LOGO Goes Loco?

WHAT'S SO GAY ABOUT THIS?

Hot on the heels of MTV's moronic A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila, LOGO -- the gay (or at least LGBT) network -- offers us a transgendered version of The Bachelor/Bachelorette which they call Transamerican Love Story. The premise has transgendered female Calpernia Addams (are there any transwomen -- or drag queens for that matter -- called, say, Karen or Sarah?) dating eight guys to try and find love --yeah, sure! -- with one of them. The show will proceed like all the others and at the end of each new episode, one of the rivals for the heroine's affection will be asked to leave until a real live love match is supposedly made. Since I doubt if anyone of any orientation has ever stayed together after "winning" on one of these shows, I have to say "Good luck to that!"

Okay, on the gay LOGO network we have a show about a woman (and Calpernia is a woman regardless of her biological origins) dating eight men. In other words, she's heterosexual and most of the men on the program say they are too. So this is to all intents and purposes a heterosexual dating show (if with a twist). How liberal of LOGO. Calpernia will ask questions, go on dates, have little competitions, and act all kittenish just like any other gal on The Bachelorette and the guys will fight to woo and win her, make nasty comments about each other, and ty to act all macho, just like the contestants. Big fuckin' deal.

In spite of that there are a couple of gay things about this program. First, the host is that adorable little "nelly" comic Alec Mapa. (Mapa is a likable guy but he seems a bit out of place with this crew. I think the fact that he is very stereotypically gay -- not that there's anything wrong with that -- had a lot to do with his being hired.) As for the second, we'll get to that momentarily.

Now I wonder. If LOGO wanted to do a gay version of The Bachelor couldn't they have had a guy guy dating eight gay men, or a lesbian dating eight gay women? Couldn't they at least have had a show with a gay transsexual -- they do exist. (That way they could have had their cake and eaten it, too.) I know everything seems to be GLBT these days, but it's almost as if plain old gay is getting lost.

Despite the trendy twists, the program is the usual junk reality dating show with a somewhat interesting "love" object and a bunch of dating rivals who typically run the gamut from pleasant pawns to obnoxious egomaniacs. Calpernia is an attractive and feminine woman who could probably "pass" if she wanted to.

Not that I'm in any way recommending it, but there are some interesting aspects to the program. One of the contestants, a man named Jim, is also transgender. He tells Calpneria, but none of his rivals. Calpernia is surprised (Jim can also "pass") but her reaction is even more surprising -- or is it? She actually says "I would never have known -- he's so handsome." What -- does this transgendered female think that all transgendered men are ugly? Is there some internalized transphobia going on here? Later Calpernia wonders if she'll turn out to be a hypocrite, that she may find it uncomfortable dating a transsexual male. I admired her for her honesty.

An interesting complication is that, like many Female-to-Male transsexuals, Jim has not completely transitioned; he still has a vagina. But apparently Calpernia hasn't fully transitioned either; she still has a penis. So if these two get together -- pardon my crudity and not to make fun of anyone -- we'll have a woman with a dick sticking it into a man with a pussy. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but somehow doesn't it seem as if this sort of makes the whole point of getting a sex-change operation kind of pointless?

One of the guys, Peter I believe his name is, dates both men and women and is, of course, the "gayest" of the bunch after Alec Mapa. His dancing with the guys during a silly harem session leads another of the men, Mark, to make clearly disapproving insinuations about his sexuality.

Mark is so afraid of even being accidentally touched by another man that it leads Blaine to label him homophobic, which is ironic (more on why in a moment).

As for Mark, he's essentially a creepy little overcompensating professional wrestler who is horrified that anyone will think he's gay. He goes out of his way to point out that one shouldn't label someone just because they date transgendered women. I might point out that if you're afraid someone will think you're gay because you're dating someone who used to be a biological male, then you probably shouldn't date transgendered women -- you just can't handle it. Mark has such a pathetic need to be seen as ruggedly heterosexual that he even has the tattoo of a lipstick kiss on his upper arm as if he's the big stud that all the women want! What a dork!

Blaine is pathetic is his own way, as well. He only dates transgendered females. He says he's not straight (and yes he gets points for that) but -- get this -- he also says he's definitely not gay (funny, he doesn't say definitely in that certain way when he talks about not being straight). He doesn't like labels, but bi is probably the one that might fit our boy the best. He says that transgendered females are "the best of both worlds" and that he especially prefers "pre-op" trannies. Yes, that means he prefers transsexual women with dicks. Gee, he's not just a little bit gay? He calls Mark homophobic, but could there be some internalized homophobia going on with Blaine?

There have always been men who like "chicks with dicks." Usually these were drag queens, and sometimes they were hookers. More recently we have pre-op trannies struttin' their stuff in the red light zones (not to suggest that most, or even many, transsexuals are prostitutes). If a guy felt more secure having a homosexual experience -- dicks and all -- with a man dressed as a woman so he could pretend she was female, imagine how secure he feels having sex with someone who's not only dressed as a woman but is one (although the dick might present a problem to certain straight men.)

Come to think of it, how will some of the guys on this show deal with Calpernia's penis?

Straight guys. I don't think so.

Maybe this show is gayer than I thought. But not in the Out and Proud way that would make me feel a lot more comfortable with its existence.

UPDATE: Okay, when I make a mistake, I make a mistake. Calpernia is actually post-op, and her friend Andrea is a lesbian transsexual. I regret these errors. Please see the comments for more information.

Self-Loathing on the Downlow

I just saw a short 2007 documentary called On the Downlow on LOGO. It is not to be confused with a 2004 film of the same title (about two male gang members in love) nor a TV series that looked into the same subject. NOTE: I've illustrated this post with a photo of author J. L. King, who wrote a book on the DL, being interviewed by Oprah Winfrey. King had nothing to do with this documentary to my knowledge, and I haven't read his tome as yet, although I have seen some revealing quotes from it.

I thought at first that the documentary wasn't doing much to illuminate the "downlow" lifestyle -- if that's what you want to call it -- but later on I realized that in its low-key (downlow?) way it did illustrate the attitudes that lead many men (of all races) to live on the downlow.

Producer/director Abigail Child interviewed four African-American men from Cleveland, Ohio. Most of them identified as bisexual, but of course they all just came off as gay men, some more stereotypical than others. I was surprised that these particular individuals were chosen to talk about the DL, because I'd always thought that guys on the downlow persisted in their insistence that they were "straight." None of these guys said they were straight. However, since the DL is supposed to be a "secret" lifestyle, I can imagine that guys who are actually on the DL would never participate in a film like this. Still, you did obtain some insights, unsurprising as they may have been.

It's no secret that men on the downlow -- as well as many "straight" and "bisexual" men -- do not want to be labeled gay. Some African-American men on the downlow claim that white culture is more accepting of gays than black culture. (Of course, the whole point of Gay Lib and Gay Pride is for you to accept yourself no matter how others in your particular community feel about you). Most of the men on the downlow seem to have extremely stereotypical notions about gay men. "I don't present myself as a soft guy," says one man, "as a real gay guy." Another man says that he has to deal with enough discrimination as a black man, why would he want to come out as a gay man -- pardon me -- bisexual. (Although there are many, many openly and happily gay African-American men.) A third man claims that he prefers to sleep with women because they're "cleaner than gay men" and less likely to give him AIDS. Apparently he's completely unaware that AIDS is not a "gay disease" and that heteros get it all the time.

In other words, men on the downlow are mostly homosexual men who can't deal with their internalized homophobia. The term "downlow" may be new -- but the situation certainly isn't (there are plenty of homosexuals with wives and girlfriends) -- and it certainly isn't limited to the African-American community. They can't see other men as anything other than sex objects because the thought of living an openly gay life with another man is anathema to them, not because they're basically straight or even necessarily bisexual.

Two of the four men seemed to have girlfriends -- the documentary bounces around a lot and can be confusing. One man says that for him to be with a woman she has to be, more or less, drop dead gorgeous (implying that male lovers don't necessarily have to be "tens," which pretty much indicates that he's much more attracted to men than to women -- there have been gay men who are only "attracted" (somewhat) to uncommonly beautiful women, although the women they wind up with may not be so magnificent. This guy was a 7 or 8 while his actual girlfriend or gal pal or desperately-hoping-he's-basically-hetero lady friend was about a 2 or 3. But this seems to happen a lot when gay men have wives or girlfriends.)

Filmmaker Child offers no commentary or point of view; she just lets the men -- and some of their friends and relatives -- talk. On one hand this device works well enough to help us understand them, but as a couple of them seem somewhat inarticulate and not that intelligent (and none are exactly advocates for gay life), you have to read between the lines. Some narration or opposing points of view -- maybe some comments from Out and Proud Black Men who think the "downlow" is bullshit, of which there are quite a few -- might have provided more balance and given the film more perspective -- and sent a more positive message to those who are not in the know.

But there are positive signs in the film which indicate that these four men are not typical DLers. One man comes out to his military father with some trepidation. "I mean I am his only son," he keeps saying, which becomes irritating -- he's only telling him he's attracted to men, not that he's going to throw himself out of a window. He comes out as "bisexual," but as sometimes happens, the father doesn't react much differently than if he said he was gay, and his reaction is essentially positive, if guarded. "I love you." [However, it should be noted that many people tell they're parents they're bi -- whether they really are or not -- to soften the blow, giving parents the hope that they'll opt for hetero marriage and babies and the whole conventional nine yards. No it's not "pc" to say this and I don't give a shit.]

On an even higher note, the film ends with one of the four men talking about his boyfriend, describing how he's the first person he was ever in love with and how he wants to stay with him forever and grow old together "We're gonna be rockin' on that porch," he says.

Now this guy -- no matter where he was before -- is not on the "downlow" any longer. He's gay, and you find yourself hoping that he and his lover do wind up on that porch many, many happy, proud years from now. He's quite a contrast to the pathetic "macho" guy who thinks gay men are all "unclean," has knocked up his girlfriend, and will probably be confused, conflicted, and self-hating for his entire life.

Child could not have given her film a more perfect ending.

The 24th Day: A Gay Misfire

LOGO has been showing a 2004 film called The 24th Day a lot lately. It comes off to me as a film that exploits gay and HIV subject matter, throws in some interesting tidbits, but doesn't really know what to do with them, mostly due to the insufficiencies of the screenwriter. Based on a play by one Tony Piccirillo, it was also written and directed by him. According to Piccirillo, he got the idea for the play after he got strep throat or something after a brief affair with a woman (sic), and a nurse suggested he should get tested for AIDS. He confronted the woman, who told him he was making too much of it. This somehow evolved into an essentially gay film (what -- heteros don't get HIV?) about a married-and-in-denial guy, Tom (Scott Speedman) who ties up an out-of-the-closet gay man, Dan (James Marsden of X-Men) because he thinks he gave him AIDS during an encounter years before. It turns out that Tom was married, and his wife committed suicide after learning she had AIDS. He claims that he is essentially straight and had only one sexual encounter with a man -- Dan. He feels that Dan to all intents and purposes murdered his wife and ruined his life. Dan says he didn't force him to commit adultery with a man and it's Tom's fault if he passed HIV along to his unknowing spouse. Tom takes a sample of Dan's blood, gives it to a friend to take to a lab, and says he'll set Dan free if he's HIV negative, and kill him if he's positive.

Yuchhh. First let me say that the main problem with the film -- and there are many -- is that we've got a situation where a self-deceptive, self-hating, homophobic closet queen somehow holds himself to be morally superior to an out-of-the-closet gay man. There doesn't seem to be any indication that Dan knew he was HIV positive (assuming he is) at the time of their encounter, and Tom himself takes no responsibility for having unsafe sex. Dan does suggest that Tom may well have had many more homo encounters than he's admitting to, and also advises him that since his wife had symptoms first, she actually might have given the virus to her husband. To be fair, this is an intriguing (if melodramatic) situation, but the movie doesn't make the most of it, going awry long before the conclusion.

Unwisely, the film tries to be trendy when it comes to sexual identity. Dan admits that just because he has sex with a woman now and then doesn't mean he's straight (or even bi), that he has absolutely no intention of giving up men and getting a wife. Fine. But he seems to agree with Tom that an occasional episode with a man doesn't make a man gay or bi, which is ludicrous at its core. If we didn't live in a world that was full of homophobia and yet devoid of heterophobia (which affects every gay person even on a subconsious level) I might buy this notion of "bicuriosity." On the contrary, I think it's bullshit. Bicurious men are men who can't quite accept their homosexuality, plain and simple, political correctness and bisexuality be damned.

Instead of really exploring this issue -- one of internalized homophobia -- Piccirillo gives Dan a ludicrous speech about not putting people in boxes, and how men who are essentially straight but also attracted to men have a more difficult time of it than women in the same (if opposite) situation. "It's totally messed up for guys who prefer women and have a slight curiosity about men. ... "

And : "Being with a man or wanting to be with a man doesn't make you gay ... "

Uh, sure.

Let me make it clear that this speech is not given to Tom, the closet case, but to Dan, the gay guy! But it's just the sort of thing that gay guys in denial are always saying. [Read my controversial post, Seriously in Denial.]

Now another problem with this project is that it doesn't seem to be the product of what you might call gay sensibilities. The two lead actors are apparently straight. All I know about Piccirillo is that he had a four-year-old son at the time of the film's release and once upon a time was afraid he'd caught AIDS from a girlfriend. And isn't it ridiculous that in the 21st century we still don't really know who's gay or who isn't or who's in denial and who's supposedly "bi-curious" and even if we do know we can't come right out and say because even though there's nothing wrong with being gay saying someone is gay can still be considered as libelous as saying someone is a serial killer or a terrorist. (All right -- take a deep breath after that sentence.)

That being said, I also must say that I have no personal knowledge of the private lives of Marsden, Speedman, or Piccirillo. Another truth is that The 24th Day comes off as the project of straight men who are totally out of their depth (and closet cases -- not that I'm saying that that's what we're dealing with here -- might just as well be straight due to their lack of any gay sensibility). One has to ask why Piccirillo couldn't have used heterosexual characters in the same situations - after all he supposedly got the idea from an encounter with a woman. Did he think The 24th Day might get more attention or support as a "gay" movie? Does he still think AIDS is a "gay disease?" It's like having a Caucasian writing a play about African-Americans and inevitably getting it all wrong. Sometimes going for publicity-generating controversy is the worst way to go. (By the way, the title refers to the fact that Tom learned he had HIV 24 days before the film proper begins.)

The film is also a disappointment on the artistic front. A really great play could have been written employing these two characters and dealing with the same themes -- certainly personal responsibility as well as responsibility to others is important these days when it comes to the HIV pandemic (but this is as true for straights as it is for gays) -- but Piccirillo is stepping out of his league in tackling these matters. As a director, he fails to imbue his film with enough thrills or tension (it's supposed to be a thriller, after all, but mostly comes off as a talky videotaped stage play). The performances of Marsden and Speedman are certainly not awful, but the actors aren't quite up to the script's challenges, and soft-spoken Speedman is often unintelligible. They don't really seem to understand the characters -- but neither does Piccirillo. [Does he relate at all to Dan? Does he relate to the pathetic Tom?] To be fair to Piccirillo, he makes an effort, but whether the problem is lack of identification or lack of talent or both, it just isn't enough.

And why on earth does Picirillo have the two men go on and on about the show Charlie's Angels, which these characters, given their relative youth, could only have seen on TVLand if at all? I have had countless conversations with gay men of all types and ages over the years but I've yet to have a conversation about Charlie's Angels, be it TV show or movie.

I don't know if Dan was originally conceived as a "pig," a gay man who will try just about anything, safe sex be damned. There's no denying that men like this exist, but they also have their heterosexual equivalent. But there are a great many gay men who are constantly conscious of safe sex, carry condoms at all times, and are responsible to themselves and to their sex partners. Straight characters [a widow whose husband died of AIDS confronts the male drug user who gave her HIV, for instance] might have actually made the play/movie even more controversial and timely, given how HIV infection is rising in the heterosexual community.

Given its subject matter, I guess I can't fault LOGO for airing the film so that the three or four people who've heard of it can make up their own minds. Frankly The 24th Day muffs so many great opportunities for drama and enlightenment that I can't think of a better place for it than at 5 AM in the morning. Too bad. Interesting situations and discussions are sort of frittered away in a two-man acting exercise where the uncertain actors sort of sink to the level of the exploitative material.