but then I’ve seen worse in American adverts, so I may be the wrong person to ask; cultural differences have probably desensitized me to this sort of thing. Still, I can see where some would be incensed or disturbed by this sort of advertising.

The question to ask is this: is it shocking enough to get them to take notice, and then stop and consider the message - or is it so shocking that the message is lost in the horrified reaction to the imagery? I think in this case it’s the former; yes, it’s a little graphic, but no more graphic than watching House or Grey’s Anatomy, and the graphic imagery isn’t played up to grotesque extremes. There’s just enough to be effective and to make sure that you’re paying attention while the point is driven home. At the same time it gives you something to think about on a more subtle level: those labels are painful. In the advert they become physically painful rather than emotionally painful, but the implication of pain is there and registers on a subconscious level to lead people closer to understanding that discrimination hurts in many ways.

When shock advertising is used with immaturity, where the blatant goal is only to disgust while the message itself is secondary, it fails and becomes a cause for public outcry. I don’t think this is one of those situations. I think it was handled with tact and maturity and even if I’m squirming looking at those needles, I admire how cleverly it was done.

I told you I have nothing of value to offer here, but that’s my opinion. Maybe others reading this will have a different take on things. Either way, thank you for sharing this with everyone.

Needle-phobically yours,
~Adri

ask adri, anti-discrimination campaigns, shock advertising, labels

Grey’s Washington in Gay Rights Ad - Time

 
(NEW YORK) — Isaiah Washington, who came under fire after using an anti-gay slur, will appear in a public service announcement on behalf of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

I’m going to have to call BS. Once a jerkhole, always a jerkhole, and I’m sure I’m not the only one thinking of Mel Gibson. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was even compulsory in order to avoid some more punitive action. ‘Seeking counseling’, my arse; counseling doesn’t really cure someone of being a jerk, and frankly I don’t see how his appearances in PSAs are going to do us or anyone else much good.

I’d say that I suppose it’s a good thing that I never watched Grey’s anyway, but I’m going to be shamefully honest: If that had been Hugh Laurie instead of Isaiah Washington, it wouldn’t stop me from watching House. Then again, Hugh Laurie has those eyes…Isaiah Washington has…has…

…well, nothin’ that appeals to me. No, I’m not being shallow and I’m not just saying that because I think he’s a homophobic twit. He’s just not my type. I’m sure someone out there finds him attractive, but I’d take Will Smith over him any day.

’scuse me if I’m being catty. I’m still a little ticked off that someone thought it was cute to sign me up for repeated bombardments of the Reverend Lou Sheldon’s newsletter; even after unsubscribing I’m constantly receiving e-mails urging me to protect my religious freedoms by contacting my Congressman and asking them to vote no on HR 1592. Because, of course, the entire bill is just a sleazy, sick part of the ‘gay agenda’ designed for the sole purpose of preventing ministers from exercising their crucial right to read out of the Bible about homosexuality and its evils. We dirty, dirty gays are sneaky like that.

Sure. Yeah. Tell me another one. Like that pile of horse pocky about ‘the liberal media’ as a conscious singular entity whose every act is a conspiracy to defame and thwart the conservative right.

…if I ever find out who put me on that mailing list…

isaiah washington, grey’s anatomy, homophobia, gay and lesbian alliance against defamation, gay lesbian & straight education network, psa, mel gibson, hugh laurie, house, reverend lou sheldon, hr 1592, hate crimes bill