Some A-holes Never Go Away

You remember Matt Sanchez, the marine who became the Republican party's darling, until they found out he had starred in several gay porn films and had been a prostitute with male clients? Is he gay? Well, if you want to think totally straight guys act in hardcore gay porn films and have sex with other men, go ahead and think he's straight. Oh, what's that? -- he's "gay for pay, huh?" I'm not saying he's gay or bi, but it seems to me that guys who are really hetero can think of easier -- ahem, straighter -- ways of making a dollar. I believe on one radio interview Sanchez claimed that when he was with his male sex clients they weren't really engaging in gay sex (despite the sucking and fucking, yeah) because -- get this! -- his clients were in the closet and didn't think of themselves as being gay. Apparently he doesn't either. Therefore it wasn't gay sex. But it was definitely homosexual, what with there being two guys on the bed and all.

I wouldn't necessarily call Sanchez and his clients, or porn co-stars, gay men --as in "Out and Proud" gay -- but 100% hetero they're not. (I'll have more on this men-who-have-sex-with-men-but-who-are-really- hetero nonsense -- which apparently at least one gay therapist has swallowed -- on a future post.)

As for Sanchez, you'd think this self-hating jerk would have run and hid himself away -- or at least stopped yapping about the gay community -- but he's recently written a piece on "Obama's 'gay' problem" on something called worldnetdaily.

In the article Sanchez writes:

"Obama ruffled LGBT sensitivities when an ex-gay gospel singer headlined during the early days of Obama's presidential run. Gay activists protested to have the singer removed from the campaign The peddlers of pride, diversity, free speech, tolerance and fairness in the workplace wanted the singing black guy fired for disagreeing with them. If that sounds as inconsistent as the vows of two men publicly promising to be monogamous to one another, don't worry; none of this stuff is supposed to make sense..."

Here we go again. Those of us who are oppressed are being "hypocritical" if we protest against a political candidate giving added national exposure to a man who preaches intolerance and who spews ridiculous lies about the gay community. Surely most political candidates would not want to ally themselves with blatant Nazi's or racists, but it's okay to have a homophobe who spouts garbage be highly visible during your campaign? Oh, I get it. We progressive, wimpy gays are just supposed to sit back and let stupid, bigoted people say any damn thing they want about us, especially when they attach themselves to a political candidate, which may give their stupid views more weight and exposure. Blacks and Jews would certainly not put up with that crap, so why should Gays?

As for Sanchez' snide comments about monogamous gay couples, all I can say is they come from a porn star and a prostitute. I couldn't care less about Sanchez' background; I've never been a boy scout and have no moral objection to pornography or prostitution. The trouble is Sanchez' utter hypocrisy. Funny, conservatives like Sanchez are the ones who argue that no one is born gay, that it's a choice (even if it were, which it isn't, that doesn't make it wrong. But homosexuality isn't a choice -- the choice is in deciding to be open and proud as opposed to closeted and dishonest.) So I can imagine what the conservatives Sanchez courts really think of him -- a supposed "straight" guy who chose time and again to engage in homosexual acts -- for money, no less. (Or enjoyment.) By the way, his porn star/prostitute past is not mentioned on worldnetdaily. Wonder why?

I mean, is this guy a complete asswipe or what?

Matt then decides to rewrite history a la Sanchez with this paragraph:

"Ever notice the LGBT advocates constantly compare the same-sex struggle to the civil rights movement? According to polls, African-Americans are the most opposed to the legalization of gay marriage, and no black leader has endorsed the comparison between racial equality and the "right" for pre-op transsexuals to get a taxpayer funded sex change. The liberal interpretation of the civil rights struggle through the rainbow-colored glasses of the "queer theory" activist would have given the Rev. Martin Luther King a nightmare, rather than a dream."

Okay, Sanchez has a hot line to Martin Luther King, eh? Actually, if King were alive today, he might well be pro-gay and pro-LGBT. There are many black leaders who support Gay Rights and Gay Marriages, including New York's new governor David A. Paterson. And he's just one of many. Sanchez is such a pathetic loser that he thinks it's okay to sow divisiveness between the LGBT community and the African-American community, forgetting that there are many people who belong to both communities and not only that a.) many gays fought for civil rights, but that b.) many blacks are entirely sympathetic to, and in part identity with, the LGBT struggle.

But in Sanchez' sad, sorry, self-hating worldview, all that matters is that the defrocked media darling attack the Out and Proud community that snickered at his "straight"ness and recoiled from his hypocrisy. I'm sure he got a big surprise -- thinking the whole gay community would eagerly embrace this modestly-attractive ex-porn star and hooker -- But I'm so hot how can they reject me? he thinks -- instead of puking. Hell, he could be the hottest porn star-hooker on the planet. Stupid is not sexy.

So puke is what we all did, and will continue to do every time he opens his mouth and attacks us. Maybe someday he'll get the message and just go away.

Matt Sanchez -- forgotten but not gone.

Pesky Flies

Okay, a few months ago as I reported I was at a party at the gay -- I mean, LGBT -- center on 13th Street in Manhattan. Towards the end of the party this very inebriated woman began a conversation with me. "My boyfriend used to be gay," she said. (And this at the LGBT center.)

"I don't think it works that way," I told her. Taking pity, I decided to take a stab as well. "Do you mean he's bisexual and happened to fall in love with a woman?"

"That's right!" she said. "A lot of people don't get that." (No kidding.)

I felt like saying, "well, why didn't you say that in the first place instead of saying he used to be gay, which sounds moronic" -- but she was too drunk.

The boyfriend flounced into the room and believe me he was the gayest thing in New York City. Right away I pretty much knew who was paying the bills.

Some how I got on this gal's invitation email list so I get invites to parties that I have no desire to attend. On her web site she has photos of "her boys" -- I guess all the gay men she's managed to sleep with or whatever. Jeez, there's (supposedly) a lot more straight men in this world than gay men, can't she find herself a straight guy and leave the gay (or bi) guys to us men?

Now I've met gals like this before. They're basically "fag hags" -- a term that I hate since it's disparaging of both gay men and women in general -- although today they often use the term "fruit flies." (Get it? Fruit? Fruit fly. Ha ha! How progressive!) On another post I mentioned how "fag hags" often suffered from severe lack of esteem and could be quite homophobic as well. The whole concept of "fag hag" is dated anyway. There are plenty of straight women who happen to have a few gay friends, big deal. The idea of a woman completely immersing herself in gay culture instead of finding a straight boyfriend and having a few gay friends has always been a little pathetic anyway. But at least the "fag hags" of old didn't try to date or sleep with the gay guys they hung out with. Today's "fruit flies" or ffs take it a step further. They turn their gay pals into boyfriends. Oy vey!

Most if not all of these women have bucks, either from good jobs or-- more likely -- trust funds. They have plenty of free time. Since they suffer from low self-esteem they somehow feel more womanly or sexier or something if they can seduce a man who's essentially homosexual. (Since their boyfriends tend to be very effeminate maybe they're just repressed lesbians. They stroke them in bed while they dream about Jodie Foster.) Well, I'm sure there are a lot of Starving Artist Gay Guys who are only too willing to be seduced by a woman if a new wardrobe, a beautiful apartment, and never-having-to-pay-another-bill-again (until the ff finds a new victim) goes along with the occasional foray into pussy during which they desperately ponder Brad Pitt or whoever just to keep it up. [So there we have it. She dreams about Jodie, he thinks about Brad, and as they're screwing or whatever they think they're both being heterosexual!]

FFs can be reasonably attractive women, but they are never "babes." Real babes can have their pick of men and they don't need to raid the gay bars for their next date.

I believe I saw this particular gal -- I think she calls herself Madame Frutefly or something similarly silly -- at one of my local hang outs a couple of weeks ago [what on earth were they doing there?] and she was with her nelly (not that there's anything wrong with that ) boyfriend or maybe he was a different one -- I mean, who can tell? -- In any case when he kissed her on the lips at what appeared to be her direction he not only looked uncomfortable but as if he'd rather be kissing just about any man in the room, and the bar was full of middle-aged (or to the young nelly guy's mind old) guys and some even had beer -- or bear -- bellies which I'm sure he detests but believe me he'd have rather swapped spit with any of them instead of his girlfriend -- who, of course, was buying the drinks. But then again -- nelly guy, modestly attractive older woman -- for all I know this was another ff and another boyfriend entirely. I'm sorry but they all look alike.

These pseudo-relationships last until the gal moves on or the guy finds -- well, a guy -- who can foot the bills or who will promise to make him a star. Maybe he'll even fall in love and risk poverty. Or maybe the ff will kick the guy out if she finds him in bed with a man about 20,000 times too often. Or she finds another nelly guy who looks even more like Jodie Foster. Who knows?

The thing is that ffs aren't really pro-gay. Their attitude is strictly pre-Stonewall. They won't accept that gay men should be with other gay men. They try and convince their boyfriends that they're bi when in most cases they aren't. They're not about helping men accept their gayness, they're about helping men repress it. Of course some ffs are smart enough to know that you can only repress so far, and they maintain an open relationship in which the nelly boyfriend can on occasion have sex with a guy (thank God, thank God, thank God thinks nelly boyfriend as he finally gets to have more fun in bed.)

But the eventual fate of most ffs is that they either run out of time or patience (despite the claims of the ex-gay movement you really can't turn a gay man straight) and move back to the small town that they all come from. (Not the same town, of course, but you never know. Maybe there's a place in New Jersey or Arkansas that spits these gals out.) Once there they marry the pudgy chiropodist or chiropractor and think "well, he's straight and he's a complete bore but at least when he makes love to me he's thinking about me and not Brad Pitt."

But she's wrong, of course.

He's thinking about Jodie Foster.

Doo Wop at the Stonewall -- or Not

OR HOW THE GAY COMMUNITY WAS HOOD-WINKED BY THE STRAIGHT OWNERS OF THE STONEWALL

So exactly how gay-owned is the new Stonewall Inn anyway?

While reviewing and updating my piece about being pounded on by an inebriated, supremely hideous straight guy at the not always gay-friendly Stonewall, something clicked in my mind about the name Bill Morgan, who is one of the co-owners of the Stonewall (as well as the primarily straight Duplex Inn up the street.)

I recall a few years ago there was a guy named Bill Morgan who sang and worked in the Duplex and other bars in the West Village area. He would occasionally poke into the Five Oaks and sing, and he was bartender there for a brief time (perhaps he was just filling in for someone). I only saw him in the mixed bars, never in the out and out gay cruise bars for hungry men such as Ty's and Boots and Saddle, and I really had no reason to think he was anything other than straight (and still don't for that matter). Morgan seemed perfectly pleasant and more or less gay-friendly, but I never did get to know him very well. I had a gay friend at the time who was a little smitten with Morgan -- I don't think poor Morgan quite knew what to make of him -- but Morgan was not my type and I had no particular interest in ferreting out any hidden truths about his orientation, assuming there were any. All I can say is that he specialized in a kind of "doo wop" kind of singing, that I have no appreciation for, and whenever he came on at the Five Oaks (I didn't go to the Duplex very often, and when I did usually went to the gayer bar upstairs) I figured it would be a good time to go to the rest room. I've no doubt he did Doo Wop as well as anyone, but I'm not surprised he didn't make a career of it. Can anyone make a career of Doo Wop these days -- who knows?

I read that after working at the Duplex for many years, he became the co-owner of that bar along with Tony DeCicco. Writing about their acquisition of the Stonewall Inn in 2007 (along with Kurt Kelly, who now manages Stonewall), most reporters assumed Morgan and DeCicco were a gay couple, but it is quite possible both are simply heterosexual business partners. On his "My Space" page Morgan mentions how he owns both bars (he does not mention either co-owner) and on the list of personal statistics says that he is "married" and "straight." Oddly, while there are several photographs on his page, there is none of his wife -- there doesn't even seem to be a mention of her. (I'm assuming there is or was a wife because he says "straight" and "married.") Morgan does not mention being married on his page on the Duplex web site, but DeCicco mentions his "lovely wife Donna" and his two children on the same site.

Now let me make it clear that I am not saying that this is the case, but wouldn't it be bizarre -- and a little funny/sad considering the bar they co-own -- if DeCicco were Morgan's "wife?" If Morgan and DeCicco were gay or bi but say they're strictly straight when they co-own the bar that ushered in the whole modern-day Gay Rights Movement? I'm not saying this is the case -- and frankly I hope it isn't -- but remember it was in the Stonewall Inn that I met young Mike, the bartender who told everyone he was straight with a girlfriend but confided in me that he also "fooled around with men" (but couldn't even go so far as to identify as bisexual). So who the hell knows?

Now if both Morgan and DeCicco are actually straight -- which they may be (and with a wife and children DeCicco is clearly living a straight lifestyle, but this doesn't necessarily make him a married homosexual) -- they get points for not going out of their way to point that out in all the interviews they gave on their acquisition of the Stonewall. They could be two cool straight guys who know there's nothing wrong in being gay and don't really care if some people wrongly think they're homos. Or do they get points? Perhaps they only let everyone assume they were gay and didn't correct them because they didn't want everyone in the gay community to know that the ol' Stonewall was still primarily straight-owned, that it was two straight businessmen who were taking over a spot that meant so much to the gay community. Which may explain why the place hasn't fulfilled its promise to become a great gay bar for the whole community and has just turned into a bland (gay and straight) mixed cocktail lounge that might as well be called The Duplex II. They downplayed their hetero status, played up that house queer Kurt Kelly would be co-owner (of how big a chunk, one wonders?), and made him manager, even as all three men made statements about how the previous owner of the Stonewall had done such a lousy job because he was -- you guessed it -- a straight guy (with a gay staff and probably gay manager, so what's the diff?)

I'd be willing to bet that the two straight guys are really calling the shots at the Stonewall Inn, and that they bought the place not to preserve it for the gay community but to eventually turn it into just what it's become, the Duplex II. They brought in prominent and gullible gay and lesbian investors for cash and appearance's sake, all the while knowing that most of the younger bar-happy gays in the city didn't remember and in general couldn't care less about the Stonewall Rebellion. If the straight overflow from the Duplex drove the gay customers away, why should Morgan and DeCicco care? That's ultimately just what they were hoping for, and that's just what's happening. If some gay groups who aren't in the loop occasionally hold a function there, so much the better. The bar will continue to hold on to some form of gay pedigree, and gay tourists with a sense of history will inoocently wander into the place and buy drinks -- although they probably won't stay very long.

I have to say I'm troubled that on Morgan's MySpace page he has a photo of himself with good buddy Danny Bonaduce - I think I'd be embarrassed to be a friend of Bonaduce's -- and lists one of his favorite TV shows as Hardball with the virulently homophobic host Chris Matthews! Also on his MySpace page Morgan has one "moving" photo of himself standing in front of the Stonewall. Jeez -- the camera pans down over his basket as if its some gay code or something. I'm not saying there aren't some gay people who might find him attractive but he's more likely to find them across the avenue at Boots and Saddle or down at the Dug Out -- well, maybe not, he's not exactly a macho bear-type -- than at the Stonewall, which seems more welcoming these days to drunken straights than it is to Out and Proud Gay Men.

But who knows?

All I know is that the slogan of the Stonewall Inn is "Where Pride Began" without the word "Gay." And I also know that a straight man (no matter how presumably gay-friendly or gay-supportive) -- or possibly a gay/bi man who says he's straight on his MySpace page? -- is probably not going to have much of a vested interest in making The Stonewall Inn the living homage to Gay Rights, and the Great Gay Bar, that people like me were hoping it would be.

Personally, I think the gay community was taken for a ride.

But then, The Stonewall Inn is all about money and has nothing whatsoever to do with Gay Pride. And anyone who doesn't realize it is a fool.

Stepford Husbands at the New York Times

A couple of weeks ago [4/27/08] The New York Times ran an article in their Sunday magazine section about gay men in their twenties who are getting married ["The Newlywed Gays!"], contrasting them to gay men years ago who --while they may have entered into long-term relationships -- weren't neccessarily interested in the whole white picket fence, monogamy, supposedly straight boilerplate marriage contract business (not that straight marrieds are necessarily monogamous! I'll have more on this whole business in a future post.)

Looking at the somewhat grotesgue cover (pictured) I didn't expect much from the article; the supposedly liberal Times has published some surprisingly homophobic stuff in the past. However, I actually thought the article -- written by a Benoit Denizet-Lewis (I swear) -- was rather good and interesting (with some reservations), but I could have done without the idiotic photographs that accompanied it. Although the piece and some of the men interviewed tried to debunk a few gay stereotypes -- such as the stupid notion that in a gay male marriage one man is the "husband" and the other is the "wife" -- the kitschy, silly photos seemed to be trying to undermine it all (and I don't care if the photograher, Erwin Olaf, or the prop stylist, Jeffrey W. Miller, may be gay or not; I have no idea). The photographs seemed to be mocking the very men who were profiled in the article, making them seem like dizzy, infantile clones -- the unbelievably old-fashioned image of gay men as backward children. The poses were ridiculous. In a photo inside the magazine one poor guy was made up to resemble some kind of Stepford Wife (no, he wasn't in drag; again it was the pose).

It just seems that when it comes to gay men some people just can't get past the "camp," silly "fashionable" gay-men-are-boys (or, worse, girls) aspect no matter how many butch bears come out of the closet.

There were some aspects of the article itself that gave me pause as well. [I started my Ask Gay Dr. Bill online column for the very purpose of countering the dumb things said and written about gay people even by other gay people.] Deniset-Lewis writes that "like most gay men my age and older" he grew up thinking "happy gay men in a long-term relationship is an oxymoron." Why on earth should he think this when there have always been long-term gay couples, even in pre-Stonewall days and certainly after? The only conclusion I can reach is that he assumes just because he's had trouble maintaining a solid relationship that all gay men must be having the same problem.

Which says more about him than it says about gay men.

Of Hollywood, Gable, and Gays

It always used to bug me the way some critics, readers and fans would cry out in a decidedly homophobic manner if a biographer dared suggest that one of their favorite film stars was gay or bi. It always seemed especially egregious when the star in question was some supposedly "macho" sort who couldn't possibly be gay, as if it never occurred to these people that Hollywood was all about illusion and image.

So I applaud the fact that some biographers are no longer being coy when it comes to their subject's sexuality. People can complain that it seems as if just about every dead star -- and a few living ones -- are being outed, but the fact remains that Hollywood has had its fair share of closet cases, probably more than its share when one considers what was at stake. And if that's a problem for some people, too bad.

But I have to say that books like David Bret's Clark Gable, Tormented Star, don't help the situation. Author James Robert Parish intelligently wrote about Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy in his book on the former, employing key facts and educated speculation to formulate what he posits about their sexuality, but Bret (and others like him) seem to simply pass along a lot of unsubstantiated gossip. This only provides aid and comfort to those who would deny that this or that star was gay, and who can point to books like CGTS (Clark Gable, Tormented Star) and chortle that it has absolutely no source notes and many of its conclusions are just thrown at the reader without any solid foundation to back them up. The book has virtually no interviews as well.

Now I'm not saying that Clark Gable wasn't gay or bi. However he saw himself in his own mind, I believe he had sex with men. But not because of anything I read in Bret's book, but in others written by those who were around at the time or at least had spoken to people who were first-hand observers. And because a very good friend of mine -- now in his eighties -- has a lot of inside information about the goings-on in Old Hollywood. Many people reading Bret's book will just roll their eyes and think "how does he know any of this?" Bret isn't old enough to have had sex with Gable himself (mind you, I'm not saying Bret is gay; I have no idea).

There were some things I liked about the book. Bret points out how ridiculous it was for people to assume a hairy chest meant a man had to be heterosexual, and other "Gay Lib"-like zingers along those lines. He tries to expose the hypocrisy of machismo and the studio system, the foolish belief in a star's image above all and everything that went with it. But because the book never substantiates any of its claims about Gable himself, this bio will hardly convince any of the many Doubting Thomases. This is the right book by the wrong author.

Bret, who writes many books about gay/bi celebrities and has a wife, seems to have recreated Clark Gable as a kind of super-bisexual for the 21st century, but this is possibly just as phony as the image of Gable as super-straight. He doesn't deny Gable's numerous homosexual liaisons, nor that not all (according to him) were for profit of one kind or another, although he first suggests that Gable was "gay for pay." [Having homoerotic liaisons for cash does not preclude the hustler being gay himself, even if he's closeted or sees himself as being straight.] Gable used men and women right and left, but Bret feels that the true loves of his life were all women. This despite the fact that Bret makes clear that Gable became more and more closeted (that is, less sex with men; he was always in the closet) the more famous he became. Bret accepts Gable's marriages, such as to Carol Lombard, as serious love matches despite the fact that Hollywood is full of homosexuals who marry one woman after another (Cary Grant comes to mind), and indeed Bret even refers to one fellow, a non-actor, as a gay man who had four wives.

Yeah, maybe Gable was bisexual, but he also could have been a homosexual man who did everything he could ( some of it mentioned by Bret) to run from his true sexuality and distance himself from any perception by the public that he could have been queer. (That he was bisexual in the technical sense, involved with both men and women like many married homosexuals, I do not doubt.)

But then, in Bret's apparent world-view, going by what I read in CGTS, everyone but everyone (except perhaps the aforementioned gay guy with four wives) is bisexual. George Raft, George Brent, this one and that one, virtually everyone named in the book, no sources ever given, practically all of Hollywood does it with both men and women. There is no talk of internalized homophobia or anything along those lines -- all these people are just swingin' happy bi's. So why exactly was Gable so "tormented" then, as the title suggests? Fear of exposure, even though his wives and affairs with females would have put paid to such stories in that gullible era? Was he tormented and conflicted by his sexuality as he got older? Bret doesn't know or write about it at all. Maybe the real love of his life was Ben Maddox, the writer/reporter he (allegedly) had an affair with (who was -- of course! -- also bisexual).

Gable would not have been the first homosexual (or bisexual) man to dump a male lover of his youth to stick with women for the rest of his life. Nor the first to make homophobic remarks both as a cover-up and as an expression of self-hatred. You can talk about sexual fluidity all you want, most guys who do this are sticking their asses in the closet -- it doesn't mean they've gone straight nor that they're essentially hetero. In any case, even stories in Confidential about Gable's gay involvements would probably not have been believed by the public then (or now). And money and fame can do a lot of ease a person's "torment," be it over his sexuality or his (by now legendary) halitosis.

There are some stupid moments in the book, and despite all the bed-hopping and bisexuality, it's not really a particularly good read. The book even becomes comical at times. One passage goes: "[actor John] Hodiak was a volatile individual who had recently emerged emotionally scarred from a torrid affair with Tallulah Bankhead on the set of Hitchcock's Lifeboat -- to take up with Lana [Turner] while shooting the ironically mistitled Marriage is a Private Affair, and all the while married to Anne Baxter. On the rebound, Lana ended up in the arms of Tyrone Power, separated from his French actress wife, Arabella -- and also involved with Cesar Romero, who had recently ended a relationship with John Hodiak!"

Don't get me wrong. There were a lot of gay goings-on in Old (and New) Hollywood, and a lot of bed-hopping to the point of in-breeding. Maybe somebody told Bret about Hodiak being with Romero who was with Ty Power, who was with .... but, if so, who was it who told him? I'm all for letting people know how many people, famous or not, engage in gay behavior and love affairs, but if it's not backed up by solid journalism or at least some good interview quotes from people who were there or have credible inside knowledge, what good does it do?

As for the great love affair between Gable and Joan Crawford? For all we know that could be the case of a woman who was essentially a lesbian being "in love" with a man who was essentially a homosexual, no more serious than the Great Love Affair of Tracy and Hepburn.

But who knows? Unless that proverbial fly on the wall shows up and spouts off, we may never know.

As for Gable, I never quite understood what all the fuss was about. He's never been of much interest to me. He may have thrilled millions of people, male and female, in his hey day, but I never found him especially appealing either as an actor or a sex symbol.

Not even if he'd had the freshest breath on the planet.

TV's Superficial 20/20

In late April 2008 20/20 ran another segment of their "What Would You Do?" series in which hidden cameras record reactions to various events. One of the events on this episode was a same-sex couple kissing and being affectionate in public. The show (separately) used one gay male couple, and one lesbian couple -- yes, just four people -- in a grand total of two locations, one in the South and the other in a more liberal Northern state. While the program recorded some distinctly homophobic reactions and did make a brief mention of gay-bashing incidents, 20/20's conclusion was that most people didn't give a damn. The show seemed to contradict itself, first saying that older people were more likely to be repulsed by same sex PDA (Public Display of Affection) then saying at the end of the report that it didn't seem to matter how old people were, most thought it was no big deal.

Now this would be great news if this had been a truly scientific -- instead of an absurdly superficial -- study conducted by ABC news man John Quinones and his 20/20 crew. I threw up my hands long ago and rarely expect -in-depth reporting or serious journalism from these "news entertainment" shows, but this was really ridiculous. My problems with this 20/20 report were as follows:

1.) Only two couples in two locations. It is ludicrous to jump to any conclusions on such a slender body of evidence.

2.) Although the men were a bit borderline "queeny," they were not that stereotypical and were attractive. The women were also non-stereotypical and attractive. In fact a group of straight men reacted as if they were "babes" and some (presumably) older straight women thought the two guys were "eye candy" and therefore could move in "next door" if they wanted.

Now, wouldn't the results have been very different if the two men had been screaming queens, and not so good-looking? If the two women had been stereotypical "dykes" with absolutely no "babe" appeal. Quinones seems to think that the fact that some straight guys got turned on (as many straight guys seemingly do) by the two sexy women kissing means that they are totally supportive of gay rights -- give me a break! Would these fellows' reaction have been so supposedly positive if the two lesbians were mannish, obese, and not so sexy? [Not to suggest most lesbians are like that, but straight people do tend to react more negatively to stereotypes.]

There was a hidden camera-in-a-cab sequence where some passengers let out their full homophobic feelings, but although 20/20 showed it they seemed to completely gloss it over. That plus the fact that some people might not have wanted to admit being homophobic (or racist or anti-Semitic) on camera.

I applaud that the piece was done at all and was essentially gay-friendly. But as a journalist -- and a gay man -- I was pretty much appalled by its utterly simplistic approach. Our lives and our fight for equality reduced to a few sounds bites and a silly "experiment."

Even here in New York City I do not see gay couples walking hand in hand all that often. Frequently when I do I can see the wary look on their faces -- yes, even in the Village and Chelsea -- as if they're wondering what comments or actions they might draw from the crowd passing by. I don't believe it is improbable that a gay couple could embrace on the corner of 7th Avenue across the street from The Monster on a busy Saturday night and have pejoratives hurled at them from cars driving by -- or worse.

A study on this issue could and should be done -- but not by the "journalists" at 20/20.

Cruise Mind-Control

I DON'T KNOW IF TOM CRUISE IS GAY BUT HE SURE IS NUTS!

I don't know anything about Tom Cruise's sexual orientation, and I couldn't care less. I've met more than one person who claims they saw him at the hustler bar Rounds in his pre-stardom days, but it's never been substantiated, and it could easily have been someone who only resembled Cruise. Who knows?

So along comes Andrew Morton's book Tom Cruise: The Unauthorized Biography. The first few chapters are, frankly, kind of dull. Like I say, I don't know if Cruise is gay or not, but Morton spends too many pages trying to prove he isn't. He quotes one old girlfriend saying she can't understand the rumors because, like, she and Tom screwed in his car years ago so how can he be gay, and that sort of thing. Duh!

Jeez, how many Jim McGreevey scandals will it take before people realize that sexual activity with the opposite sex -- even having a wife and children a la McGreevey -- does not preclude gayness or a bisexual lifestyle. Again, I ain't saying Cruise is gay, just that the fact that he may have screwed a few women and has at least one biological kid doesn't mean much. Last year The Advocate ran a story about a military man who was married for twenty years and had five biological children --and, yes, he was gay. Among my friends and acquaintances I number several gay (at at least homosexual) men who were either married with children in the past or still are.

Whatever his orientation, Cruise is definitely homophobic. Lots of actors have to deal with gay rumors, but most of them don't sue over it at the drop of a hat. They figure it goes with the territory, they may not be gay but being gay isn't so awful, they have gay friends or relatives and support gay rights -- it's no big deal. Cruise doesn't realize that all his law suits, instead of beating out brush fires, only inflame them. People wonder: what's all the fuss about? Talking about one suit when his adopted kids were about one or two years old, he whined to Barbara Walters (about the gay rumors) "I mean, I have children."No, he wasn't saying that that proved he was straight (or was he?), he was saying his children, one or two years old, shouldn't have to hear that being said about their old man. As if they would have given a damn at that age! Whenever Cruise sues over alleged inferences that he's gay, the press releases always include something about how "he doesn't care what lifestyle people lead" and all that shit, but I'm certain that's his lawyers trying to do damage control. Cruise does care about your "lifestyle," especially if you're not a scientologist like he is.

As for scientology, it's all well and good to say that most religions are a bit dopey, weird, and homophobic (I write this as the pope invades Manhattan), but the scientologists are even worse than the fundamentalists. In the scientology "religion," a person must cut off all ties with other family members who don't also embrace the "faith," and scientologists mercilessly hound and harass ex-members who speak out publicly against the group. Many of their activities, according to Morton, are downright criminal. Members of the cult -- and it is a cult, nothing more or less -- believe that founder L. Ron Hubbard will come back to life (and Earth) and help them take over the world. Hubbard believed homosexuality was a disease and that homosexuals should be quietly "disposed" of.

They are total nut cases. And Tom Cruise is a fervent scientologist.

Tom Cruise is a nut job.

Frankly, I hope he's not gay.

Morton's book is a good, eye-opening, even frightening read. It examines the strange relationship between Cruise and scientology head David Miscavige, another certified weirdo.

Everybody should know what scientology is up to. Because they're strange, they're homophobic, they're crazy, and they're out to control the world.

No shit.

Read this book or any other that's been written about the cult. Most journalists don't ask Cruise the tough questions about scientology and their homophobic attitudes because Cruise won't do an interview if such questions come up. It's a wall of silence. If somebody wants Cruise on their TV show or magazine cover they have to put up with these demands.

As for me, I have no great desire to see a Tom Cruise movie, but if I do I'll get it for free from the library.

Cruise and his cultists aren't going to get any moola from this gay guy!

Final Thoughts on "Chuck and Larry"

NOT TO MENTION STRANGE BEDFELLOWS

A fireman begs his best friend to pretend to be a gay couple with him so that they can reap financial benefits, but have to keep up a deception when an official comes around to investigate the veracity of their claim.

Sounds like last summer's movie I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, doesn't it?

Actually it's a 2004 Australian film entitled Strange Bedfellows, starring Paul Hogan (Vince) and Michael Caton (Ralph). Yes, it has the exact same premise as Chuck and Larry. (The last I heard, the producers of Strange Bedfellows were suing the producers of Chuck and Larry.) Strange Bedfellows was written by Dean Murphy (who also directed the film) and Stewart Faichney.

Chuck and Larry was accused of being a mass of stereotypes with a message of tolerance tacked on at the end. Actually, that description is more apt of Bedfellows, which is pretty much the movie everyone was afraid Chuck and Larry would be.

Bedfellows takes place in a small town, while C&L takes place in a big city. Bedfellows begins with Hogan, hit with a huge tax bill, reading a story in the paper about a (mythical) law allowing tax benefits to same-sex couples. As in C&L, one of the two guys seems more live-and-let-live about gays than the other.

In Bedfellows, the two men take photos of the town "faggot" (not referred to as such, although "poofter" is used now and then throughout the film) or hairdresser, a very stereotypical gay male, so that they can mimic his mannerisms for the tax official. There's a twist when it turns out that the effeminate man is actually straight, or at least having sex with half the women in town. While this bit could have made the point that there are girlish straight men and masculine gay guys, it's all ruined by the revelation that the hairdresser's mannerisms are all put on. He acts gay because "it's expected of" him and because he can sneak around having sex with half of the wives and daughters in town. Sure, as if any straight guy would want to be known as the town faggot!

Perhaps the worst scene in the movie has the straight if nelly-acting hairdresser teaching our two heroes how to "swish." At least Chuck and Larry doesn't have an equivalent sequence. The hairdresser also says that gay men refer to themselves as "girls" and "she." Indeed in a gay bar scene later on, there are leather men calling themselves "girls." I don't think so. (There may still be some gay men who do this, but they are a dying breed and they are definitely not leather men or bears.)

The gay bar scene presents most of the customers as freaks of one sort or another -- or at least wants the viewers to see them that way for the alleged comedic value. One perfectly "normal" man has a conversation with Hogan at the bar but he's vastly outnumbered by much more "fabulous" characters, all of whom are at least likable and who seem a bit perturbed when Ralph makes some comment about what's stranger than being a "poof." Still thinking he's gay, they pause and then giggle.

Unlike C&L, in Bedfellows there is no scene when an official suggests how wrong and obscene it would be for straight people, liars, to take advantage of laws supposed to benefit a minority group that has had to struggle for its rights for decades.

At the end of the film, we learn that Ralph's daughter is gay. While her girlfriend thinks her father is cool, the daughter herself, besides being closeted, seems full of internalized homophobia. "I don't want you to be that way," she says, because gay people are laughed at behind their backs. I can understand why a gay child might be uncomfortable with a gay parent -- most children don't even want to think of their parents as being sexual, gay or straight -- but her reaction is decidedly negative and even old-fashioned. You imagine that if a gay gene is ever isolated, this gal would want any kids she might have to be "straightened" out. Of course, she's only onscreen for five minutes so we learn very little about her. She's introduced to set up the ending, and her complaining about "being laughed at" is the springboard for her father's speech. But it makes her seem a very regressive character.

After learning his daughter is gay -- and not before -- Ralph gives the well-intentioned "tolerance" speech at the end of the film. He makes the point that everyone has known him and Vince for many years and what they do in the privacy of their homes shouldn't make any difference. I won't go into details, but it all comes down to the fact that Ralph and Vince really love each other -- aww-- albeit not in the romantic or sexual sense. The tax official, Russell (Pete Postlethwaite), who may or may not be gay, sort of forgives them and let's them off the hook because he hasn't seen "a stronger bond or a greater love between two men in many a year." So let's see, two straight guys can love each other more than two gay men who are in love with each other?

Strange Bedfellows may mean well -- or at least it tries to have some pro-gay sentiments to offset all the stereotypical crap -- but it just doesn't get it. The film is well-acted by all, has some mildly amusing moments, but it's too stupid and even offensive to make a positive impression.

So now we come to I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, which -- believe it or not -- is an improvement. Very few gay people that I know have actually sat through the movie. I think nobody actually wanted to go to a theater, plunk down twelve dollars, and possibly have to sit through the picture with a bunch of homophobic teens making crass remarks all the while.

Curiously, C&L, while it'll never be one of my favorite films, and there were aspects of it that I really disliked, was not nearly as bad as I had feared. DISCLAIMER: Remember that I didn't watch this in a theater with a straight audience, but at home with a gay friend, which probably affected my perception of the film to a certain degree. Had I seen it with a straight -- especially a straight homophobic audience -- laughing at or commenting on the stereotypes, I would have found it a much worse experience than watching my borrowed library copy at home.

First of all, contrary to popular belief GLAAD did not "endorse" Chuck and Larry. You can find my New York Blade story and interview with GLAAD's president here, which explains what really happened and how GLAAD tried to improve the film and may have helped to do so.

Okay, Adam Sandler's not a horrible-looking guy, but it's pretty comical (in the wrong sense) that he would wind up with half a dozen gorgeous twenty-something babes in his bedroom at the same time, as he does early in the movie. The real Adam Sandler, a billionaire movie star, probably has no problem getting babes, but an average-looking firefighter on the cusp of middle-age? But that's just typical Adam Sandler, aging-stud stuff that all geeky movie comics from Bob Hope to Jim Carrey indulge in. And especially in a movie with a sort of gay theme, Sandler probably felt he had to establish the character's heterosexuality in an as over-the-top way as possible. That is also the reason for a really stupid scene in which the lady social worker who helps them (Jessica Biel) let's Chuck (Sandler) touch her naked boobs so she can prove to him that they're real. Sure -- as if a professional woman would allow a male -- or any -- client to do such a thing!

On the positive side, the film makes fun of homophobes, and while there's a silly sequence when Chuck and Larry try to find some "gay garbage" to fool the domestic partnership inspector, they never swish around and act stereotypically gay as the guys do in Strange Bedfellows. Chuck makes a speech about how ugly and hurtful the word "faggot" is, comparing it to someone calling him "kike." I liked the gay mailman, and I especially liked the way the film winds up with a gay wedding instead of a straight one.

On the negative side, I could have done without the way Larry's supposedly gay young son Eric was handled. He hits all the stereotype buttons and literally screams when he looks at a nude female centerfold. Eric and his father get into a fight with another man and his kid, not because of the latter pair's homophobia but because they say Eric is gay (but the film is supposed to be saying that it's okay to be gay). After he comes out of the closet, butch firefighter Duncan (Ving Rhames) turns kind of "queeny" -- he sings "I'm Every Woman" in the shower -- the tiresome old notion that masculine gay men just "butch it up" but are big "fairies" inside. Then there's the whole business about whether it's Chuck or Larry who's "the woman" in the relationship, and the social worker taking Chuck out for a "girls' day," which she would hardly say to a masculine gay guy like Chuck. And I don't believe for one second that the gay community of New York would come to see Chuck and Larry as some kind of gay heroes or icons, especially after they've been exposed as straight. Sandler socks one of the homophobes outside of the gay bar, but I would have liked it better if an actual gay character had thrown the punch. (I have to admit that the fireman's calender that ends the film is kind of funny.)

Of course, some of the good points that are made about gays are kind of blunted or made pointless because Chuck and Larry aren't really gay (if only the film had had the courage to have one of them sincerely come out of the closet at the end of the picture.)

There are people who think Chuck and Larry is a lot tougher on Asians (part Filipino Rob Schneider's minister, who says "loom" for "room") and very obese people (the funny-gross opening with the guys rescuing an enormous home bound man from a burning building) than it is on gays.

Would I have gotten my old Gay Activist Alliance buddies to picket this film the way we did Cruising, A Different Story and Windows? -- Maybe not. While I can understand the negative gay reaction to the film, I can't quite understand why even straight reviewers were so brutal.

Was it because they objected to the stereotyping -- or, privately, to the message of tolerance and gay marriage equality at the end? Considering this was an Adam Sandler film geared toward a young, unsophisticated audience, it could have been much, much worse.

I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry was written by Barry Fanaro, Alexander Payne, and Jim Taylor. The director was Dennis Dugan, who had a role in the execrable "gay" movie Norman ... Is That You? in 1976.

Another Good Reason to Wear Condoms!

Okay, first off, I support full rights for transsexuals and sympathize with the plight of those trans men who, for one reason or another, retain their female sexual organs and find themselves a bit adrift in a world, gay or straight, that worships cock. I'm not trying to make fun of anyone or of their choices, but I can't help but find a certain bizarre aspect to this that I think has its humorous aspects. Let's face it -- sexuality can sure be funny. In fact, if I were religious I'd say that sex was God's little joke on humanity.

Anyway, on a previous post I went into the reaction some gay males have to learning that there are gay (trans) men out there cruising gay bars who have pussies. Now we have a man, Thomas Beatie -- a Trans Man (a female-to-male transsexual) -- who seems to have retained his female sexual organs not because artificial penises don't look good or because they're too expensive, but because he wanted to get pregnant. Which is, of course, his prerogative. (His wife -- apparently he is a hetero Trans Man -- cannot have children.)

Frankly, I have to wonder if all Trans Men are thrilled with this development. Here they are, innately male, trying to be as outwardly masculine as they can be, some Out and Proud as Transgender, some trying to "pass," but still wanting to be recognized by the world as men.

And along comes Thomas Beatie, a Trans Man who's carrying a baby! (And apparently he's not the first. Just the most publicized and the first to get a book deal.) Beatie says that he's all man inside. "I see pregnancy as a process. It doesn't define who I am."

Beatie is quick to make it clear that he was never a lesbian. "When I was a teenager I had an attraction to women, but it wasn't a sexual attraction." But if he was always innately male deep within himself, even a sexual attraction to women wouldn't have made him a lesbian, would it? (It would be ironic -- and a little sad -- if Beatie, who is a man carrying a baby, was embarrassed or ashamed to have anybody think he might be or might have once been a "dyke!" Oy vey!)

The New York Post did a surprisingly respectful strictly-the-facts piece on Beatie (although one wonders how respectful it would have been had Beatie's partner been a man). Still, the piece, by Michael Starr, admirably avoided any snideness or judgmental attitude. But it also avoided any tough questions.

Will most people, even in the gay community, see Beatie as a true man, a grotesque combination of male and female, or just a lesbian who isn't facing the facts about herself? A woman who wants a sense of male power while retaining abilities peculiar to females? I, and many others scoffed at a young bisexual lady on a gay message board who suggested that there was a trend in "butch lesbians" transitioning into men -- even Trans Man porn star Buck Angel remarked that switching sexes is becoming easy and "trendy" -- but while most transsexuals are truly transsexual, sometimes you have to wonder.

One reason many guys will have trouble seeing Beatie as really being a guy is the simple fact that he actually wanted to get pregnant. Guys not only do not want to get pregnant, most don't want to get anybody else pregnant, although many stupidly do because they're drunk, horny, and can't bother with a condom. I speak primarily of straight guys, of course, along with some bi-identified men and even a few gay men who occasionally enjoy a poke with a kinky female friend.

But now there's this new wrinkle. I can picture it. Horny, drunk gay guy gets picked up by a macho, bearded stud in the local leather bar. Once home, they tear each other's clothing off, only the gay guy discovers that the other gay guy is a Trans Man with a vagina. Initially distressed by the phallic-less state of his date, he's drunk enough to fuck him anyway. He figures, what the hell? Pussy or no pussy, at least the guy looks like a hairy macho man.

Then a few months later, a very pregnant bearded guy walks into the Eagle and slaps the gay guy with a court order for child support!

Yikes!

Like I say, get out those condoms, fellas, LOL!

Barbara Walters Special: Elderly Women Will Turn Lesbian

Okay, there was a Barbara Walters special on longevity one night early in April 2008. Most of the show was fairly superficial, going into the expected stuff such as cryogenics [freezing bodies until such a time as a cure for whatever killed you is found, at which point you'll be defrosted. Aside from the simple fact that everyone you know may be dead and your money long since spent by the people you left it to, there is the simple problem that -- even if they've found the cure for cancer or heart disease -- you're still dead. Nobody ever talks about keeping you frozen until a method is found to, like, resuscitate corpses.]

But I digress. Late in the program, Baba Waba introduces us to a man named Stephen J. Dubner, author of a book called "Freakonomics." This man, an ABC news correspondent and expert on economics, apparently fancies himself an expert on (homo)sexuality as well. Talking with Barbara about the effects of people living longer, resulting in there being a larger elderly population in the U.S., Dubner says that it may decrease prejudice against the elderly. But one problem, he says, is that women generally outlive men, including their husbands (although one would imagine all of these life-lengthening treatments might correct that disparity) so there will be a dearth of older men for the widows and other elderly ladies to have relationships with. Therefore, according to "Dubner and Dumber," there will be much "elderly lesbianism" in the future.

Huh?

I sent Dubner the following email:

Re. your comments on the Barbara Walters special earlier tonight (that since women generally outlive men, there will be a shortage of men in the golden years and therefore there will be a lot of "elderly lesbianism.") What on earth what you were thinking?

Now if you were saying that some elderly women who have been closeted lesbians or bisexuals throughout their lives will come out of the closet in old age, it might have made some sense. But to suggest that old women will simply turn homo because there aren't enough older men around makes no sense whatsoever (what about younger men, for Pete's sake?).Same-sex episodes (or rapes) among straight men I can understand in prisons. But somehow I can't see women who have been legitimately straight all their lives suddenly going gay as if it were something you could turn on and off like a switch. When I think of the long struggle it can be for many people to accept themselves, and how being gay is about so much more than sex, and how it's not a "lifestyle" but a life, it's ridiculous for you to reduce it to "not enough men around -- just go lesbian."

A lot of progress has been made by gay rights over the years, but comments like yours make me realize we've still got a hell of a long way to go when it comes to being understood.

With all due respect stick to economics and leave the comments on (homo) sexuality to others, okay?

To date I've received no reply.