Enjoy Your Fashions / Uncategorized Who Wears Short Shorts? Brett Favre!

Posted on November 19th, 2009 by Vagenius
No Comments »

Eliot posts twice in a week! Does this mean he’ll be contributing more regular additions to the blog? Stay tuned… Read the rest of his posts here.

At least in New York, short denim shorts were all the rage last summer.  Hipster homos from Williamsburg to …Williamsburg were showing loads of deliciously pasty thigh, including myself (and much to my chagrin).

Awesome L.A.-based comic James Adomian, however, asks:  what if Brett Favre and the boys threw around the pigskin wearing the same stuff as the ladies in the Nair commercials (oh, and every dude sipping a PBR at Metro between May and September).

Wrangler Really Tiny Jean Shorts – watch more funny videos
Men on Film Was the Real Point of Precious To Ask, “What The Fuck Is Mariah Carey??????”

Posted on November 18th, 2009 by Colin
6 Comments »

This last weekend I saw the modern urban tale much publicized by executive producers Tyler Perry and Oprah Winfrey, Precious. SPOILER ALERT! It’s depressing!!!

Want to read some reviews? I was really impressed by Armond White’s review for the New York Press heavily crticizing the identity politics at play in the story. But for a white gay male review, which I figure is more applicable to the readership here, I’d suggest Rich’s review on his blog FourFour (which actually tries to serve as a response to some of White’s criticisms).

My opinion is pretty simple and I’m not going to spend a lot of time explaining or defending it. I liked Precious. However, I think that the hype is more due to sensational subject matter rather than the actual film making. I thought Mo’Nique’s scenes were fairly manipulative storytelling and maybe would make more sense in a short format rather than a feature length film. My favorite parts were actually the classroom scenes, which abandoned the stylized, grease smeared, low lit scenes of abuse in Precious’ apartment for a more improvised, almost cinema verité style and tone. The way I see the movie, Lee Daniels used so many different styles of storytelling in this movie that there are basically 4 different movies smushed together in one. I think it’s effective, since different people will probably relate to these very different moments, causing the emotional impact to effect a wider audience. But it’s not something I would label as anything more than mediocre film making.

What I’m interested in, which no one seems to have pointed out, are a couple moments where, when one considers the star power/personas associated with the film, real life and the story being told seemed to clash for a moment in the way that we as an audience might react.

The first one  was a scene when Precious and the alterna-schooled kids actually start talking about people watching Oprah. I can’t help but question whether or not this qualifies as a shameless shill. Yes, in 1987 Oprah was a common cultural touchstone for people to relate with. But since she’s attached as an executive producer, is this a secret sell of her brand/identity/show? All I remember is that the dialogue about Oprah went on for what seemed like a really long time.

The second, and by far the more important moment, is when Precious is at the welfare office and askes Mariah Carey ( playing her social worker) “What are you?” And then Mariah doesn’t tell her. Because it’s a secret. Forever I just thought Mariah Carey was a white girl, but then, when one considers all these different racial minority groups that seem to relate to her, I just don’t know anymore. And maybe, just maybe, I came out of the film thinking the real point of Precious was to get me to question Mariah Carey’s racial identity. Not that I’d ever think something so shallow and flippant after watching a movie that tackles heavier issues.

What are you Mariah?!!1!!

wtfmariah

Are you Mexican, Mariah?

mexicanmariah

Are you Black, Mariah?

blackmariah

Are you Italian Mariah?

italianmariah

Are you Irish, Mariah?

irishmariah

Are you Alien, Mariah?

alienmariah

WHAT ARE YOU MARIAH?!?!?!

wtfmariah-ani

Retaygay Beer, Bath, and Beefcake = YES

Posted on November 15th, 2009 by Vagenius
No Comments »

The resident co-founder and awesome blogger Eliot occasionally finds the time to write here at GMSC. In this post, he finds perhaps the hottest wasted frat boy ever. You can see all of his posts here.

It’s not often I wish I were back in college.  At the time, I was doughy, naive, and dressed exclusively like a homeless clown.  I also went to NYU (where I met Colin, GSMC overlord and beloved hot nude yoga partner), meaning that I probably could have spent less time on LiveJournal and more time figuring out how to not be a total dummy, frequenting stupid Manhattan twink bars every weekend, always to exit devastated that I couldn’t figure out I felt so unnerved and alone (answer: BECAUSE TWINK BARS ARE BREEDING GROUNDS FOR THE WORSTS).

However, Brendan in Apt. 4010 (otherwise known as MY DREAM HOUSE) at the Chinstrap Beard University could easily get me to sign up for grad school.  Because I know myself better now and would likely feel significantly more comfortable going out of my way to score a room in whatever stinky dorm room houses this guy who takes baths in cans of beer.

~*~*~<3 <3 BE MY STUDY PARTNER??? XoXo~*~*~

Cruisin' Should I Stalk Davey Wavey? No Really… Should I Stalk Davey Wavey?

Posted on November 15th, 2009 by Colin
9 Comments »

So some of you ‘mos might already know about this guy since he has 50k subscribers, gets very naked for his vlogs, has legitimately great line delivery, and tackles gay topics in a non-offensive and cute-entertaining way. His name: Davey Wavey.

Well, not so long ago he posted a little vlog that upset one of my favorite YouTubers, Gay Family Values. Here’s the vlog:

Yes, it’s clever. It’s cute. He looks great without his shirt on. Cool. Whatever.

But Gay Family Values was upset that it didn’t address the decision in Maine to take marriage rights away from the gay population, a group that fought hard for those rights and (duh) deserves the,. Given Davey Wavey’s popularity, this gay dad would have liked to see issues that severely affect him actually addressed by the little hot twink. Here’s his uncharacteristically negative vlog:

So this whole exchange got me thinking. Two big thoughts actually:

1) Should I blog about politics? I always considered this more the realm of gay news bloggers like my favorite internet DILF Joe My God. Is it irresponsible of me as a gay blogger to ignore the current political climate and just blog about whatever the hell I feel, whether it be hot roller derby coaches or recaps of Dante’s Cove? I mean, I only post about once a week these days soooooo… is this an obligation or are other bloggers already filling that niche? Is it the responsibility of entertainment based blogs/vlogs like me and Wavey to talk about the important things happening on the front of gay rights in recent history?

2) Should I stalk Davey Wavey? Really. I will leave crazy ass devotional video responses to each of his new vlogs if I get three comments here affirming that this is a good decision. I have a weird crush on his crazy twink steez. He makes me feel the way I imagine 12 year old girls feel when they see a newly released trailer for New Moon. I mean he’s kinda funny, but my taste is really more up the alley of my new favorite internet source of laffs, Edith Zimmerman. I don’t understand my attraction to him at all, except maybe it’s that he has perfect skin and a bangin’ bod. However, he’s hairless, so what? Confused by my own libido right now. Hell, stalking D-dubs sounds like fun so I’ll probably do it anyways, I just want the validation that people read this and think it’s a good idea. So please leave comments and tell me if you would like to see me leave inappropriate devotional vid responses for Davey Wavey. I promise to blog about it if you few readers tell me to.

cumondaveywavey

Maybe the reason I’m feeling so Devo is that I am listening to the Cardigans while writing this. Davey Wavey, you make me feel fine, gurl. See you on the netz, queen.

For Serious, Guys So When Is It Ok To Use The Word “Faggot?”

Posted on November 12th, 2009 by Colin
3 Comments »

faggot18ba8fs

Last week South Park pissed off GLAAD. I know, big surprise, South Park pissed someone off. Most of the time South Park uses its offensive humor to try and send a subversive message that is generally well meaning. Normally, the people pissed off just misunderstand the intention and context of the message. Against my general inclination to love subversive highly offensive humor, I think GLAAD actually has a point here, especially after reading their full call to action and defense.

The South Park episode in question here was November 4th “The F-Word.” I have to say that I haven’t been able to watch the full thing, which is too bad. For some strange reason the full episode was available online on Tuesday when my internet connection was acting slow and wouldn’t stream properly, but today there is a message in its place saying it is unavailable until December 5th. I did, however, watch all 14 clips posted on the South Park web site and enough summaries where I feel like I have a good enough grasp of the episode content to have a valid opinion.

I’d like to preface my next arguments with a disclaimer. I am not PERSONALLY offended by anything in the episode. I also occasionally use the word “fag” as a term of endearment with my friends, and, until recent years, thought the only purpose of the word was as a hilarious and ineffectual insult. Much like my love of the word “cunt,” I love the word “faggot” and don’t have any personal problem with the South Park episode. However, I am NOT GLAAD, because if I was GLAAD, and not some gay guy with his brain in the gutter with a compulsive tendency to utter obscenities for his own enjoyment, I would be pissed and I would have every right to be pissed.

The argument in favor of the episode, and of labeling GLAAD a dinosaur, is as follows: South Park is trying to highlight a social issue by having its characters redefine “faggot” to mean noisy biker gangs, and by re-appropriating the terms, are actually on the side of gay rights by using the term as something other than a slur intended to hurt gay people. The word “faggot” CAN be re-appropriated and gay people shouldn’t be so sensitive about it anymore. This is analogous to the kids today who call each other “faggot” and are no longer ACTUALLY referring to gay people, just like how the word “gay” no longer necessarily means “homosexual.” We should all grow a back bone and realize that gay people are no longer the target of the hateful words and embrace “faggot” the way “queer” has been embraced by our community.

Take a look at the logic there, because I just find it to be wrong and misinformed on so many levels.

Let’s start this off with a very simple comparison with the word “nigger.” Let’s do a quick comparison of how the black community has responded to a slur rooted in the oppression of their population.

An article in Black Press from a couple years back lays out the black community’s contemporary attitudes toward the word. The officials of the black community have symbolically “buried” the term, clearly showing that the president of the NAACP no longer sees the word as a symbol of oppression within dominate culture. The article notes, “It remains a symbol of racism, but also is used by blacks when referring to other blacks, especially in comedy routines and rap and hip-hop music.” Black hip hop artists defend themselves explaining that the work is, as Rhymefest quotes, “for people who use the word in their lives.”

The thing to take away from this Black Press article is that the intended audience of the work and the identity of the creator matters, a lot. In work by black people made for black audiences, there’s a lot more leeway in the acceptable use of the racial slur in question. This is why Michael Richards is asked to issue a public apology while T.I. can pretty much do whatever we wants.

So following the societal standards above, set for the use of the N-word, let’s see where the South Park episode falls in this spectrum.

Trey Parker and Matt Stone are not gay, as far as the public knows. They are both straight white males, meaning that they are using this term from the vantage point of artists with both straight and white privilege. Here’s where we have our first problem, the basic identity politics at play don’t give them privilege to use the slur.

But let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. I’d feel safe betting both of them were called fags by their peers growing up. Let’s pretend that they have sympathy and understanding for the gay community. Somehow, Trey Parker and Matt Stone really get “gay issues” and their episode “The F-word” was made primarily with a gay audience in mind. They’re trying to raise the issue in defense of gays, right?

A quick look at the viewing demographics for South Park would strongly suggest otherwise. South Park is the number one show in its time slot as of the end of October 2009, with a 12.29% market share. On top of that, as of a year ago, Nielsen reported that South Park is the number one program that has the highest level of Republican engagement. We can quickly infer that South Park is in reality a program for the sort of people that would probably vote against gay people’s right to marriage, and more importantly, would probably vote against the hate crime law. These are people that DO NOT understand the power of a slur and the way that it relates to very real bullying and violence towards gay people. The place the word most likely occupies in this population’s life is as a word they say to insult others, not a word that gets hurled at them.

But maybe, just MAYBE, the program contextualizes it in a manner that is understandably still in favor of gay people and has something really progressive to say. Maybe Republicans just happen to watch the program en masse? Here’s a quick clip to give you an idea of how South Park uses the term “faggot” within the context of the program:

A quick examination of the character’s reactions and the motivations will show that “faggot” is not being relegated as inoffensive or appropriated in a new way. The biker’s are offended BECAUSE the word is rooted in a history of being a hated, beat up, sissy boy. Cartman and team choose the word BECAUSE it will offend the biker’s sense of masculinity. The comedy in the scene comes from the fact that it’s a hateful word rooted in violence and hatred of gay people. Calling a bunch of butch bikers “faggots” does nothing to re-appropriate or take away the harm intended behind the word. Besides, I wouldn’t be surprised to see men that look like the guys in the biker gang chillin’ at The Eagle.

It seems to me the only way to defend the specific use of the word “faggot” here is to adopt the same sort of lax attitude towards the term that allows teachers, mentors, and parents all over the us ignore the type of bullying, intimidation, and social pressure that makes gay, lesbian, and questioning youth four times more likely to commit suicide than their straight peers. This episode can only be funny if “faggot” still has power in the real world and gay people can be hurt by it. It’s irresponsible of Matt and Trey to broadcast a show that sends a message that it’s a term that can be used lightly. That’s why GLAAD needed to respond, because no matter how you frame it, South Park was in the wrong here.

This same sort of realization has informed my own use of the word in the last two years. While calling my friends “fags” in an endearing way might be ok within MY community, the term still holds real power in other contexts, especially with children. I write my blog, primarily for adults and primarily for other queers, and while I feel comfortable dropping the occasional fag bomb, I have really begun to change my opinion and my own use of the slur in recent years. Unlike “nigger,” now buried beneath a tombstone by the NAACP, “faggot” is still alive and well harming people as it sees fit. It has never been symbolically killed.

So do Trey and Matt owe the apology GLAAD asked for? Did they transgress with their use of the term the same way that Michael Richards did when he chose to use a slur that doesn’t belong to his heritage?  You better bet those fucking faggots did and I can’t wait to hear their whiny faggot apology.

[image on top via this dude's MySpace]

I Can Love Whoever I Want There Are Just Too Many Hot Roller Derby Guys To Keep Track Of!!1!11!!

Posted on November 5th, 2009 by Colin
5 Comments »

I wanted to sincerely thank you all for all your awesome comments and submissions for new hot roller derby coaches and referees that I should be oggling that I missed before.Special shout out to longtime reader Arch Noble for his FOUR great submissions, two of which I have crazy crushes on.

I’m also learning new things about the derby world. Commenter Romo used the word “merby”? What is this “merby”? Is it just a bunch of hot alternative-ish dudes in tights beating each other up? Because that also sounds like a wet dream I had the other night.

Since you all made that entry one of the more popular things written here in a while, I wanted to repost some of your awesome submissions. With some added teen-beat commentary, duhz.

Bench Coach Magnum P.I.M.P. of St. Louis’ Arch Rival Rollergirls

lg-magnum

Manager Johnny Arson, CT Roller Derby

Sabotage-Team-2009

The infamous Mr. Rawk of Seattle, formerly of the Gotham City Roller Derby. (note: A lot of you responded “ew” to this, but whatevs, dude seems like a good time.)

rawk

Bench Coach Dr. Feel Good of the Carolina Rollergirls.

feelgood

CupplesSk8, a referee with the Carolina Rollergirls.

anonyref

Coach Bomb from Maine Roller Derby. Too bad about the results of Question 1 or else I’d propose! (too soon?)

bomb