11/03/2005
Carson Kressley responds to a homophobic Australian radio host who called him a pompous prig and a pillow biter: "All that fuss over little old me. The prig part I will take, I don't even know what that means. It sounds like an apricot and a fig mixed together, some sort of exotic fruit which is very accurate when describing me. He called me a pompous prig (and) I really took offence to being called pompous. Everyone should be able to speak their mind as long as they are not telling lies, but I'm not pompous." A gay rights activist, Gary Burns, filed a complaint against the host and a local commission ruled in Burns' favor after the outburst.
Gael García Bernal plays with balls soft as cotton.
NBA players Paul Pierce, Danny Fortson, and Robert Parish react to the notion of a gay among them.
Parish: "Pro sports are all about macho, having that chip on your shoulder from all that testosterone flowing through the locker room. Nothing's taboo in a pro locker room, except family members. Everything else is free game. It's a male chauvinist environment at its highest. A player like that could even suffer some bodily harm if he wasn't careful. I'm afraid we've got a long ways to go. I know I won't see a change in my lifetime. Maybe my children's lifetime, though."
Man kills five point deer with bare hands in Arkansas. "For 40 exhausting minutes, Wayne Goldsberry battled a buck with his bare hands in his daughter's bedroom. Goldsberry finally subdued the five-point whitetail deer that crashed through a bedroom window at his daughter's home Friday. When it was over, blood splattered the walls and the deer lay dead on the bedroom floor, its neck broken." Said Deputy Doug Gay: "He got kicked several times. He was walking bowlegged for a while. At this time of year, a buck that sees its reflection in a window often charges, believing it is fighting off a rival."
Posted 9:45 AM EST by Andy Towle in Elsewhere | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Is the deer story relevant because the deputy's name is Gay? Works for me.
Posted by: Nicholas | Nov 3, 2005 10:06:39 AM
I'm willing to sign a pledge and even pay a fee to read about Madge and breeder eye candy everyday until Totie Fields rises from the dead and grows another leg if you would just spare us the Carson Capades. He may be catnip to gays who are out but safe in their urban circles but he is the embodiment of every stereotype short of pedophilia that keeps Mr. & Mrs. Middle America believing all the bad things about us including pedophilia, and keeps their gay male kids in the closet far too long because "I'm not like that." The fact that some are and that there is nothing wrong with being a nelly airhead [in this case only pretend—the airhead part that is], shrieking and mincing through life while dropping cheap double entendres at every turn like a string of broken fake pearls and wearing outfits that look like the 60s threw up on him is beside the point. It's bad PR just like Stepin Fetchit and Amos & Andy were for Blacks. Countless gays, fag hags, and freshman liberals bought the hype that he's just a more fem Moses who led us out of the wilderness of homophobia to the Promised Land as easily as millions of Americans have bought Bush's multiple editions of malarkey. We might and do laugh, but the main reason any straights embraced him is because he fulfills their feelings of masculine/normal superiority—just like Stepin Fetchit and Amos & Andy (originally played by WHITE guys on the radio) made non-Blacks comfortable in their racism—"Them colored folks sure are funny." Therefore, the joke is on us. We pause for the predictable "You're too serious" posts.
Posted by: Tagg | Nov 3, 2005 11:33:18 AM
Carson Kressley's opinions are not the issue here. John Laws, the broadcaster against whom the complaint was made, is a serial offender when it comes to breaches of broadcasting rules and good taste. But he has a huge following and the protection of sky-high ratings. Any attempt to bring him to heel is worthwhile.
Posted by: Brian | Nov 3, 2005 3:52:26 PM
Keep up the wrist exercises, Tagg. That way no one will be able to tell you're a self-loathing faggot. As for your closer, by the hysteria in that posting, you're nowhere near serious...perhaps closer to "laughable" . Finally in case it wasn't clear from a previous post where you went after me for restraining invective --- fuck off.
Posted by: resurrect | Nov 3, 2005 7:38:00 PM
Oops, I forgot the obligatory "self-loathing faggot" label. Would you call a person of color who dared suggest that Amos & Andy were counterproductive a "self-loathing nigger." She who is without sin should not throw misplaced periods and entirely imaginary punctuation such as three hyphens with spaces on either side. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.
Posted by: Tagg | Nov 3, 2005 9:25:54 PM
Oh Tagg, way to ignore Brian's rather eloquent rebuttal by focusing on Resurrect's stupid post. Nice strawman there, fella.
Posted by: Noodle | Nov 4, 2005 4:07:16 AM
By now, I'm sure this thread is as dead as Martha Stewart's comeback, but I couldn't resist chiming in with a response to Tagg. Tagg, while I have sympathies for Resurrect's post, I would like to attempt a serious rejoinder to your argument.
The Amos 'n Andy reference is an illustrative, but flawed, analogy. When Amos 'n Andy (and Stepnfetchit, etc.) were popular, that was basically the only image of African-Americans that was seen in "popular" (i.e., white) culture. Their offensiveness was heightened because they were therefore necessarily implied to be representative. Moreover, they weren't even true to anything in black culture -- or, at least, to the extent they represented a true depiction of some elements of black society, one could certainly argue that those elements acted the way they did only in response to decades (centures, even) of brutal white oppression and the need to at least portray subservient to survive. Hardly anything to be celebrating.
None of that is true in the case of Carson, even assuming your characterization of him as mincing, etc. (itself an interesting choice of words on your part) were correct. First off, he is by no means the only, or even predominant, image of gays in our culture today. It's not even true on his own show. It used to be true that the "mincing faggot" was the only image one saw, but those days are really long past. Second, I'm sure everyone on this board knows one or two or fifty gay men who actually act like Carson does. The witty, double-entendre-dropping queen is not a false stereotype, it's a part of our culture. And I see nothing offensive about it.
Sure, I have no doubt that there are many straight folks out there who are far more comfortable with the image of gays in the Carson mold than they are with, say, Brokeback Mountain. (Hey, this is Towleroad, you gotta mention that movie.) And they're more comfortable with it because they can laugh at it and make gays less threatening. But so what? If we then say, OK, anyone like Carson must be banned from our culture, then we've given those homophobes precisely the same control over how we portray ourselves as if we allowed them to banish us altogether. I, for one, do not grant them that right. And so I say, in as mincing, flaming, and stereotypically faggoty voice as I can, "You go, Carson."
Posted by: Glenn | Nov 4, 2005 10:13:36 AM
One agrees with your theory of "one stereotypical apple doesn't spoil the barrel," but the application here is flawed because, despite your perception/assertion, the barrel is still mostly filled with queer stereotypes. "Brokeback Mountain," however excellent it might be, is unlikely to be so excellent that the people who need to see it most [not counting gays still having trouble accepting themselves] are going to go. Straight males MIGHT be dragged by their dates/wives, or individual straight guys MIGHT be curious enough to pay money to see Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise [no need to go there] or Johnny Depp lock lips but, Heath and Jake do not yet have that box office draw. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but I'm convinced that this film is going to, if not tank, fail to draw any significant non gay audiences. Then, who, pray tell, are the predominant gay images in today's society. If you asked 100 random straights on the street to name three gay men--real or fictional--who would be named most? Elton? Essentially another Carson, but with actual talent and a bitchy attitude. "Jack McFarland"? While in contrast with Carson he's almost butch, he fits best in the flamer column, too. "Will Truman"? More neutral than nelly, but even if he's an example, he's the only one so far and, thus, is cancelled out by Carson. Kyan? Cancelled out by Jai and Thom, and who would remember Ted? I know: Richard Simmons! Probably as well known as all the others put together because he's been around longer. But, wait, those short shorts, sequin tops, and sitting on male TV interviewers laps might disqualify him, too. And he would certainly cancel out that other Richard--Hatch. Suggestions? Again, the rule is: he must have as high a straight public profile as Carson does. Common knowledge among gays isn't enough.
Thanks.
Posted by: Tagg | Nov 4, 2005 2:26:49 PM
You do realise that that 'ridiculous' photo shoot with the pictures of the cotton and Gael Garcia Bernal is actually for an anti-dumping ad, right?
Posted by: Chris | Nov 6, 2005 8:35:26 PM