Comments

  1. Chuck Mielke says

    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.

  2. sam says

    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.

  3. sam says

    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.

  4. terry says

    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.

  5. sam says

    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.

  6. jaragon says

    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)

  7. CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON says

    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

  8. BobN says

    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?

  9. says

    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!

  10. terry says

    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.

  11. Kevin says

    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.

  12. terry says

    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.

  13. Blake says

    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”.

  14. Tracy says

    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!

  15. sam says

    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.

  16. Acronym Jim says

    “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).

  17. Contrarian says

    One gay writer (the one who asserts he invented the term “metrosexual”) has claimed all the str8 women he knows prefer twinkly eyes and a nice smile, not male pulchritude in their face. I can’t speak for str8 women, but most str8 men (unless it’s masked in violence —see WWF or MMA)get positively squirmy if semi-naked male hunks are pushed on them. This is clearly not intended for their eyes but gay male ones.

  18. Tim says

    Eek, poor Sam is just trying to get the correct word used, I don’t see much hatred for gay men in being a stickler for vocabulary. Erotic? Yes, these are titillating images, but I believe the point being made is the content must imply gay actions to be “homoerotic”. These are just two hot guys showing some skin for anyone. If anything they’re just catering for whatever the audience (equal opportunity attention seekers, fine by me!). Lets cut Sam a bit of slack. There’s others that deserve the hatred far more.

  19. andrew says

    @Sam: I could give a f*ck about anybody “validating” me. I am what I am and proud of it. That beefcake/eyecandy gives this homo a chubby, so that makes it homoerotic for me.

  20. Pitt90 says

    Definition of EROTIC from Merriam-Webster.
    1: of, devoted to, or tending to arouse sexual love or desire
    2: strongly marked or affected by sexual desire

    Sorry, Sam, I’d say these fit those definitions for most people who find men attractive …

Leave A Reply