the awesome/terrifying freedom

out here, somewhere, figuring it all out.

i think the reason gay people are winning so many battles lately is simple: money and placement. we have lots of money and we are everywhere. 'bride' magazine included it's first ever article on gay marriages, which has been seen as a hugely progressive move. i think the real reason the article is in the mag is because the publishers realize that there is HUGE money to be made in gay weddings. money speaks louder than morality (if you happen to think it's a moral issue).

oh the vatican. i might buy their 'gay marriage is violence to children' argument if they actually took steps to protect children. or perhaps they are speaking from personal experience, and equate their own abusive-closeted-homosexual tendencies with those of us who are actually well adjusted and secure in their sexuality and don't rape children because we have lived in self-hating denial for our entire lives. so yeah, i can see how these people might think homos would do harm to children - they feel the urge themselves. they can't believe we've adjusted. and maybe they're even jealous.

bits n' pieces..

jared leto has been cast as colin farrell's love interest in 'alexander the great.' as the joy-ologist would say 'i luv it i luv it i LUV it.' although colin farrell has just about jumped the shark (+2 for intensity, -1 for playing the same part over and over again; what's the difference between 'swat' and 'the recruit?') i will gladly pay to see him make out with mr. leto (who is pretty but proved himself a very shitty actor in the otherwise good 'panic room.')

in other news, trading spaces will have a special $100,000 dollar episode, in which the designers will each get said amount of $ to spend on the room. i love it. i think they should give this to the worst designers: we already know vern can do a great room with fifteen dollars. there's no drama in seeing him spend $100 thou. give it to kia and frank. kia can spend the money on gold-plated wallpaper borders and frank can spend it on livestock and chickens.

haven't seen 'boy meets boy' yet. argh! but i have the tape and will see it tonight. full report/breakdown/review tomorrow.

cupid was truly 'putrid' last night.. i can't watch anymore. it's horrible to see someone edited and boiled down to their most unpleasant (but true) qualities. one of lisa's friends said to paul 'i think you're fake and you're only here for self-promotion.' that girl is my new hero.

rhonda sent me this article that further describes the study which determined that stress hormones can affect the development of the male hypothalamus and create homosexual offspring.

it all sounds good and logical to me, until the end of the article, which proposes again, that homosexuality is a form of 'population control.' i just don't buy it. i can see how dr. ward comes to the conclusion: overpopulation is stressful; stress creates male homos; homos aren't driven to have sex with women; homos = population control.

it seems unlikely to me that 'stress from population overload' would be the cause for women to need to create gay babies. and as i said before, gay people as population control are totally ineffective. what does make sense to me on an evolutionary level is that having gay children becomes necessary to the survival of the children that have already been born.

in tribal societies, where women are having as many children as possible - the goal is to increase population (always the goal of living organisms). now, back when natural selection was still profoundly affecting the human race, something happened where family groups that included gay children survived, and family groups that did not include gay children died off, or at least were unable to thrive.

so here is my developing theory: that stress triggers women to give birth to gay children because the workload of rearing a large family becomes too much to handle. the gay children grow up and are able to assist in supporting the family without adding offspring to it exponentially. so it's a sort of population control, but not in the way most people phrase it: the goal isn't to limit numbers, but to assist in the ability to properly care for the numbers that are being created. in essence, gay people were necessary for human family groups to survive.

family groups with gay children survived the hardships of natural selection because every tenth child provided support, and not more mouths to feed; thus the survival of the gene into modern day society. i call it the 'gay uncle' theory. everyone has a gay uncle. everyone. that gay uncle has been very carefully placed, genetically, for the sole purpose of babysitting you while mommy and daddy go to see a movie.

but things have changed now. stress factors are different. plus we have birth control. we're not trying to have as many babies as possible so as to populate the state of utah. i guess homos are born now because women are stressed about frizzy hair and need an entire subset of people dedicated to the science of good haircare.

of course none of this accounts for lesbians. apparently the stress hormone did not create any lesbos. hmm...


in a disastrous blow to one of the most high-profile gay marriages, liza and david are getting a divorce.

over the weekend, i watched a documentary on stanley kubrick. i'm fully convinced now that the guy was a mastermind, despite 'eyes wide shut' failing to meet my expectations - but perhaps, like his other films, it won't be appreciated until ten years after its release. anyway, in the documentary, they showed various posters for 'a clockwork orange,' one of which is very clearly the inspiration for the brilliant video for the white stripes' 'seven nation army,' in which triangles rush toward the screen in a dizzying, never-ending hallway.

maryindiana writes in with a brilliant and much-neededd clay aiken update!

Just to update on "Clay News" a little old,but not too old.  I am lucky enough to be able to come home for lunch,so I see this horrible program called "Good Day Live". Two of the faux anchors are okay,one is a total skank.  The day that the Emmy nominations were announced,they called various celebrities to congratulate them. After pretty much the entire cast of "Everybody Loves Raymond" Reuben and Clay got calls. Clay first. He was thrilled and overwhelmed with the American Idol as best reality series nomination. They asked about his love life and if he had settled down with one girlfriend or was he playing the field. Hilarious. He said "'s just a lot of different girls right now,you know.."  and then when they tried to pin him down,name names or where he had been seen with these hos, he backed down " love life is dry right now. I'm too busy for the ladies!"  All this in his sweet lilting voice. He is a cutie. Just come on out already!  THEN this was the killer. Rueben was called and asked about the nomination. "I dunno. I don't got nuthin' ta do wit that. I was just on it,you know?"  "Fair enough,Reuben,but aren't you happy for the producers of the show?"  "Yeah...I guess."  "So who are you taking to the Emmys? Do you have a girlfriend or will Clay be your date."  Reuben scoffed and said "Will Clay be my DATE? Awww hell NO! He ain't gonna be my date!"  I about fell off the couch laughing. He was pretty outraged even though I am sure the hosts meant it in that broad definition sense. Like Nicole Kidman's "date" to the Oscars was her Mom,etc.    

Jimmy Kimmel brought out a "Clay Aiken Action Figure" that is supposedly going to be on sale with Clay's album. It was a Barbie doll dressed like Clay and with her hair cut and spiked up like Clay's. The next night Jimmy showed a clip from some ABC/Disney dance contest where a guy gestured broadly and was too too fabulous dancing to Barry Manilow's 'Copacabana'. Jimmy apologized and took away Clay's 'title' of Queerest Man in America". Then he showed "Harrlem" the winner of "Fame" and apologized to the kid from ABC...
The women on Good Day Live seem to be obsessed with Clay Aiken. They talk about him ALL OF THE TIME.

oh dear. 'harlemm' really is the gayest 'man' in america. i wasn't able to watch 'fame' aside from the first couple episodes, but am glad to know that one of the nellyiest crybabies in the history of television can still win a poplularity contest.

maryindiana writes in with a brilliant and much-neededd clay aiken update!

enough to be able to come home for lunch,so I see this horrible program called "Good Day Live". Two of the faux anchors are okay,one is a total skank.  The day that the Emmy nominations were announced,they called various celebrities to congratulate them. After pretty much the entire cast of "Everybody Loves Raymond" Reuben and Clay got calls. Clay first. He was thrilled and overwhelmed with the American Idol as best reality series nomination. They asked about his love life and if he had settled down with one girlfriend or was he playing the field. Hilarious. He said "'s just a lot of different girls right now,you know.."  and then when they tried to pin him down,name names or where he had been seen with these hos, he backed down " love life is dry right now. I'm too busy for the ladies!"  All this in his sweet lilting voice. He is a cutie. Just come on out already!  THEN this was the killer. Rueben was called and asked about the nomination. "I dunno. I don't got nuthin' ta do wit that. I was just on it,you know?"  "Fair enough,Reuben,but aren't you happy for the producers of the show?"  "Yeah...I guess."  "So who are you taking to the Emmys? Do you have a girlfriend or will Clay be your date."  Reuben scoffed and said "Will Clay be my DATE? Awww hell NO! He ain't gonna be my date!"  I about fell off the couch laughing. He was pretty outraged even though I am sure the hosts meant it in that broad definition sense. Like Nicole Kidman's "date" to the Oscars was her Mom,etc.    

Jimmy Kimmel brought out a "Clay Aiken Action Figure" that is supposedly going to be on sale with Clay's album. It was a Barbie doll dressed like Clay and with her hair cut and spiked up like Clay's. The next night Jimmy showed a clip from some ABC/Disney dance contest where a guy gestured broadly and was too too fabulous dancing to Barry Manilow's 'Copacabana'. Jimmy apologized and took away Clay's 'title' of Queerest Man in America". Then he showed "Harrlem" the winner of "Fame" and apologized to the kid from ABC...
The women on Good Day Live seem to be obsessed with Clay Aiken. They talk about him ALL OF THE TIME.

oh dear. 'harlemm' really is the gayest 'man' in america. i wasn't able to watch 'fame,' unfortunately, but am glad to know that one of the nellyiest crybabies in the history of television can still win a poplularity contest.

i was in barnes and noble yesterday and came across a great-looking book called "The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature." the book discusses many sex-based issues - such as why men propose to women and not vice-versa - in terms of biology. he argues that the purpose of sex is to keeps genes shuffling so that they can stay one step ahead of disease. it looks like he covers a lot of ground, explaining the male penchant for polyamory and the female tendency towards monogamy, along with many other biological roots of male/female stereotypes.

i flipped to the index and looked up the passages on homosexuality. there wasn't much, but i was impressed by what he had to say. he concludes that the development of homosexuality is largely hormonal, and takes place before birth. apparently the hormone associated with stress can affect your child's sexuality: he discussed studies on rats that have determined that females injected with a stress hormone during pregnancy are more likely to have homosexual offspring. i like his final analogy that a 'gene' for homosexuality is only as certain as the gene for height: a set of twins may have the have genetic programming to grow to a certain height, but if they are given different diets, the end results can be vastly different.

it reminds me of a case in 'the sissy boy complex' of identical twins, one who was gay and closeted, and another who was straight and had a girlfriend. at first it seemed like cut and dry proof that there could be no gay gene - but five years later the straight brother refuses to 'label' himself and the gay brother now has a girlfriend. it can be fluid. there's just no real telling. unless it's clay aiken. he loves the cock.

i was disappointed that the book did not delve into my big question: the evolutionary purpose of homosexuality, only causes. he discussed purpose quite extensively in regards to breeders, but didn't touch it for homos. oh well. i'll have to look further. i'm still developing my theory.

the subways have been overrun with posters for 'american wedding.' this film is being billed as 'the thrilling conclusion of the 'american pie' saga.' wow. i can't wait to find out what happens. this saga will live on in history along with 'porky's' and 'the oresteia.' i hope it's not the last 'pie' movie. there are so many other places they can go: 'american pot pie: the sexually starved married years,' 'american hair pie: the lesbian daughter who's not hot.' 'american pi: an unhealthy obsession with math.' as long as seann william scott can make the 'no wayy' face and as long as jason biggs can't get any other jobs, you can bet we haven't seen the last of the pie. i can't wait to see this new movie though. i'm dying to see which new body fluid they're going to ingest! maybe they'll break with expectation and go with poo eating. we haven't seen a good poo eating on film since 'pink flamingoes.' c'mon jason biggs, grab your knife and fork and have at it!

speaking of poo eating, i was eating a 'baked lays' potato chip and noticed that these chips are made of a processed paste material pressed into a mold. if you look at an unbroken chip, you will notice that all the unbroken chips are the exact same shape, and you will see a very fine seam running down the middle - evidence of the mold. i'm not outraged or anything (dammit! i thought i was eating a real chip!) but it's fascinating how far someone will go to make an artificial paste look and taste like a chip. this thing went through committees ('jim, i think we need to give it a little wave in the middle') and panels (no marge, it needs more yelow food color), and tests (karen and her team have found that midwesterners enjoy the small notches on either end!).

so my dad called and said 'have you seen this show.. queer something?' i said, yeah i love it. 'really..?' he said. i said yeah it's hilarious and fun. he said 'but the stereotypes are so horrible.'

which launched the good vs. bad stereotype discussion again. it's funny how people who are not gay, but friends of gay people have an instant negative reaction to the show - they assume that the show is somehow attacking gays, or is bad for their image. i tried to convince him that it's a funny show, and that any good gay party would have at least one of those types stealing the show, and no gay conversation is complete without a discussion of hair products.

oh, my dad also apologized for having me circumcised. that was nice. he also said i should be glad i wasn't born into a mayan tribe. i'd have mr. winky stuck with an obsidian blade or a stingray spine, the blood collected in a basket of paper, which when fully dyed red with blood would be burned, the smoke being a direct communication with god. good thing we have fiber optics now.

last night's 'queer eye' was pretty good - the fashion guy, carson, is quite the wisecracker. the show is best when the straight guys are comfortable enough to relax and play around with the homos. plus they made his apartment look fabulous. it's cool to see them really trying to help someone rather than completely make them over for shock value - unlike the 'sally-jessie makeover' that consists of dying everyone's hair red (hopefully not the mayan way) and putting them in a lane bryant pantsuit. but it is obvious that the show gets free mechandise from 'lucky' and 'diesel' for prominent logo and screen time.

tune in tonight and watch my friend paul on his ongoing quest to destroy his every last shred of dignity on putrid. wait! there's still a piece of it over there, on the floor! stamp it out, paul! stamp it out!

so last week i promised to give my theory on homosexuality. hope this sparks some debate.

here's part 1 of my crack at it: "disputing the population control theory."

what is the evolutionary purpose of having roughly ten percent of the population turn out gay? a popular argument that i hear a lot of gay people spout is that 'we are here for population control,' that gay people exist to limit the growth of humanity and keep us from taking over the world and exhausting its resources. sort of a nice thought, but i think this is bullshit. for gay people to be an evolutionary solution to over-population would require evolution to have foresight. evolution doesn't work this way. it doesn't say 'hmm.. if we keep growing, resources will be a problem. i'd better make sure we don't grow too much. nature creates natural variances in the gene pool, then through natural selection, portions of the population die, and the surviving variances are passed forward through the generations, gradually creating new species, specifically adapted for their environments.

perhaps (although it's a really weak argument, seeing how humanity has exploded) population control is a result of homosexuality, but it does not account for its evolutionary purpose. why did the homosexuality gene survive? what were the natural conditions leading to it's existence? genetic traits survive because something about that trait enabled the person bearing it to survive beyond natural selection. they do not survive because one day, far far into the future people will over-run the planet and maybe we'll need to pull back a bit on our growth. evolution has no way of knowing something like that. it is geared toward only one thing: spread and multiply. a built in population control would be the worst kind of evolutionary foresight: a self-defeating prophecy. it would be disastrous to migratory, early human civilizations if humans had to overcome their own genetic makeup in order to ensure the species would survive; it wouldn't survive, it wouldn't grow. there are serious logical gaps in the argument.

the need to control our population is a new problem, not something that evolution would have dealt with. in about fifty years, when the earth is predicted to reach max capacity, then we'll see some population control-based natural selection going on. a better answer for population control is our tendency to wage war on each other, which is probably what will happen when we reach max capacity: it's a far more effective control than a 10% male buggering segment.

of course all of this assumes that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition. if you can't accept that conceit, then the rest isn't going to fly very well.

homosexuality has survived because it provides some evolutionary benefit to humanity. what is that benefit? the ability to match a throw pillow to an accented lampshade? well, of course! endless wit and wisdom? definitely! mentoring women on how to maintain their perms? most assuredly.

but why did we survive? a better question is why are we continuing to be born? why is roughly every other child male? why is roughly every tenth (another study says 1/100) child gay?

i want to hear your ideas.. i'll print mine later.

chris from d.c. writes in with some insight:

You wouldn't believe the number of my straight friends who have emailed me about how appalling they thought the Bravo show "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" is. Universally, they expected me to decry the show's stereotyping of all gay males as obsessive-compulsive fashion divas with just a bit too much lilt in the voice and a penchant for adding the prefix "boy-" to otherwise mundane nouns.

Strangely, I'm not that disturbed by the show. Granted, I live in your typical urban gay ghetto. But, it seems to me that most gay men really ARE more aware of their bodies, really DO have better taste in clothes, and really HAVE more sensitivity to their surroundings. I'm sure everyone has that one gay friend who can't match his shoes and his belt, but c'mon...isn't there some truth to all stereotypes? Isn't there really such a thing as gay "culture"?? And should we be forced to reject the positive aspects of gay stereotyping just because we disdain the negative? Hmmmmmm.....

As for hate crimes...I think your gut reaction is the honest one. I'm not sure what difference it makes if someone murders me "simply" to get my wallet or because they were ALSO motivated by the fact that I sleep with men. If it's "simply" for the former, isn't it still sending a message to everyone with a wallet? ("Be afraid...we want your cash!!") And that seems to be what distinguishes a hate crime from any other crime; that it sends a signal to a group.

I seems to me that this fight for hate crimes legislation feeds right into the hands of those who claim that our quest for equal rights really covers up an agenda of "special rights."

i think your friends didn't get it. right down to the title, the show is built around reclaiming a negative stereotype and glorifying it. it seems like there will always be backlash against highly visible flamers. sure, not every gay man is a screaming queen, but you can't be a cultural policeman, telling every nelly fag in chelsea to 'butch it up' for the benefit of the 'greater gay image.' in support of your friends, though, it would have been a nice twist if one of the guys, say the 'culture' guy, was more of a macho guy - it would be delicious irony to see a gay man who's even more masculine than the guys they're making over, coaching a perplexed straight guy on how to shake hands or walk in cowboy boots.

rrgghh.. people need to be able to differentiate between the presentation of a stereotype for purposes of degredation versus the presentation of a stereotype for celebration. your straight friends mean well.. they don't like the thought that much of america might lump you in with the nellys on 'queer eye.' this used to be a big problem. it's not anymore. there are many shades of gay, and more and more of those shades are getting their day in the sun. i can't wait for 'boy meets boy,' where we'll get to see a deconstruction of just what constitues gay and straight behavior - and maybe at the end of the show we'll see that the answer is nothing.

i totally agree that hate crime legislation could feed into the hands of the 'special rights' camp. i still don't know what to think. perhaps the solution isn't to eliminate hate crime legislation, but to make it a little tougher to prosecute people on it. maybe it should be like proving 1st, 2nd, or third degree murder - we could make 'targeted hate' a similar degree of offense. prosecutors would have to prove a pattern of behavior before the case could be classified as such...

an open letter to my friend paul who is a finalist on 'cupid':

i know you were hoping national exposure would jump-start your career. but the show is awful (i'm calling it putrid from now on) and now they own you because you signed a byzantine contract. to top it all off, your appearance wednesday was not the stuff of which careers are made. i'm sorry bud, but i actually felt sick to my stomach watching you humiliate yourself not just in front of those girls, but in front of america. so now you're stuck on the show until you get kicked out. what do you hope to gain by being on this show? street recognition? 'oh look! there's the pink suit guy!' it's really strange to watch a reality show when you actually know someone who's on it. usually you delight in other's humiliation and suffering. but wow, this was just horrible. made me sad actually. you'll never read this, since you've been sequestered, but maybe some sane thinking will work its way through the atmosphere to you. be as forgettable and invisible as possible. get yourself voted out for being unmemorable, and then never tell anyone that you did it. ever. because right now, i'm embarassed to know you, and i'm embarassed for you.

the best new show on television is 'queer eye for the straight guy.' i felt such absolute glee watching this show, because it finally showed, in full glory, a basic element of of the relationship i have with my straight male best friends - until i got out of undergrad, strangely, all my best friends were straight men. i never realized just how completely underrepresented this (and i think not uncommon.. am i wrong?) relationship is depicted. not all of us have fag hags. some of us have fag hogs.

pehaps the strength of my relationships to straight men came from an early feeling of envy, combined with a reverse fag-hag phenom.

i was a fag hag for straight men. what is that called? straight-weight? i was a gay male example of the fag hag phenom of insecure women clinging to and becoming best friends with attractive unavailable men.

i first realized i was gay when in 8th grade my first true best friend, max, began dating a girl named jennifer. i seethed with uncontrollable jealousy. the big wake-up came when i realized that i wasn't jealous of max for being with jennifer - i was jealous of jennifer for being with max. i did everything i could to split them up - god i was an evil little bitch. years and years later, when i finally came to terms with it all, i came out to max. our friendship was restored, stronger than ever. i sort of lived my imaginary straight life through him.. a product of self-hatred, yes, but the resulting friendship was well worth it. several years later max ran into jennifer in a bar and they dated for many months.

my other straight best friend is steve, who was an on and off again frat boy who i went to high school and college with. we weren't very close in high school, but were only a handful of kids from our high school to attend my undergrad. faced with the new environment, we clung together, and discovered how much we had in common based not on our sexuality, but on our common maleness. getting invited to his frat parties was a good perk too. when neither of us could get dates, steve and i would have 'guys night in,' where we'd get drunk, go down to the adult video store and pick out a video that had both hot chicks and hot guys, watch it while drinking beer and cracking wit, talk about sex, talk about how much we hate being single, and go home. believe it or not, the group viewing of porn is common among straight men, especially in frat house situations.. it's pretty fun actually; the porn is deconstructed and analyzed.. it becomes a sort of xxx 'mystery science theatre 3000.'

probably the best part of these friendships was being with people so completely comfortable in their own skins and sexualities. max and i would go to gay bars and i'd protect him by pretending to be his boyfriend. steve and i even got 'married' so that i could get a free gym membership...

steve ended up transfering back to our hometown college in boulder after a year away. i would come home for the summers and we'd work out together at the university of colorado student gym. since i wasn't a CU student, i would have had to pay $10/visit. our solution: get married. so we opened a joint checking account to provide evidence of our 'domestic partnership.' we presented the bank's form at the gym and the woman behind the counter happily gave me my free membership!

but i digress. the essence of my relationship to these straight men, and even to an extent to my straight roommate was to be 'the style advisor.' i picked out the paint colors for my roommate's apartment. i taught max how to work out and told him what to wear on his date with jennifer. i told steve which outfits to wear out to the club and which product to use in his hair. i taught them to be metrosexuals and they taught me, well, they taught me at least something of what it means to be a man. i learned to flip over a corona like a frat boy and watch the lime rise to the top without exploding beer everywhere. i learned to nurture my love of action movies and video games. i learned to not be afraid of asking the hulk at the gym for a spot.

i kinda forgot all this since i moved to new york. the show made me remember it. it's yet another sign of the great things that can come by melding two seemingly incompatible worlds.

the closing of the ny times article, written by a similarly enamoured straight man puts is best: 'television has long featured straight male characters making jokes about gay men, or teasing each other about acting gay, or just generally reveling in their babe-watching, couch-potato-ing heterosexuality. not infrequently, these characters have even been played by gay men.

now the same medium features guys like butch and adam laboring intensely to look more gay. and all across america, straight guys will watch the show, and from their stained, sagging couches, where they sit in their boxers drinking budweiser from a can, they'll see people's lives transformed by queerness, and they'll think, "dude, maybe someday that could be me."'

my god!!! what is the deal with these ads above my blog? i'm ready to vomit. this is a direct result of google's recent acquisition of blogger. now google can place their own advertisers above blogs that register on various word searches. so by writing about gay people and hate crime legislation, i get an ad from google that puts an ad for a 'jesse dirkhising' search next to a 'focus on the family" search.

these 'ads' are strange. the larger section of the ad is paid for by specific sites, and the smaller area at the bottom is adspace for google to promote themselves by supposedly offering relevant searces to the readers of a specific blog. i like it when ariana huffington or bill maher appears, but all the right wing stuff? do me a favor and don't click over to those sites. it will only encourage them.

on the good side of all this, i didn't know who jesse dirkhising was until last night. he was a 13 year old boy, raped and murdered by gay men in arkansas shortly after the matthew shepherd case reached full media saturation. jesse got virtually no press, and has since become a poster boy for right wingers needing evidence of a vast gay conspiracy within the news media. for them, it proves a hipocrisy when reporting 'hate crimes;' that news organizations will go out of their way to protect the fragile image of gay people, perhaps trying to avoid a similar storm of protest after andrew cunanan was headlined as 'the gay serial killer.'

and here's the problem with the term 'hate crime.' was jesse's death a 'hate crime?' how do you determine whether these two sick homos were taking out an agression against straight people, or if they were just plain, equal opportunity, sick fucks?

there's too much to write.. i'm undecided on where i stand regarding hate crime legislation. i have to think it through some more. true, a person's intent can never be known - we can only judge by action - and it is possible on some level to look at a person's pattern of behaviour and determine motive. but should there be a separate category for 'certain types' of hatred? is hate crime legislation a form of inverse social justice affirmative action? i support affirmative action... should i support this?

busy day. i've been cast in a play! i am playing a frustrated dostoevsky-obsessed gay man who ends up dating satan. it's totally me! (except for the boyfriend part. shout out to rob woo!)

ny times has a great article on genetic and biological reasons for aging and mortality rates which ties very nicely into my theory on the genetic purpose of homosexulaity. but you'll just have to come back tomorrow for that.

hmm. which is the bigger lie?

1) 'the british government has learned that saddam hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from africa.'


2) 'i did not have sexual relations with that woman.'

the gop felt that #2 was worthy of impeachment.

here's what condi rice had to say to wolf blitzer about #1:

BLITZER: All right, the key question: How did that get into the president's State of the Union address, arguably the most important speech he gives every year? How did it get in, if that wasn't necessarily meeting the standards that you think that should have been met?

RICE: Wolf, let me just start by saying, it is 16 words, and it has become an enormously overblown issue.

can you imagine if clinton had said 'well gee, it was only 9 words, c'mon, people!'

what is the deal with the ads above my blog?? it's obvious that the ads are targeted to the specific google searches that bring up the site.. so i've had ads for the advocate, various gay dating organizations, gay support groups, etc. but last night i logged in to find an ad offering 'help for homosexuality,' at regeneration books. at first i included the link, but i've taken it off because i don't want a bunch of people going to their site through mine: i don't need them thinking they're actually getting some recruits. if you want to see it, open a new window and go to the site contains a whole library of resources on how to turn yourself straight, how to preach the gospel to homosexuals, and how to keep your kids from turning gay.

do they really think my website is a good place to advertise these services? i wonder how much they pay for blogger's 'intuitive advertising' plan. maybe they're hoping to reel clay-aiken types into their evil clutches.

ignorance is so frustrating to me. the christian organizations that write these books live in such fear of gay people that their claims are based on the oldest of evidence, and the flimsiest of stereotypes. i would love to see a study of this type, explored in a thorough and unbiased manner - which is really impossible since each side has too much at stake to fund a study that might turn against them.

but fluidity of sexuality is actually very interesting to me - i want to know, without any religious rhetoric, where and how the lines of sexuality are drawn, erased, redrawn, and formed. i have several friends who have been genuinely confused and fluid with their sexuality throughout their lives, having had fully legitimate relationships with people of both sexes. i trust that these were real explorations, too. these forays weren't made out of denial or self hatred, but out of attraction and interest.. so i can't discount the possiblity that choice, for some people, is a viable option.

thanks to the nature/nurture debate, and the necessity for warring factions to fall on easily definable sides, the notion of choice has been off limits to gay people. one crack in the facade that we are gay at birth and remain gay forever might give the religious right just the ammo they need to pound the last nail in the coffin. when i was growing up, the biggest argument gay people had against 'choice,' was 'why would anyone choose to be villified by society? why would anyone choose to be ostracised by their families and marginalized in this way?' but now as society becomes more accepting, choice (or rather, open experimentation in the hopes of finding one's self) is becoming a viable option, which changes a lot of things: the right-winger's now have to prove not that it's a choice, but that that choice is somehow destroying society. and seeing how society (and the supreme court) is much more approving, they've got quite a fight ahead of them.

lately the right is losing the battle, and it's happening just in time.. just as we begin to figure out that sexuality may not be as rigid as we all suspected, society begins to figure out that it really doesn't matter for shit. the issue is gradually becoming about personal freedom over science, genetics, and the 'nurture vs. nature' debate. because ultimately, all of the scientific arguments come down to the provability of love. there's no way, fundamentally, to know if someone is truly gay or straight. we can only take their word for it and make judgements based on behavior (and judging by mrs. aiken's behaviour, we've got a full nelly on our hands). we've learned that people will screw just about anything. how do you separate action from intent? really, you can't (which is the basis of controversy regarding hate-crime legislation).

the ex-gay movement is creepy because it creates perfect heterosexual christian men: good boys who aren't tormented by the relentless pursuit of pussy. who will only fuck to breed. and when they do it, hey sure as hell won't enjoy it. a lot of devout xtian men must be envious.

one of the books at regeneration books is called 'a parent's guide to preventing homosexuality.' the blurb says '- a boy wanting to be a girl or a girl who rejects her femininity and wants to be a boy; studies show that such children have a very high chance of growing up homosexual, bisexual or transsexual.' this is so interesting.. the christian book acknowledges that gay traits exhibit at an early age, but then in the same breath expect us to believe that these childhood proclivities have no biological basis? the book shows 'how boys grow into masculinity.' there is even a chapter called 'from tomboys to lesbians.' so basically it's about forcing programmed gender behaviors on children - the idea being that behavior is the end-all indicator of sexuality. well i think it's a great way to raise gay kids. they'll all grow up to be gay games athletes, falcon porn stars and lipstick lesbians. i love it!

ughh.. i'm never eating medium-rare or maybe even a medium hamburger again. who knew that a bloody 4th of july hamburger would have me doubled over in excruciating pain with bloody diarrhea.

take my advice kids, cook that meat. yow. trust me. trrrust me.

as if bloody diarrhea weren't enough, i took it upon myself to brave the worst of reality television. i watched the season finale of 'for love or money,' two episodes of 'paradise hotel,' and the season premiere of 'cupid.' dear god.

i must admit, during the finale of 'love or money,' i was ecstatic that what's her name actually chose the money (not that 'love' was actually a choice with that bland 'i got thrown out of the military for sexually assaulting a girl' loser). saturday night live did a spoof on 'joe millionaire' called 'joe not-a-rapist.' this was pretty much the same thing. but then, after she takes the money and runs, we cut to 'three weeks later' where she is lured back into being the star of 'love or money 2,' in which the men think she doesn't know they they're really playing for money, but she does know, and what she knows but they don't know is that if the guy picks her over the money, they win 2 million - oh and she had to burn her $1 million check..

okay. paradise hotel. amazing. a buncha hot people thrown into a small space, encouraged to get drunk and fuck each other. and and and if you don't fuck anyone, you go home! and and and people in the studio audience can compete to get to fuck the people on the show! only problem is that not a lot of fucking is going on.. just a lot of hidden cameras showing drunken people going in and out of bathrooms. oh and sometimes a teary eyed blurry mascara-ed girl freaks out about zack. and then some guy named scott, like, gets all pissed and shit. it's embarassing really - i can feel the producers in their board room, twiddling their fingers, looking at the raw footage, working overtime to try and inject some actual drama into the show. i feel sorry for the composer - he must be so tired of using that 'bum bummm' sound every time we're supposed to think some major betrayal has taken place.. or that 'whoosssh' sound every time they cut to the fly-over shot of the hotel.

sadly, just as lame as 'paradise lost' is simon cowell's bitch-baby 'cupid.' hoo boy. it's basically the 'american idol' format applied to dating, which is a horrible horrible idea. why should we care who this chick gets hooked up with? what's my motivation to call in and vote for this guy over that guy? with american idol, i was voting on entertainment value - something that i get (or don't get) for myself from each contestant. what's my investment in this girl that's going have me reaching for the phone to ensure her happiness? i'm more likely to reach for the phone to land her with a psycho. on top of that, it looks like only a handful of men showed up to audition at each city, so basically, if you're not overtly psycho, or trotted your mother out to the audition with you, you're guranteed a spot in 'the next round.'

so.. i've been home sick for the past two days.. and i've watched a lot of scary daytime tv.

christopher lowell: this man is a vagina.

suprise by design: the discovery channel's rip-off of their own show 'while you were out.' on todays episode, we saw a neglected housewife get the master bedroom redone for her closeted husband. my favorite part on these shows (which consist mostly of bored housewives getting rooms made over for their husbands) is when the husband comes home and the wife and the designers shout 'surprise!' and the husband stands there completely nonplussed. 'oh. wow. looks good.'

hey, lookee.. i'm several weeks ahead of slate in calling jewel out on her hypocrisy!

i'm back from a relaxing weekend at the beach..

and what better news to return to than to discover that michael savage has been fired from msnbc!

in sad news, for followers of last year's blog, the infamous mrs J died on wednesday after a long battle with cancer.

she was difficult to work for, but never ever dull. i wish i could have known her under different circumstances. she was one of those personalities that just screamed to be immortalized on stage, in film, and at the very least, in sit-com format. in honor of mrs J, here is a reprint of some of my favorite mrs J highlights:

• • • • •

J: joseph? do we have any more brazillian chocolate nut? belgian nut cocoa? or, nut? what is it called again?

me: i don't know. do you see any?

J: well there's what's out here, but i'm wondering if we need to order any more.

she places her cup in the machine

me: if you don't see it, then we probably do.

J: and what about french roast? are we completely out of french roast? and what's this? rainforest nut? why is that completely gone? i haven't been drinking that! who on earth drinks something called rainforest nut?

me: oh i drink that one.

J: you do? is it any good?

me: well.. yeah.. it's/

J: yes and what does it taste like?

me: it's, well, not anyth/

J: well it's all out you know. if you like it we're going to have to order more.

me: no, there's more in the cupboard.

J: oh, look at that, and it's staring right back at me! ha ha. well could you get it down for me dear. i certainly can't reach way up there.

me: here you go.

J: do you know how to open it? you have to twist off the/ (i open it) oh see, you know what you're doing and here i am just spouting off. now can you look up there and see, do we have any more french roast?

me: no.. i don't see any more..

J: well let's ask tony. tony? tony?

tony: yes?

J: french roast?

tony: um..?

J: do we have any more?

tony: is there more in th/

J: well that's the thing you see. there's not any more in the cupboard and what i was wondering was if we had any more downstairs.

tony: no we don't.

J: well could you be a dear and order some more?

tony: M does all the ordering for that. i don't know anything about it.

J: oh M does, M does, and where is M? is she calling in sick again today? joseph has she called?

me: no she's coming in.

J: tony, can you be in charge of telling M that we need to order more, what is it that we need dear boy? french roast? sounds a bit saucy (she does a little dance) brazil nut, nut belgium chocolate or whatever the bloody thing is. suppose i shouldn't say 'bloody,' we're not in the old country anymore!

me: heh.

J: and what are you laughing at?

me: 'old country'

J: well that's what it is you know, the 'old country,' we're living in the colonies now! don't forget to tell M tony, i simply can't be expected function without my daily cup! of course i shouldn't even be drinking it. joseph, i'm holding you personally responsible to make sure i drink exactly three of these water bottles today. yes, i've got to drink three that's what the doctor says i need to do, so i suppose i have to choke it down! alright, i'll be in my office if you need me.

me: J!

J: yes dear?

me: you left your cup in the machine.

J: oh goodness! i'm always doing that aren't i? thank you ever so much for telling me joseph or i swear i'd never wake up this morning.

• • • • •

9:55 AM
dear readers, pray for me.

mrs J has returned.

J: good morning joseph, how have you been keeping yourself busy in my absence? been throwing parties i'm sure?

me: um.

J: phones and filing yes? same old bullshit yes?

me: how was your trip.

J: fabulous. you know every time i go to london i always think i'd like to live there again. i bought milk joseph because i figured we'd be out by now. can you check and see if there's enough milk for the coffee? and put this carton in there while you're at it. you haven't forgotten that we're doing that schedule today have you? yes? you can make time for me this morning can't you darling? because we need to schedule these speakers two to a date, and we need to do them based on subject, and i need to check my email and see if any of the lab heads have written me back. did you check my email darling?

me: no, i couldn't because/

J: why ever not joseph? i ask you one simple thing!

me: the computer guy was messing with/

J: what on earth was he doing? was he setting up web mail? i already have netscape mail! i've always used netscape mail.

me: its/

J: oh i'll talk to him. that damn computer is such a source of frustration. oh joseph did they hire anyone?

me: well.. they found/

J: what was that woman they like but she couldn't type fast enough?

me: they found another woman who could type 85 words a minutes.

J: oh that's good. did they offer it to her? did they like her?

me: they really liked her a lot, but she needed an immediate response and M and K didn't want to offer her the job before she'd met you.

J: WHAT!? that's utterly absurd! i don't care who they hire! they just need to hire someone for chrisssakes it such bullshit, i'm telling you joseph i can work with anyone.

me: mm.

J: and so they just let her go? they lost her? aaagh! i can't tell you how frustrating that is joseph. i don't care who they hire! they're never going to find anyone now. you can't wait on these things. what was it did she have another offer was that it?

me: yeah i think she did.

J: DEAR GOD, do M and K not know how to be competitive? and you know as much as anyone that the person in this position is hardly even going to be working with me. not that it makes any difference anyway because i can work with anyone, i'm very adaptable.

• • • • •

12:09 PM
J: joseph i need your computer expertise. what in heaven's name am i going to do when you're gone? joseph why haven't you put out the new candy?

me: i did.

J: yes but these are the chocolates joseph i want the suckies joseph, put out the suckies. didn't i buy some suckies?

me: uh yeah, they're here.

i pull out the bag of lemon drops.

J: well rip it open darling and throw them in the bowl because i have a sudden craving for a suckie.

i open the bag and dump some lemon drops into the bowl as she holds it out for me.

J: more darling, more. a little more. that's enough joseph we don't want you wasting them. now i need you to help me with this. come into my office.

i go.

J: alright now i'm working on the new version of my cv. now joseph don't go blabbing to everyone that i'm working on my cv. you're not the only one getting out of this godforsaken place darling.

me: heheh i won't tell.

J: now look at this. it's three pages and i want it to be two and it was two pages and now it's three. why is it three pages darling? and the margins are all screwed up and every time i click on something it gets messed up again! look at this! oh this is utterly frustrating! fix it joseph, can you fix it?

click click click.

me: there.

J: now what did you do?

me: you had tabbed over instead of using the margin controls up here.

J: oh i hate using those things. what am i going to do when you're gone? does chad know how to do all this?

me: he should yes. they test us at the agency.

J: hm. well i don't know darling i just don't like the look of him, but i suppose if chad is it then chad must do. now i want to print this darling so i'm going to go to the file menu right and choose print and then, oh joseph can you run over to the printer and see how it's coming out? can you put in the nice paper? i want it on nice paper darling none of this cheap crap we use all the rest of the day.

i go to the printer. she comes out after me, the pointed ends of her blonde 'that girl' wig flapping with each hurried step.

J: okay joseph i've sent it now did you put in the good paper? it goes in this slot here yes? now/ oop there it goes! now oh wait a minute it took the whole stack! now why? it's flashing joseph i think it's jammed it says 'rear door' how do you open the rear door? is it this one?

me: no, dont/

J:oh dear now it's making this grinding noise. i suppose i'd better close that up. perhaps i should just grab onto the paper sticking out here and yank it out?

me: no you don't have to/

J: boy this is really in here tight isn't it?

me: don't. just open this flap. and close it.

J: oh well that was simple wasn't it. oh i'm so stressed out now. i think i need another suckie. go and bring me the rest of those suckies joseph. i'm going to keep them in my desk.

• • • • •

rest in peace, mrs J. may you continue to wreak havok in that great office in the sky...

today's topic: circumcision

i remember so clearly the moment i realized exactly what had been done to me. i was in junior high, and it was during one of my 'extended stays' in the bathroom at home. i remember looking at mr. winky and thinking that there seemed to be tissue on it similar to the scar tissue on my arm from a recent bike crash. 'what is this? is this a scar? how did i get a scar there? is that from.. ohh. oh. holy shit. and this part used to be here, and look at how it fits together.. and holy shit.. so that's what it means.' i lost my woody, which was quickly replaced by a horrible sinking feeling, a feeling of total violation. a feeling that a sexual violence had been inflicted on me bordering on rape.

i had known that i was circumcised, sure, but didn't really have a concept of what it meant. how could i? i had never really seen any other penises - i'd seen a few porn films, but cut and uncut erect penises pretty much look the same, especially if you don't know what you're looking for. why would my parents do this to me? i suppose my dad did it because he was circumcised too and subsequently had no reason to think that he was missing something. i remember my dad telling me about it when i was little, that it was a 'standard operation during childbirth.' he made it sound as necessary as cutting the cord. doctor's sometimes justify it as 'nothing more than a piece of skin the size of a quarter.'

yeah, well, not when the kid is fully grown. turns out that what i've lost is fifteen square inches of skin - that's a 3x5 index card's worth- containing no less than 20,000 nerve endings, skin more sensitive than fingertips. this is no minor flap of flesh - this has been fashioned over millions of years of evolution. evolution may not be perfect in crafting peripheral organs and body parts, but if there's anyting it needs to get right, it's the sex organs. just looking at the specificity of the reproductive design of the thousands of breeds of orchids, how can you believe that this flap of skin is functionless and expendable?

the more i learn about it, the more queasy and betrayed and robbed i feel.

my dad also explained that it was done for 'hygene purposes.' so basically millions of men are being stripped of a huge part of their ability to feel sexual pleasure so that they can save a couple minutes of my shower routine?

i don't buy it. something deeper is going on here. why is circumcision so popular in america? why do americans have such puritanical attitudes toward sex? why are so many europeans not circumsized? why does europe have a much freer attitude toward sex? does all this stem from america's puritanical roots? what turned us into lemmings, willfully inflicting sexual blindness on each other for countless generations?

this must go way way back. back to a time when the powers that be lived in fear of the unchecked passions of men.

king: i'm afraid.

advisor: of what?

king: that the people will revolt.

advisor: why, my lord?

king: because their lives are terrible. because men are animals. look at how they fuck and kill everything in sight.

advisor: i don't do these things.

king: that's because we cut your balls off when you were born.

advisor: oh yes. that.

king: does that upset you?

advisor: of course not, my lord. it's the only existence i know.

king: do you ever get angry?

advisor: oh yes, my lord. once, when the cook let the soup get cold, i became so furious that i went into the kitchen and heated it up myself.

king: is that all?

advisor: no. i also clenched my fists!

king: hmm.. why can't all the men be like you? aside from the creepy voice i mean.

advisor: only your advisors are like me.

king: perhaps all men should.. wait. grab that slab of mud and your cunieform pen.

advisor: sir?

king: i'm getting an idea.

advisor: oh, yes, yes sir!

king: take this down. yes, we'll say that, um, we'll say 'by decree of the king' -no- that's not big enough. scratch that. i mean wipe that. we'll say that 'god has spoken through me and has decreed that all the men in the kingdom must cut off their balls to prove their worship to him. and all the balls of all the male children must be cut off as well!'

advisor: oh sir, it's brilliant. do you think the people will do it?

king: oh yeeeah. just say 'god' and they'll do it. but to make them feel better, lets throw a party for it. write this down. 'god has also decreed that we shall have an elaborate ball-cutting ceremony!' did you get that?

advisor: '...ball cutting ceremony.' yes sir.

king: a 'no-more-balls ball'. oh i love this.

advisor: very clever. i'm so happy that all men will know the joys of my existence.

king: yes they will. yes they will.

advisor: oh sir, may i be so honored as to remove your balls myself?

king: the king will keep his balls.

advisor: oh.

king: god makes exceptions.

advisor: of course.. but sir.. one question.. how will the people procreate with no balls?

king: i will impregnate all the women myself. duh.

advisor: oh, oh yes.

king: hello, that's why i need my balls.

advisor: of course. but.. sir, if all men lose their violent passion - what if there is a war?

king: what of it?

advisor: would you not need men still animalistic enough to kill for a god they would cut off their balls for?

king: hmm. good point.

advisor: might i make a suggestion?

king: shoot.

advisor: instead of the balls, why don't you cut off that floppy bit at the end?


advisor: sorry sir.

king: oh man.. just the thought.. yikes. yikes. do you even know how good that part is?

advisor: not really sir.

king: yeah, obviously.

advisor: but sir, you get the best of both worlds: subvert them sexually, but they can still function. and they will live their lives with a constant reminder of their sacrifice to you and to god. a most sacred piece of their humanity cast aside to serve you better.

king: ...yeah.. it's good.. twisted as all hell, but damn good. oh man. you are one sick fuck.

advisor: thank you sir. you should keep the party idea, though. i like a good party.

king: yeah, small comfort, but keep the party. they're gonna need it. oh man.. i gotta get my mind off this.. renfield, send in my harem.

advisor: yes sir.

give mophead the maximum penalty! 180 days in jail.. guarini could be tossin' alotta salad.

search web search me

ah, me
    This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from joelarue2. Make your own badge here.

  • 5: the man of genius

  • 4: blunders & absurdities

  • 3: conservative after dinner

  • 2: what lies below

  • 1: where there is no path

  • the awesome/terrifying freedom is powered by blogspot and gecko & fly.
    no part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.