News: Boy Scouts, Justin Bartha, Flamboyance, Meningitis

RoadJohn Aravosis interviews a health expert on the NYC meningitis outbreak.

RoadStudy: Young gay men in Mexico City would pledge to stay HIV-free for $288 a year. "Because each person receiving H.I.V. treatment costs Mexico’s public health system up to $7,000 a year for drugs alone, payments that encourage men to stay uninfected could be a bargain, the authors argue."

BrooksRoadDavid Brooks calls SCOTUS appeal for marriage equality "a setback for the forces of maximum freedom." Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi calls him "an assh*le".

RoadToday in Ryan Gosling leg tattoos.

RoadLena Dunham has never been to a gay wedding.

RoadLady Gaga turned down $1 million to perform at the RNC: "Documents filed with the lawsuit show that other entertainers also said "no thanks" to appearing at the GOP convention including Dolly Parton and the rapper Pitbull, who Republicans hoped to feature at an event for the Hispanic Leadership Network."

RoadMarilyn Manson is the new face of Saint Laurent.

RoadNYT 'civil behavior' columnist Steven Petrow offers advice to a mom whose gay son is being bullied by another gay teen for being too "flamboyant": "Where does this attitude come from? There’s certainly a dichotomy in our community, with some people valuing assimilation and others celebrating diversity. The so-called 'Brooks Brothers' types have no doubt helped the movement by 'normalizing' us (think Will Truman of 'Will & Grace'), but excluding our less conforming sisters and brothers is no way to define ourselves. It’s possible that those who disdain difference and who focus on making gays look 'good' (often meaning 'straight acting') to the outside world are revealing their own insecurities. My take on it is that this young man’s criticism of your son is a perfect example of how damaging internalized homophobia can be."

RoadLindsay Lohan files a late-breaking April Fool's prank.

MermaidRoadShe's a full time professional mermaid. "The 6-foot tail weighs 35 pounds and took seven months to create..."

RoadThe Awl's Richard Morgan on a recent night out in NYC: "Now that it's all gone, the city is primed for a nostalgic luxuriation in old-school Castro District gayness, which is why a plan recently proposed to me seemed so appealing. It was basically gay turducken: going to the largest gay dance party of the year, in the company of two porn actors—and their director, whose intention was to film a porn on-site with both the actors and strangers."

RoadU.S. renewable energy production now tops nuclear power.

RoadConservative columnist Kurt Schlichter: We lost on gay marriage. "Well, we don’t get depressed if we opposed it, and if we didn’t we don’t disrespect our social conservative allies over it. We get ready for the next battle, together. The amnesty fight is coming, and we need to be ready. Remember that if we don’t fight on for conservatism, President Obama and his band of liberal hypocrite buddies win."

RoadMariah Carey caught the Easter Bunny.

BsaBoy Scouts: RoadUtah LGBT Pride Center cannot sponsor troop. "The Utah Pride Center submitted its application in late February to sponsor a troop with heterosexual leaders and middle-school age boys several weeks ago, said Valerie Larabee, the center's executive director. She said the bid, which comes ahead of the BSA vote in May on whether it should keep the ban, was not a stunt."

RoadGay Catholic group Dignity USA extends prayer invitation to Cardinal Dolan.

RoadCarrie and Divergent acto Ansel Elgort would 'go gay' for Tom Hardy:  “He lets himself become the character and reveals so much about himself in the process. He is very special. I have a girlfriend and I love her BUT I would go gay for Tom!!”

RoadShia LaBeouf explains his tension with Alec Baldwin.

RoadJustin Bartha on how The New Normal has put him in the unlikely role of gay rights activist: “It’s not often as an actor you get to be involved with a project that seems to be on the right side of history.”

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Keep it up Rick, I can't stop laughing at the fury you arouse. Still, lots of effeminate gay men are naturally so, though, I do believe with you, that a truly existing "culture of effeminancy" is both contrived and losing energy. Mostly it's an angry and counter productive response to the oppression of rampant homophobia and social disapproval. It is fading as the oppression lifts and the natural gay man, and straight ones too, is able to be comfortable in the world. I just wish you could expand your notion of men to include those who just naturally can't fit the all-male stereotype. The phonies who swish around in their fruit-cute postures are another matter altogether. Good ridance.

    And you need post nothing more about yourself. No one here necessarily needs to be seen, or to agree with anyone else.

    Posted by: UFFDA | Apr 2, 2013 6:21:06 PM


  2. I read the David Brooks piece to be celebrating the fight for marriage equality via irony. To me it's as endearing as an old comic asking you to "take my wife, please". He's basically saying we are as American as apple pie, isn't he?

    Posted by: David | Apr 2, 2013 6:22:21 PM


  3. "I do believe with you, that a truly existing "culture of effeminancy" is both contrived and losing energy."

    Really? Is "Ru-Paul's Drag Race" over?

    "I read the David Brooks piece to be celebrating the fight for marriage equality via irony."

    Then you don't know how to read.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Apr 2, 2013 6:51:28 PM


  4. The reaction to David Brooks' article is another example of the LGBT community attacking anyone that says anything that could possibly be (mis)interpreted as anti-gay. It's also an example of most people's complete lack of knowledge of what marriage actually is. Marriage ain't just about love. It's a contract between a couple and the state.

    Yes, there are a lot of benefits and rights that go along with it. And there are tons of responsibilities that go along with it too. Those responsibilities are the ones that people ignore or just don't know about when they talk about marriage.

    David Brooks was talking about how marriage (and the attendant responsibilities to one's spouse) limit a person's freedom. You know, because wasting all your money and failing to support your spouse can get you in trouble with the state. And if you live in a community property state like California, there's no such thing as "my" property. It's "our" property. All of it.

    He wasn't talking about constitutional freedoms. He was talking about personal freedoms. There's a huge difference between the two.

    Too bad no one pulled out the quote where he said that gay rights is no longer erroneously talked about as issues like bathhouses and night clubs. Rather it's discussed in terms of marriage and the military.

    And he says that's a good thing. And it is.

    Read the damn article before you start raising a ruckus.

    Posted by: John | Apr 2, 2013 6:52:34 PM


  5. Justin Bartha may be on the right side of history, but he definitely knows that on the stomach is the wrong side for sex.

    Posted by: Tim | Apr 2, 2013 6:58:30 PM


  6. Rick: Stop kicking our culture. The "straight acting" gays die early because keeping up that act is a strain on their systems. Remember, you are "acting" 24/7. Respect your heritage and take the stick out of your ass. A "real man" is not some photo of a steroid overdosed dork pretending to be a lumberjack.

    Posted by: Edward | Apr 2, 2013 7:06:21 PM


  7. I read that Ryan Gosling tattoo story earlier and can't believe there are licensed tattoo artists who would ink a permanent tattoo on someone sight unseen no matter what the "game" they're playing. What a nice way to lose your license (they are regulated aren't they) and end up in court. It has to be temporary ink drawn on not needled in.

    Posted by: MIke | Apr 2, 2013 7:24:05 PM


  8. Rick and Kiwi--The "debate" between you both is, frankly, really hard to read. Neither of you exactly comes off seeming like an awesome human being (though, Rick, you win a special prize for seeming to always start these things). You both mock or talk about doing violence to people who you perceive are "the problem" with our community. You throw around words like "effeminate" and "straight acting" without considering that these are being used by you in the same way that "f*ggot" is used by those who hate us. At best it's armchair psychology; at worst it's just mean.

    Perhaps a quick lesson is in order for you both (and the many others who seem to be setting up camp on either side of this non-debate). There is no such thing as "effeminate" or "straight acting." Do some guys put on an "act"? Maybe (?) None of us really know. If they do, it's true of most humans. We wear public images because it gains us something we find valuable. But most adults simply do not have the time to keep up that much of a false front at least not consciously. The guys you see as "feminine," Rick, are just that way and aren't going to change. The guys you see as "straight acting," Kiwi, are just that way too. It's not a "culture of effeminacy" in one case or "internalized homophobia" in the other. (If anything, I'd say the response letter in the article was very misguided for even using a term like straight-acting, which only creates further division among us).

    Basically, it's wrong and juvenile to care about how other people behave unless it directly affects you. How a gay man acts in public has no effect on you, regardless of the supposed stereotype he fulfills. It has no effect on our movement. If straight people want to dislike or like us because of a stereotype, then we probably stood little chance with them anyways and their allegiance is of little value. Seriously, can't we just all be nice people and adults and can the name calling?

    Posted by: Thomas | Apr 2, 2013 7:31:02 PM


  9. @Interpreter and @Seattle Mike--Spot on. I read the original column too, and didn't see what all the kerfuffle was about. Brooks was obviously making a pro-gay point, and if anything was mocking the rest of society for seeming to be unable to properly recognize how freedom and responsibility should balance. Brooks claims gays and lesbians are moving in the right direction, while the rest of society has forgot how.

    Posted by: Thomas | Apr 2, 2013 7:41:40 PM


  10. I think some of the issues that people responding unfavorably to the Brooks article are raising are 1) that Brooks ironically speaks from the incredibly privileged position of having the freedom to participate in the institution he's characterizing as anti-freedom, 2) that bringing this before the Supreme Court is an expression of the desire to choose to form legally and (hopefully eventually) socially reinforced partnerships and family structures, a choice that is currently prohibited for a class of people, 3) that the desire to be recognized as equal under the law is not a renunciation of our cultural history and that it's historically ignorant not to recognize that the fight for marriage equality long predates this current surge, and 4) that the language of equality and rights was not taken up unthinkingly, and to say so is as wrong as it is cynical.

    Posted by: Dada Mining | Apr 2, 2013 8:20:10 PM


  11. Despite disagreeing with the "tone" of Rick, I have to agreed with the spirit of his comments (and UFFDA). There does seem to be this insistence that gay men embrace femininity as some kind of "default". As if somehow you must show demonstrate some kind of allegiance the stereotype. It's also "homophobic" (since we love that word) to insist masculine gay men are straight "acting" or they are "conforming" (meaning against their "true", i.e. feminine natures). Really?...And yes, many gay men are attention seekers....I guess it is nice to see that masculine gay men are making themselves known....carry on

    Posted by: KeepItSimple | Apr 2, 2013 8:25:47 PM


  12. @Dada: Re point #3, Brooks is not saying that gays have renounced their 'cultural history'; he's saying that the current demand for mainstream rights belies the old conservative-fundamentalist tropes about gays being purely hedonistic. He is in no way denigrating BLGTs OR proponents of equality, or even being flip about it. The people being tweaked are conservative Republicans.

    Brooks has LONG been a supporter of marriage equality, not from a position of acquiescence, but because it was the right, fair and just thing to do.

    Posted by: Interpreter | Apr 2, 2013 8:31:17 PM


  13. "There does seem to be this insistence that gay men embrace femininity as some kind of "default". As if somehow you must show demonstrate some kind of allegiance the stereotype."

    Really? When was that? I didn't get the memo. Ever since I came out (well before you were a bulge your Daddy's BVDs) the world I enterd nto was one in which gays and lesbaisn came in all shapes sizes and styles. As a very great gay man (you've probably never heard of ) Frank O'Hara said "Grace to be born and live as variously as possible." That of course is a truly frightening idea to the "Ricks" of this world.

    " It's also "homophobic" (since we love that word) to insist masculine gay men are straight "acting" or they are "conforming" (meaning against their "true", i.e. feminine natures)."

    Gay men who go on and on and on and on (and on)about how "straight-acting" and "straight-appearing"they are are invriably deluded LIARS!

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Apr 2, 2013 8:47:55 PM


  14. "David Brooks has long supported gay marriage. He's also a big supporter of personal responsibility."

    "Personal responsibility" is Conservabotspeak for "I've got mine -- F**K YOU!!!!"

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Apr 2, 2013 8:50:15 PM


  15. David Ehrenstein was actually making his point pretty well in the beginning...but his last statement undercut it and went on to actually make MINE. thank you.

    Posted by: KeepItSimple | Apr 2, 2013 9:20:03 PM


  16. Gay men now have to be paid to NOT infect themselves and others with a deadly, incurable disease — and one whose transmission vectors have been known for decades? Truly beyond words.

    Posted by: MGC | Apr 2, 2013 10:56:13 PM


  17. "Gay men who go on and on and on and on (and on)about how "straight-acting" and "straight-appearing"they are are invriably [sic] deluded LIARS!"

    Geesh, David. Angry much? Congratulations on reasoning the exact same way as Rick: "I am like this and I am gay, and the same is true of most of my gay friends, therefore that is the one best and most authentic way to be gay. Anyone who behaves differently is putting on an act and is harming our community."

    How can you not see that is the same as someone who is straight treating gays badly just because they are "different." We seem to have some serious issues in our community about embracing the other.

    Posted by: Thomas | Apr 2, 2013 11:03:47 PM


  18. Thomas - at no point in my entire gay life have i ever denigrated any gay men who in any way embody or appear "traditionally masculine" or whatever. if i did, it would be a massive shock to a great number of my gay friends, and indeed many a lover. or twenty.

    it's very simple - what i take issue with are those pathetic gay men amongst us who throw others under the bus to save their own @ss.

    to pretend i feel something otherwise is either willful ignorance or one's inability to comprehend what they read.

    *elegant curtsy*

    my point has been made clear very times - the "i can't stand effeminate gay men" are armchair critics, cowardly blaming everyone who is not like them for their own problems, whilst never being the "man" they claim to be and putting a face to What Gay Is.

    if they cared so much about "how we gays are seen" they'd be an even more visible presence than my apparently-effeminate self is. why? because they'd be adamant about being the change the want to see.

    hope this makes things clear for you, sugar.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Apr 2, 2013 11:07:17 PM


  19. Thomas - is your issue reading comprehension or insecurity?

    D.E.'s point was spot-on, and utterly NOT what you think it is.


    wanna know something about confident "traditionally masculine gay men"? they don't give a whit how someone else acts, nor would they go out of their way to tell everyone how "straight-appearing" they are. that just shows that they view masculinity, and gayness, through a prism of heterosexual male misogyny.

    no confident and empowered gay men use the term "straight-acting" - that's entirely the domain of the insecure, reluctant, and resentful homosexual.

    at no point did Ehrenstein in any way suggest that anyone that doesn't act like him is "putting on an act" - he was rather clear with his use of the terms "straight-acting"

    it's not the same as "treating someone badly for how they act" to call out that they're still judging themselves as gay men based on how they feel they compare to straight men.

    and i've never met a gay man i couldn't tell was gay. family can spot family.

    some reading for you, Thomas:
    http://littlekiwilovesbauhaus.blogspot.ca/2012/10/yeah-you-sound-totally-well-adjusted.html

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Apr 2, 2013 11:15:35 PM


  20. When a straight guy acts in a way that society considers vulgar or annoying, no one labels it as a straight behavior (with the possible exception of some gay people). Howbeit, no one jumps on the person who objects to beer belching belly bumping or a laundry list of things that straight guys do that pretty much seem ridiculous or contrived; no one accuses him of being anti-straight. Which is especially amusing because if you condemn gay guys for these ridiculous affects you will probably be accused of the worst thing possible: being old.

    Yes, I find a lot of gay behaviors to be affected. I also find pumping ones fist in the air, making ersatz gang gestures, talking ghetto, high fiving, and a host of straight male behaviors to be affected. That goes both for straight men and gay men.

    If gay men doing thug wannabe look and speech is fair game to be labeled stupid, then so is gay men talking and acting like drag queens, then so is lesbians engaging in elaborate heterosexual role playing.

    Posted by: Hagatha | Apr 3, 2013 12:24:39 AM


  21. That NYT civil behavior article by S. Petrow is a massive troll piece. I can't believe anyone takes it seriously. Petrow is obviously shilling.

    And who is he [Petrow] to lecture homosexual or bisexual males? And why does he perpetuate the idea that gay and bi males who are 'straight acting' are acting? Yes Mr. Petrow, MANY gay and bi males are in fact masculine 'acting', talking, walking, etc., Gay male doesn't automatically equate fem/camp. There is no affectation with the way I speak, 'act', dress, stuff I like, etc. Why are there many people like Mr. Petrow who insist on ghettoizing gay and bisexual males? Is it a generational thing? Do people in Mr. Petrow's age group really think gay = fem/camp, and anything else is an act?

    Posted by: ratbastard | Apr 3, 2013 7:06:23 AM


  22. LOL. I just read some of the comments from the NYT piece and the meme is masculine gay males are misogynist! Typical. They are actually demonizing masculinity. Some women and fem males [gay or not] need to get a grip on reality.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Apr 3, 2013 7:17:48 AM


  23. @ Ratbastard:

    Thank you! I needn't say anymore!

    Posted by: Audi-owner | Apr 3, 2013 10:24:13 AM


  24. If you're primed to read anything a "conservative" pundit publishes as inherently negative towards gays, you might start the Brooks column with some animus.

    By the time you finish it, you know he is very supportive of marriage equality.

    (Which is annoying, if you were expecting/hoping for the opposite.)

    Posted by: Gene Touchet | Apr 3, 2013 11:02:45 AM


  25. it's very simple _- if a gay man describes himself as "straight-acting" (which has nothign whatsoever to do with perceptions of masculinity, btw) then he reveals himself to still be viewing his manliness through the prism of heterosexual male misogyny.

    thus, he's still worrying about being perceived as gay. thus, no way in hell an insecure boy like that is "just being himself
    "

    "masculine" gay men who are "just being themselves" don't use the term "straight-acting"

    over and over again, this site's neutered trolls ignore that all-too-important facet.. gee, wonder why?

    the strawman arguments being made by you losers are hilarious, and prove that even you know that you're full of s**t.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Apr 3, 2013 11:38:19 AM


  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Nora Ephron’s 'Lucky Guy' Starring Tom Hanks Opens on Broadway: REVIEW« «