News | Reality TV | Television

Can You Survive a Homoerotic Horror Flick? - VIDEO

Chiller

There's a special called Can You Survive a Horror Movie? premiering tonight on the Chiller network in which "classic horror scenarios are turned into daring physical experiments" such as placing the two shirtless hosts into tubs of icy water, chaining their wrists together, and making them try to get out.

If you're into that sort of thing, consider this a tip. Otherwise, you can watch the "hot hosts" try to sell you on it, AFTER THE JUMP...

Chiller2

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. YUM and YUM to those 2 pics at top!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by: fap fap fap | Jul 13, 2012 7:28:40 PM


  2. Ok, the entertainment industry is increasingly and blatantly going after the gay male audience. Beefcake on parade. Yes, they throw in enough cheesecake to keep the straight guys interested in flexing their mojo. But, really! "Normalizing gay" hasn't seen a brighter day.

    Posted by: Chuck Mielke | Jul 13, 2012 7:44:33 PM


  3. Hmmm. It looks more like "Can You Survive a Bound Gods Porn Shoot?"

    Posted by: Caliban | Jul 13, 2012 7:58:24 PM


  4. Morgan West (whoot!) is going to be a star.

    Posted by: Rodney Wollam | Jul 13, 2012 8:14:41 PM


  5. Beefcake is NOT homoerotic, so get over yourselves. It is simply beefcake. There is nothing homo about it. Stop trying to homo everything for the purpose of wanting to feel validated. You need to direct your energies to more valid forms of validation.

    Posted by: sam | Jul 13, 2012 8:15:54 PM


  6. @Sam: Boooooooooo!

    Posted by: Rodney Wollam | Jul 13, 2012 8:17:43 PM


  7. @ SAM :

    "......beefcake is NOT homoerotic...."

    Dude, seriously ?

    It is for me, dude.

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Jul 13, 2012 8:37:16 PM


  8. @Sam, go 'validate' yourself.

    Posted by: Anastasia Beaverhausen | Jul 13, 2012 8:45:39 PM


  9. If the guys were rubbing against each other erotically, yes, you could call it homoerotic. However, they aren't, and it's not.

    The sad thing is that a lot of you gay guys go looking for validation and see it where it doesn't exist. It's sad because it shows how desperate you are and how little there is out there.

    Posted by: sam | Jul 13, 2012 8:50:53 PM


  10. Sam, please you're taking this too seriously. Besides, I think we all know that when beefcake is paraded for the mainsteam, it's primary audience is usually gay men, not straight women.

    Posted by: terry | Jul 13, 2012 9:02:43 PM


  11. Terry,

    I think you're making stereotypical assumptions about beefcake. Everyone can enjoy beefcake. In fact, I would say that the main audience for beefcake is straight-identifying guys.

    It's interesting that one of the activities enjoyed by straight-identifying guys is watching wrestling with its abundance of beefcake. It's a body appreciation thing, not a sexual thing.

    However, this point might fly over the heads of your typical gay guy who feels the need to sexualize anything and everything in sight. A lot of gay guys form their opinions based on sexual attraction, sad to say.

    Posted by: sam | Jul 13, 2012 9:13:44 PM


  12. less beefcake, more cupcake... or at least, muffin tops

    Posted by: my2cents | Jul 13, 2012 9:31:36 PM


  13. Gay director David DeCoteau invented the hunks in underwear horror genre- just take a look at his two best films "The Brotherhood"(2001) and "Leeches"(2003)

    Posted by: jaragon | Jul 13, 2012 9:55:41 PM


  14. I OWN THE DVD, "Socket" (WITH SO-CALLED "HANDSOME," Matthew Montgomery); THIS "HOMOEROTIC HORROR FLICK" ["Socket"] IS ONE OF THE SILLIEST FILMS I HAVE SEEN. HOW CAN ANYONE EXPERIENCE "BONE-CHILLING FRIGHT," WATCHING A FILM WHOSE MAIN PURPOSE IS HOMOEROTICISM? ["Socket" is filled with gratuitous frontal-male nudity - there is NOTHING scary about that].

    CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

    Posted by: CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON | Jul 13, 2012 10:15:30 PM


  15. If it's not a result of more openly appealing to gay men, then why is there suddenly so much more beefcake on display? Did the networks just notice there are women in their audience?

    Posted by: BobN | Jul 13, 2012 11:42:52 PM


  16. Thanks for the comments guys!

    I'm the creator/Exec Producer of the show, an out gay man and a big Towleroad fan

    Trust me we chose Anthony and Morgan to appeal to both the girls and the guys! They're both super gay friendly and love ALL attention!

    Only downside - I can no longer eat after seeing the guys abs!

    Posted by: Remote Patrolled | Jul 14, 2012 12:13:03 AM


  17. Sam, not everyone enjoys beefcake. Many straight men despise it and quite a few women don't like it either. One woman I know says desire should be on women and she's straight mind you. Besides, this is all in good fun.

    Posted by: terry | Jul 14, 2012 12:49:40 AM


  18. Sam, "homoerotic" is in the eye of the beholder. If a gay man watches this and finds these hunks arousing, then the EFFECT is homoerotic, whether or not that was the INTENT.

    Posted by: Kevin | Jul 14, 2012 12:50:32 AM


  19. Gay guys feel the need to sexualize everything? Straight men do the same thing every day, just ask all the women in their lives. It's just men being men.

    Posted by: terry | Jul 14, 2012 12:56:22 AM


  20. Even though the hosts are attractive, there is no implied / actual sexual tension between them, so there is nothing homoerotic about these clips.

    Based purely on these clips, this show has the same amount of "queer" content as Magic Mike, i.e., none.

    I still plan to watch this show, because I like the premise, but I accept the fact that it has general appeal and nothing will actually be "queer".

    Posted by: Blake | Jul 14, 2012 2:30:21 AM


  21. It's a very clever premise for a reality program! Well done Chiller. As for "gay" content, the hosts are wearing what looks to be matching underwear. What does that mean! LOL Not a darn thing. See what you want in it, watch it cause it's entertaining. I'll watch that 24/7 rather than some of these other reality competition singing shrieking programs!

    Posted by: Tracy | Jul 14, 2012 7:47:47 AM


  22. @sam You've got issues, dude.

    Posted by: candide001 | Jul 14, 2012 9:22:34 AM


  23. The word "homoerotic" should apply to the nature of the content, not to how it makes you, the third party voyeur, feel. Your feelings as a voyeur are irrelevant and should not figure in the definition of the word.

    You, as a voyeur, do not have an erotic relationship with what you are looking at. The eroticism, if any, must exist within the content for it to be defined as homoerotic. For example, if the two men in the above pictures were rubbing each other, that would rightly be called homoerotic.

    A word, by definition, has to have a definitive meaning. It's not definitive if the word changes meaning according to the gender of the voyeur (eg hetero-erotic for a woman looking at this, homo-erotic for a man looking at this).

    Learn to think clearly and stop trying to twist things to suit your voyeurism.

    Posted by: sam | Jul 14, 2012 10:23:32 AM


  24. Sam - come on in - the water's fine!

    Posted by: jhr459 | Jul 14, 2012 11:32:29 AM


  25. "Think clearly" says the dude who asserts that the display of two well built, partially nude men is not homoerotic unless they're "rubbing each other."

    As to mine and others voyeurism, it's not only relevant, but invited and essential to the success of the show.

    Heck, I believe even Jason/Rick, Tank, and Ratbastard would consider these clips homoerotic (while lamenting how few "real" men exist in the gay community).

    Posted by: Acronym Jim | Jul 14, 2012 12:24:37 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Towleroad Guide to the Tube #1165« «