Tag Archives: gay

More Writing On Sexual Standards

Posted on February 1, 2013 by | 2 comments

The dearth of creativity that went into titling this post aside, I thought I’d tackle yet another double standard that appears to exist in our culture. To begin with, let me refer you all to my primary example, Season 4 Episode 5 of Top Chef: Masters, “Holly Madison’s Pool Party.”

In this case, the background behind the show itself is pretty inconsequential: 12 award-winnings chefs compete against each other to raise money for charity, et cetera. On this season the chefs spent the vast majority of their time in Sin City [Las Vegas, aka where Gordon resides] and rubbed shoulders with quite a few celebrities. The superstar for this episode was Holly Madison, of Playboy’s “The Girls Next Door” fame, and their task was to cater her pool party.

Enter James Oseland, editor of Saveur and one of the show’s judges. At the party musclebound hunks abound, and after one is encouraged to sit next to the critic he somehow manages to ask “how are you guys gonna like, keep the, this thing [abs], going with, wha- all this food.” As he refers to the man’s midsection he gives it a few pats, prompting responses like the following [which I found on The A.V. Club, of course]:


And Larrybaby’s points are all incredibly valid. Thankfully the guys and girls who peruse the TV Club reviews weren’t the only ones to notice this, and celebrity chef website [yes, it is a real thing] The Braiser did a short bit on the episode. Oseland’s antics are described there as follows:

So, naturally, the daytime cocktails start flowing, the croque madames sizzle on the griddle, and James Oseland starts giddily stripping pool boys. Wait, what?! Yes, Saveur editor-slash-very esteemed and shmancy Top Chef: Masters judge James Oseland gets a little on the trashed side of tipsy at brunch and takes matters into his own hands when a cluster of bikini-clad women fail to get a pool boy to take his shirt off.

James marches right on over to the ripped hunk of manflesh (née “Warren”) and strips his shirt right off. And then he grabs another equally buff guy and steals his shirt, too! James Oseland is shameless, you guys.

Of course, the article then goes on to describe how they’d love Oseland to be their celebrity BFF, but we won’t go into that. The point I’m trying to make is that this man, who, yes, is a homosexual, acted in a way that was inappropriate. More than that, he wasn’t stopped but was actually encouraged by those around him with cheers.

I’m not saying that I dislike watching homosexual characters on television, or that they make me uncomfortable; far from it. Max is easily my favourite part of the sitcom Happy Endings, and his adventures in romance  are both engaging and hilarious. I’m still waiting [and I know I’m not the only one] for Raj on The Big Bang Theory to come out of the closet, and more and more I’m realizing that it really is just art imitating life. Living in Toronto I’m very aware that there’s a gay population  out there, and it just so happens that TV has finally gotten around to representing them.

What I don’t want to see is gay people, men or women, being handsy when they shouldn’t be. I don’t really appreciate it in heterosexuals, and the same extends to all other orientations. If James Oseland thinks a pool boy is cute that is fine. If he wants to touch him, that is also fine. If he touches him in front of others and without the permission of said pool boy, to flirt openly in a physical way, that is not fine. It’s kind of gross.

There’s not much more I can add to what larrybaby said, because he [or she, I don’t know] sums it all up really well. I’m not a homophobe by any means, but I’d like the world as a whole to keep people to the same standards. Let’s not cheer someone on when they paw at another person they’re attracted to. If we’re going to acknowledge homosexual urges and relationships as on par with heterosexual ones let’s treat them the same way.

I end with another comment highlighting the actions of both Oseland and his fellow critics [context: the hunks were asked about sit-ups, and one actually did push-ups for the critics’ benefit a little later]:

jmann

2 Comments

Posted in bizarreness, lgbt, media, sex, television

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Broke Girls, S2E13 “And the Bear Truth”: A TV Review

Posted on January 15, 2013 by | 8 comments

Last December it was announced over at The A.V. Club’s TV Club that “And The High Holidays” would be the last episode of 2 Broke Girls that they reviewed. As someone who has paid more attention to the show than it probably deserves, I felt that it was my time to take upon the mantle.

The mantle may or may not include a brand new “Evan Yeong Madness Watch” as such features have been put together [and probably for good reason] by the comments section over at The A.V. Club.

The last of the "PILOT VIRUET MADNESS WATCHES."

As a last point before I start, I write this with the assumption that you have a reasonable working knowledge of the show. If not, you can always read the other reviews here.

2BrokeGirlsTemplate

2 Broke Girls‘ return to television since its mid-season finale last night opens up where the centre of the show has shifted: the girls’ cupcake shop. Where the cold opens used to consist largely of Max snarking at customers in the diner, the status quo apparently consists of Max snarking  at [this time in asides] a customer at their shop.

The aforementioned woman tastes the girls’ wares with an enthusiasm that borders on the sexual, and it’s revealed that she has an upcoming wedding. Caroline is, as history dictates, optimistic that large sales are coming their way. Max is jaded and skeptical because she lived in a car growing up.

Back at the diner Han is holding some kind of raffle. Max makes a joke about Han being a “big promo,” because, as I’ve discussed before, apparently it is okay to have the long-running theme of calling a character gay when the producer and creator of the show is himself a homosexual.  The prize is a 2-room suite in the country, complete with a fireplace, because “daddy don’t skimp.”

Sophie enters to the usual undeserved round of applause, throws her business card into the goldfish bowl, and proceeds to choose the winning card. Her schemes[?] to win the prize herself ultimately fails when the card she pulls out is for Max’s Homemade Cupcakes.

The complications begin to arise when Caroline tells her boyfriend Andy that “we won a weekend getaway” which he understandably perceives as being for the two of them. This results in Caroline telling both Max and Andy that the other is the third wheel of the trip, and then they’re off to the country.

Lame car games aside [though Caroline gleefully answering herself to Max’s “I spy something annoying”  because she loves to win made me smile] this scene largely serves to introduce the idea that Max believes in alien abductions. That is all.

Original MADtv cast member Craig Anton is wonderful as the pony-tailed man who shows them their room. But my amusement at his presence was quickly stomped by the following exchange that draws laughs out of a possible past of sexual abuse:

Caroline: Come over here closer you big Eagle Scout.

Andy: Well now you sound like my scout master.

I, for whatever reason, did not realize how exhausting it could be doing a blow-by-blow of an entire episode of 2 Broke Girls, so we are moving ahead quickly. I can’t say I was actually proud of guessing what [or in this case, who] the bears in the episode title were referring to, since it’s just so on the nose. The large gay men in this case being named Deke and Derk, who were so pleasant and friendly it was hard not to like them.

There’s a little bit of tension introduced when dinner for two is served to Max, Caroline, and Andy, but the writing wasn’t quite tight enough to pull it off. Max’s eagerness to eat the food on every plate competes with Andy’s desire to share a romantic evening with his girlfriend, and Caroline’s decision to take a relaxing bath and remove herself from the equation was fairly believable but just not very funny. The other two talk over their food to reveal that a) it’s Andy’s birthday, and b) him and Caroline have not had sex in many a fortnight. Max is talked into visiting “Yogi and Boo-boo next door” and then, just as she’s about to leave, they dial up the drama.

Caroline completely forgot Andy’s birthday. Max frantically knocks at the adjacent cabin’s door for the bears to let her in. Max reveals she knew about their dry spell. Max pleads for the aliens to take her away for the love of God please now before it’s too late. In her absence Caroline and Andy are left to discuss the future of their relationship, and the latter is forced to see that the girls’ business clearly takes priority over the two of them. Andy makes his own way home and Caroline goes to join Max who is cuddling with the bears.

Back at the shop, Andy and Carline talk again, and Andy tells her that maybe they should take a break. It’s all pretty well-trod material sitcom wise, but Andy responds to Caroline saying it’ll be hard not seeing him with the line “Yeah, it will be. I work ten feet away” that’s delivered with a surprising amount of heartbreaking sincerity. Max yells for E.T. et al. to take her away when the shop is stormed by the bride’s equally large [and hungry] bridesmaids.

It makes perfect sense that Caroline’s relationship was doomed to fail in light of her work-centric lifestyle, and the fact that Andy remains so close to their shop hints that this isn’t the last we’ll see of them. While not the funniest episode [and yes, they do exist] “And the Bear Truth” does a reasonably good job highlighting a failure to communicate while also featuring two lovable fat gay guys.

The money counter at the end jumps up from $100 to $900, and I suppose it’s just assumed that their wedding deal went through. I’m not sure what they’re counting up to anymore, but it’s good to see their profits go up for once. This is my first time really covering a show [my review of Underemployed was scanter due to its being a pilot] and I hope to pare these down by a lot.

Stray Observations:

  • I first heard about swinging beds just this past weekend, and was thrilled to see one hanging in the middle of their cabin.
  • Max opens up a pair of slippers and, as she walks out, almost sings Granddad’s new shoes song in its entirety before Caroline interrupts her. 
  • Considering how many supporting characters remain in the diner, it’ll be interesting to see how the show deals with Max and Caroline spending less and less time there.
  • A trend I’ve noticed has forced me to start a 2 Broke Girls Cheesecake Menu to highlight when and how the girls show off a little somethin’ somethin’: In this episode, Max and Caroline wrapped in towels in the sauna [Beth Behrs glistening with sweat to increase authenticity].

8 Comments

Posted in internet, lgbt, review, television

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Shame Day: Concerned Women for America

Posted on October 23, 2012 by | 7 comments

“Concerned Women for America.”

It sounds almost like a cartoonish satire of the kind of people who storm into PTA meetings demanding to know why their children have been
“exposed to filth” after discovering a copy of Catcher in the Rye, Slaughterhouse Five, or Harry Potter in their kids’ assigned reading list. The kind of people who warn about the corrosive and unwholesome messages hidden in rock songs, or who sit horrified in front of the TV as some sensationalist dead-inside “journalist” warns about the latest secret teenager trend that’s sure to kill them/get them pregnant.

And as much as it sounds like something that’s ripped out of Footloose, Concerned Women for America is very real.

And that is an absolute shame.

Let’s take a look at some of the bilge that these guys are producing.

What caught my eye was a recent article of theirs on Malala Yousafzai, a heroic Pakistani girl and women’s rights and peace activist. In this post, the authors launch a vicious attack on Islam as being an inherently barbarous and misogynistic religion with a murderous agenda for any who dare oppose it. As the article states

“Malala questioned the station of women under Islam’s oppressive thumb, and the Taliban tried to put her six feet under the ground.”

This, quite simply, is a lie.

Yes the Taliban tried to kill Malala, and yes, Malala questioned the station of women-but what the authors of the article neglect to mention is that Malala Yousafzai is a Muslim herself.

Apparently it’s not enough that this fifteen year old girl (and she is fifteen, not fourteen, as the CWA article wrongly states) has to deal with the threat of violence and murder- she now has to endure her activism being hijacked by the “Concerned Women for America” bent on turning her sacrifice into a smear campaign against her own religion, which they claim is both “false” and “hate-filled.”

But why stop there?

The “Concerned Women for America” are also turning their ignorant ire against the “Slut Walks,” which for those of you who may be unaware, are parades of women wearing clothes of different degrees of modesty or exposure to make the point that it doesn’t matter how you’re dressed- one’s wardrobe is never an “invitation to rape” as some sex-offenders have tried claiming.

Being the moral, upstanding people that they are, CWA has sent up a howl of protest against these walks, declaring:

“The latest desperate bid for attention by the publicity-starved feminists is to sponsor SlutWalks — events where scantily clad women take to the streets en masse to claim their “right” to dress and behave however they want or to go anywhere at any time without the risk of being sexually assaulted or deemed streetwalkers.”

“They propose somehow to make the point that even if what they wear, their drunken state, or their presence alone in a very vulnerable place might indicate their willingness to participate in a sexual free-for-all, women should not be subject to lewd propositions or be at risk of being raped.”

Now I could leave it right there- those two statements alone are enough to demonstrate without a shred of doubt just what vile, reprehensible misogynistic scum the CWA is made of, but just to hammer in a few more nails for safe measure, here are some of there other quotes.

Here’s a lovely little comment regarding the Russian punk-rock protest group “Pussy Riot,” recently sentenced to two years in prison for singing an anti-government song in a cathedral.

Their formal statements about the incident reveal their utter lack of morality, embrace of a “blame-everyone-but-us” ideology, and disdain for capitalism and individual responsibility. Like their U.S. counterparts, they want “human rights, civil and political freedoms” for themselves but not for Christian believers or anyone else with different beliefs… Christians around the world are facing intolerance of their beliefs and sometimes violence as well. In spite of the Constitution, religious liberty is under attack in the United States, with the federal government telling religious institutions that they must violate their beliefs and support homosexual “marriage,” homosexual adoptions, contraception, and abortion or face penalties.

Really? A handful of women sing a song in a church decrying the increasingly totalitarian state, get the ridiculous sentence of two years prison for doing so (the same action in the US would merit a fine, if that) and it’s you who are the persecuted ones.

Here’s another good one- outrage that a Macy’s employee was fired for confronting a transgender person for using the women’s dressing room.

Transgender?  Give me a break!  First of all, there is no such thing; it is a choice of behavior.  And hope as we might, our desire to behave in a certain way does not legitimize a chosen behavior.  It certainly does not entitle them to circumvent the rights of society and our moral tenets in order for them to “have their way.”  Natalie Johnson, the employee in question, was quoted in an ABC interview, “I refuse to comply with this policy,” and “There are no transgenders in the world.  A guy can dress up as a woman all he wants.  That’s still not going to make you a woman.”

An easy call? Certainly not, but this self-righteous outrage is just plain stupid. What if the person in question had been born a hermaphrodite? How would he or she be treated then? Would that kind of ambiguity have justified the guy/gal being denied service? If that’s our logic, why not deny service to people in wheelchairs for not conforming to the societal norm? That logic just doesn’t hold up.

End of the day, “Concerned Women for America” is what cancer would look like if it were an social movement. Shame on this vile organization.

7 Comments

Posted in America, Christianity, feminism, Islam, lgbt, news, politics, Shame Day

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Evan and Gordon Talk: The Bechdel Test

Posted on August 22, 2012 by | 7 comments


EVAN: So I came across a little something called the “Bechdel Test” through an article on racebending.com. It’s a test that’s supposed to rate how well a film does in terms of portraying women. That’s a rough description, anyway.

GORDON: I’ve heard of it in film criticism. It essentially asserts that for a film to have “real” female characters, it must have a scene in which (1) two women (2) talk to each other (3) about something other than a man. Sounds simple enough, but you’d be blown away by how many movies fail it…

EVAN: And the thing is, some of these movies happen to have perfectly good “strong female characters.” The site bechdeltest.com lists films that do or don’t make the cut, and in the comments section many a person states “but this female character was such and such…”

GORDON: Example?

EVAN: User “lili” disagreed with the rating given Wrath of the Titans, saying:

Although conversation between the two named women was minimal, the character of the main woman was well developed with no sexual stereotyping or weaknesses. I think it passes the Bechdel test in spirit, if not in actual letter.

GORDON: See man, as much as I’d consider myself a feminist, I really don’t like the Bechdel Test and some of the assumptions it seems to make. A lot of it just really doesn’t pan out- I’m looking at the list they’ve got here, and it’s seriously twisted.

Check it out- Sex and the City 2- easily some of the most misogynistic and racist crap out there gets a free pass, and movies like The Rum Diary or Rise of the Planet of the Apes– which have way better portrayals of women- are failed…

EVAN: I mean, it’s easy to see why their criteria was picked- having the women named is extremely important, as it’s a pretty solid way of ensuring that they’re actual character and not just waitresses or other extras. Also having them talk about something other than a man. That’s pretty important stuff, I think, in maintaining that they’re not just female verbal support for the male lead.

Where it really falls apart is the second part of the test: the need for the female character to have to talk to each other-

GORDON: I don’t think you’re being quite hard enough here, dude- this is a bad test. Look at it this way-

The first criteria is that there be two women, which is dumb because it assumes that a woman’s identity is based on how she relates/matches up with/differs/etc. with other women. Totally disregards her qualities (or failings) as an individual, y’know? The second criteria is, like you say, that they have to interact which each other, which again doesn’t make much sense (see previous point). And the third point, while decent, also kinda falls apart- if two men talk to each other about nothing but women, are they not real male characters? Kinda throws relationship movies out of the window.

…Point is, the test sorta shows you when a movie drops the ball on female characters, but a “passing grade” doesn’t really mean much of anything.

EVAN: I agree with you completely. Part of the reason I’m a little less harsh is thinking about how to construct/write a single test which judges a film on something as deceptively simple as the “active presence of female character,” as Feminist Frequency would put it.

GORDON: Well, what makes a female character a female character?

EVAN: Well, I took Human Sexuality my senior year of college, so I can think of a few key specifics-

Continue reading →

7 Comments

Posted in Evan and Gordon Talk, feminism, film, media, race, sex, television

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Boy Scouts of America Maintains Ban on Gays

Posted on July 17, 2012 by | Leave a comment

About a week ago, I had added my name to a petition being sent to a member of the BSA (that’s Boy Scouts of America) Board of Directors, demanding that the organization’s notorious ban on gays be overturned. A few minutes ago, I found this article at BBC World stating that the board had unanimously rejected the petition.

 

See, I’m an Eagle Scout. I worked my up from cub scouts. I’ve been to the camps, memorized the oaths, and folded the flags. I’m proud of the skills I’ve learned. I’m proud of the leadership training I’ve had. I’m proud of the values of civic duty, environmentalism, and honesty I’ve been given. And I am so very deeply ashamed that even now, an organization that’s been synonymous with decency and helpfulness is choosing to maintain a policy of unabashed bigotry.

 

According to the BSA, homosexuals (both men and women) are prohibited from holding leadership positions in the BSA. Despite maintaining a “don’t-ask-don’t-tell”-esque policy, any individual (employee, member, or even volunteer) who is found to be gay is expelled from the Scouts. The reason given for this was that

“The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers and at the appropriate time and in the right setting,”

-Chief Executive Bob Mazzuca.

Now let’s just run with that. What Mazzuca seems to be asserting here is that the reason for banning gays from the BSA is that a scout’s first introduction to the controversial topic of homosexuality should be with his parents/pastor/etc. Now maybe you could point out that in this culture, the chances that a kid is going to be exposed to the concept of homosexuality before his parents introduce it to him is pretty dang high. Maybe you could point out that it’s really not something you have any actual control of, and that Mazzuca’s reasoning is just an insultingly shoddy veil for the fact that Mazzuca and the rest of the board just don’t want gays in period. But if we live in a world where a kid won’t encounter homosexuality except by introduction of his parents, there’s still a pretty gaping flaw in that already questionable logic.

 

You remember the bit where I was talking about the stuff I did in boy scouts? Where I said I’ve been to the camps, memorized the oaths, and so on? Yeah, I did more than just that. I shot guns. I fished. I learned to set snares. I threw knives and axes. I used bows.

 
In short, I learned how to kill things.

I gotta ask, which is the more traumatic? Learning that my scoutmaster likes other guys, or learning to shoot a deer or gut a fish?

Surely if I can be trusted to tie knots, use knives, and start fires, I can be trusted to learn that homosexuality exists without going insane and re-enacting Rambo: First Blood, right?

I could only find GIFs from Rambo IV, but the principle is the same…

Interestingly enough, I was exposed to homosexuality in Boy Scouts. Despite Mazzuca’s assertion that the BSA takes no part in bringing up sexuality with its members, the scout troop I was with did take it upon themselves to have a showing of A Time to Tell, an informational video on sexual molestation. The film opens with the host asserting that “…It might feel uncomfortable presenting this subject to an 11 to 14 year old male audience for which it is intended, however, it is because of the unique physical and psychological changes young men experience in adolescence that the subject of sexual molestation should be directly addressed.”

 

Huh- so bringing up the extremely dark and painful subject of sexual abuse is both right and necessary, but any discussion of homosexuality should not be touched.

 

But let’s ignore the lousy excuse offered by the BSA board, and look at some other reasoning. One might try to take up the same line of reasoning used in the argument against gays in the military. That close quarters between straight and gay scouts will make for some seriously awkward and uncomfortable dynamics, and essentially prevent the troop from functioning with the kind of camaraderie it’s intended to have. Of course, I could use the whole logic of “people-sexually-attracted-to-each-other-can’t-work-together” to make a case for segregating men and women. The assumption at play is here is the idiotic old myth that gay guys are attracted to all other guys and just can’t help but act on their impulses.

Case and point.

Ok, so gay guys really don’t have any reason from being just as prepared and honorable as their straight counterparts, but what about scoutmasters? Surely gays shouldn’t be in charge of troops of young men!

Here’s where I think the clincher really is. Once upon a time, people didn’t make any distinction between being gay and being a pedophile. Just take a look at this horrific 1950s PSA labeling pedophiles and child molesters as “homosexuals”.

Crazy, right? If you want to see another interesting take on this, there’s an old Law & Order episode that deals with the whole gay/pedophile distinction not existing in the 50s. But of course, that was all more than half a century ago, and while at the time this may have been the reason against allowing gays to take up leadership positions in the BSA, it really can’t be maintained today.

 

I guess what makes it worse is that as a boyscout, I encountered so many other scouts who were foul, lazy, irresponsible- even some who were outright bullies and sexists. I find it tough to stomach that I had to stand alongside some really lousy kids while a boy who truly embodies the oath and scout law is excluded simply because he’s gay.

 

But apparently that’s what the board thinks makes a good scout- not his values, not his actions. Not his honesty, his courage, or his work-ethic. His sexual orientation, to Mazzuca and his cronies, is apparently more important than any of that.

Leave a comment

Posted in America, lgbt, news, sex

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Homosexuality In Comics As Of May 20th

Posted on May 22, 2012 by | 4 comments

hulklingwiccankissIn the series following superhero team The Authority Batman/Superman analogues Midnighter and Apollo shared a kiss in 2000. A decade later Kevin Keller premiered in an issue of Veronica, the first openly gay character in Archie Comics history; he meets his future husband in a military hospital after being wounded in action. This year Young Avengers Hulking and Wiccan shared their first kiss, the result of the former proposing to the latter. Not to be outdone, fellow Marvel character Northstar will actually be beating the couple to the altar with his fiance this June.

Two days ago, May 20th, DC Senior VP Publicity Courtney Simmons announced that “One of the major iconic DC characters will reveal that he is gay in a storyline in June.”

As far as the Big Two go, Marvel’s ahead of the game. In this case, “the game” refers to “positive representations of homosexuals in comics.” Northstar announced “I am gay” in 1992, and since then has been followed by characters such as X-Man Graymalkin, Avengers Academy member Striker, and alternate-universe versions of many, many characters. In comparison, “new” Batwoman Katherine Kane is a lesbian, and is currently heading her own ongoing series, something Marvel can’t claim.

To be more specific, DC is going to reintroduce a previously existing character (previously straight) as “one of [their] most prominent gay characters.” This means that the character will not be Batman or Superman. As someone who can’t really get behind the company’s New 52 2011 relaunch I cannot speculate on what remaining characters may be coming out as gay. What I can state, however, is why other “major, iconic” characters could never be rebooted in this way.

It’s not because of fan outrage, though that’s a factor. So many of the really iconic DC characters have rich histories which involve their heterosexual love interests. It’s difficult to imagine Clark Kent without Lois Lane and her reporting on the Big Blue Boy Scout, and basically every male hero has a girlfriend who has played a significant part in their formation as a character. Batman is a character whose sexuality defines him almost not at all, though in his case his long-questioned relationship with the Boy Wonder may prove iffy.

That being said, I don’t see how major and/or iconic this gay DC character can be. To be that said character will have to have been around for a number of years. Fans are always complaining about something, but to retcon years of history will be a very messy process. I’m looking forward to finding out who it is, but am skeptical about how much clout the person will really have in the grand scheme of things.

4 Comments

Posted in comics, lgbt

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,