Thanksgiving Horror Stories

Turkey Day reminded me of thanksgiving dinner parties I went to quite a few years ago that were hosted by a man I'll call Horatio.

Horatio was as gay as a goose -- he was basically what is known as a "brittle queen" -- but when he was in his forties he got married to an 80-year-old woman - I'll call her Betty -- who had been a close friend of his late mother's. Horatio wasn't trying to fool anybody or become an ex-gay -- although I can't say he ever had much of a gay identity -- the marriage was simply an exchange of favors. Horatio would take care and look after, be a companion to, his aging wife with the understanding that he would inherit her 12 room apartment and her money.

I missed the first Thanksgiving day dinner Horatio threw after the marriage. I was told it was a disaster. Despite the fact that his wife was loaded, Horatio had an old friend, Hedy, who had fallen on hard times, use her food stamps to get the turkey and trimmings. I am not kidding! An altercation broke out in the kitchen when Betty wondered why Hedy was packing away all of the leftovers in her bag. "I paid for the fucking food!" Hedy was said to remark.

Well, you would think that I might have known better, but I decided to go to the dinner party the following Thanksgiving, primarily because certain friends and other interested parties had also been invited. I thought it might be a hoot. I might even get dinner.

Horatio was a lousy host, mostly because he didn't give a damn. You were given a drink -- yes a drink -- and then had to hunt all over the place for the liquor bottles (on a table in the kitchen) so you could pour yourself another (even if you had brought your own booze). The turkey was bone dry, and served sans gravy or wine to wash it down with. The stuffing was the cheap stuff out of a box. There were never any hors d'ouevres to nibble on as you waited for dinner, something to nosh on so you weren't drinking on an empty stomach. It was as if Horatio essentially had contempt for everyone there and wasn't going to put himself out for us peons. You had to eat fast and get the fuck out!

You see Horatio apparently came from money, or at least wanted people to think he did. His "marriage" was an act of sheer desperation. No one on the planet would have ever thought the man was heterosexual. He had a superior air that was really the product of a deep, deep and overwhelming inferiority complex, relating to his sexuality, his "obviousness," his status in life versus where he'd hoped to be, and probably many other factors.

But that's not the strangest part. The really weird thing was that Horatio had an obsession with stuffed animals. No, not cuddly toys stuffed with cotton, but animals hunted, killed and stuffed by taxidermists. Horatio was not a hunter himself, but he filled the entire apartment with dead animals, covering the walls with them, every single bit of counter space, every table top -- everywhere you looked there were glassy-eyed critters to give you the heebie jeebies. I turned my shoulder at the dinner table and found myself staring a moose in the face. Out in the living room there was a rattle snake beside my cocktail. Little furry things literally took up every spot imaginable. Right inside the front door was a life-size grizzly bear! [I am not making this up!]

And the place stunk to high heaven.

I swear, when you got off the elevator all you could smell was a stench like boiled cabbage.

I went to these parties two years in a row mostly because I enjoyed some of the other guests, and especially the comments they made on the way out of the lobby. They were hands down the worst dinner parties I ever attended -- with the worst food, the cheapest booze, and the least warm and welcoming host I have ever encountered.

Still, when he got a little drunk Horatio could be fun, and I think he was forgiven a lot because of that.

He got Betty into a nursing home as soon as possible, but after her death, while he stayed in the huge apartment, he did not act like a wealthy man. I think Betty had left him rather cash-poor. There was something strangely pitiable about the fellow. But he was a character.

And that's better than nothing.

JATGAB in the Top 25

I'm very pleased and honored that this blog was recently listed among the top 25 gay rights and activism blogs along with Gay Rights Watch, Joe.My.God., Good as You, Queers United, and many others.

I'm very grateful to the compilers of the list for including me, and also glad that they are helping to bring attention to many worthwhile gay-and-activist oriented blogs.

Here's the link to the list. These blogs certainly deserve our support!

The Young and the Gayless -- and More

A round up of gay images on television and my reactions to same:

Apparently reacting to negative, homophobic outcries on various message boards The Young and the Restless has been virtually de-gayed.

First the character of Adam (Michael Muhney, left), who seemed to be shaping up as a closeted gay or bisexual character, has been [supposedly] turned completely straight. Listing his assorted sins, Adam told Sharon [his former sister-in-law, sort of] that he "seduced a gay man." [That would be the handsome Hispanic lawyer, Rafe. ] Now you can imagine my reaction if he said that to me, but poor, clueless Sharon accepted his words at face value, never wondering what on earth could drive any allegedly "straight" guy to have full-on sex -- in a bed, no less -- with another man. True, Adam felt he needed to have Rafe under his control, but surely there were other ways his devious mind could have come up with to do so. I don't expect soap opera writers, be they gay or straight, to think like a gay activist, but this is too much to swallow.

It is hardly coincidental that the "straightening" of Adam occurs at the same time more or less as the departure of what was supposed to be a major gay supporting character. That would be Phillip, played by openly gay actor Thomas Bierdz. Despite talk of a relationship developing between Phillip and Adam or Rafe, no such relationship ever materialized. Adam was straightened out, Phillip left Genoa City (where the soap takes place), and Rafe hasn't even been seen on the show in weeks. What's going on here? Does anybody need to ask?

What on earth was the point of bringing Phillip back from the dead after twenty years to have his storyline go nowhere? He managed to bond a bit with the son he hadn't seen for most of his life, but he had no romance, no particular gay identity, and no real storyline to speak of. Talk about a complete waste of time!

I've no doubt the powers-that-be at Y&A will claim that Adam was made totally straight because he is perceived as being quite evil, and could be perceived as a negative gay character. But with Rafe and Phillip to balance things out, it would not have been a serious problem. Y&A dropped the gay stuff because of complaints from some loud homophobic viewers. Frankly I think more of the fans of the show will stop watching not because of any gay carryings-on, but because the show offered star Eric Braden (who plays Adam's father, Victor Newman) such a lousy contract that he quit the show.

At least the young gay couple on As the World Turns are still being treated in a competent and positive fashion. They have their troubles, but in that way they're no different from any other couple on the program. On the other hand, The Young and the Restless is typical of a program that simply uses homosexuality for plot reasons without having the smarts or courage to really deal with the subject.

In the meantime, I can't quite figure what the hell was going on in AMC's mini-series The Prisoner, which was an update of a sixties British TV program. In this a man wakes up in a place called The Village which everyone claims is the be-all and end-all of the universe, even though he and other characters remember a former life and many other places in the big wide world. Openly gay actor Ian McKellen plays No. 2, the head of the Village. When gay characters were introduced in part two of the series, I thought it was a good sign that the program -- unlike so many others -- wasn't ignoring the existence of gays. I wasn't so much disturbed by the age difference between the two gay lovers but that the younger of the two was so young. Although the baby-faced actor playing the role is twenty in real life, I wasn't certain how old he was supposed to be in the series.

After awhile, this sub-plot turned into the Same Old Story. After the hero threatens the older man with blackmail unless he gives him key information, the younger man stabs his older lover to death. [In part three he suffocates his own mother].

But there's no sense complaining about the gay material, as the mini-series -- after a promising start -- turned into a deadly bore that no amount of sex, hetero or homo, or violence could save. After awhile I couldn't care less who was gay, who was dead, where the village was, or anything else about the story.

Moving on, I keep noticing odd remarks on the show Desperate Housewives, whose creator is openly gay. On one episode a big bearded character confronted a gay employee who was staring at one woman's rather flamboyant breasts. "I thought you were gay?" he asks the employee, who then proceeds to turn into a nervous nellie sissy boy so scared of the big butch man that he practically lisps "Totally gay -- Streisand, Garland gay" -- or words to that effect. In a later episode when the big-boobed gal is wearing a mannish suit, the same boss tells her she ought to watch what she's wearing because some other female employee [presumably a lesbian] wants to go bowling with her.

May I interject here that I have little respect for gay men who make "dyke" jokes. Have they fogotten that lesbians are gay people just like they are.

Now sometimes stereotypical humor -- told by gays to gays -- can be funny -- but while Desperate Housewives may have its gay fans, it's not exactly what I would call gay programming, being aired by ABC, not Logo. The "gay" humor on the show often comes off like fag jokes. It's not necessarily that the straight characters wouldn't make these remarks, but they're clearly meant to make the audience -- which is largely straight -- laugh at gays. The program added a gay couple last year, but they are rarely seen, have no major storyline, and will not add to anyone's knowledge of gay men or gay life.

But then, what can you expect from a show called Desperate Housewives?

FIREFLAG -- and Cheap Gay Men

The second Tuesday of each month the local chapter of the gay firefighters, FIREFLAG, meet and have a party at my favorite bar, Ty's, on Christopher Street. There is a buffet with wonderful food made by Larry, and a raffle in which the top prize can be a couple of hundred dollars. You can go up to the buffet more than once; all that the guys from FIREFLAG ask is that you buy a few raffle tickets for a measly five bucks. [You would think that they wouldn't have to ask, but they do.]

Some guys go up, stuff their faces with three or more plates of food, buy one lousy drink (without leaving a tip) and never buy any raffle tickets.

Talk about cheap! Talk about not supporting our gay firefighters!

Some guys will give the excuse that they won't be around at 11 PM or later when the raffle takes place. Bug fucking deal! The tickets are only five dollars, and the food (especially if you have three to-the-brim platefuls!) is worth a lot more than that. [And whether it's hot dogs with potato salad or something fancier it's always delicious.] These guys could certainly support FIREFLAG and help pay for the food with a $5 donation. Most of these guys know one or two people who will stay for the raffle, so they could always hand them their tickets and say "tell me if I win anything." Or they could just give the tickets away [as many who can't stay late do] and say "if you win, you win." [Which is what I would do if I couldn't stay for the raffle.]

I have a friend who talks about "cheap gay men." He's not saying that all or most gay men are cheap; he's referring to friends and acquaintances of his whom he knows have plenty of income but are tight-fisted with the cash -- I mean five dollars to support a gay outfit and get several plates of food! Even if you didn't have something to eat most people could spare five dollars.

Some of these guys may be senior citizens on a fixed income [but it's still only five dollars and free food!] Yet some of them worked hard all their lives, have plenty of savings, no children or grand-children to support or spoil, and no serious financial worries. So what's up with them?

I mean we're talking five dollars!

And supporting a gay organization made up of fuckin' heroes.

Okay, Freudian slip. Some of these gay firefighters are quite attractive. [There's one cutie pie I've been after for two years; not that it's likely I'll ever get him. When he tells me to hold out my arm so he can measure off the raffle tickets I get a tingle. Sue me.] I'm not a firefighter groupie, believe me, but firemen have to be in good shape, after all.

It's unfortunate that one of the raffle prices isn't a date with a firefighter. They'd collect even more money than they do. [One of the prizes is $20 towards your bar tab. That would last me about an hour.]

But, as usual, I digress.

Anyway, if per chance you head over to Ty's to support our gay firefighters, buy some raffle tickets, have some food, enjoy some inexpensively priced cocktails, and generously tip Gary, Donnie, Jesse and the other wonderful bartenders.

And no, they're not paying me to say this!

Ciao. Or rather, Chow!

Out Biographer William J. Mann

This interview I conducted with William J. Mann [left] was originally assigned by The [now defunct] New York Blade and was to have appeared in their October 2008 issue. It was pushed out by "breaking news" and the like, but I decided Mann has interesting things to say so I'm running it here. His new book on Liz Taylor will be in bookstores any minute. It promises to be a great read!


A GAY MANN AND HIS GAY BIOS

Biographer William Schoell interviews biographer William Mann about writing about gay subjects and the importance of telling the truth.

William J. Mann is the out author of several gay-themed novels and biographies of famous queer celebrities, including Wisecracker (about gay silent star William Haines), Edge of Midnight: The Life of John Schlesinger; and Behind the Screen: How Gays and Lesbians Shaped Hollywood. His controversial book Kate: The Woman Who Was Hepburn looked frankly at the complex sexuality of the actress and peeled away the layers of exaggeration and fabrication over the legendary Hepburn-Tracy “romance.” The New York Times chose Kate as one of the 100 notable books of 2006. Mann’s next book, out in fall 2009, will be about Elizabeth Taylor.

Blade: When you were writing Wisecracker and Behind the Screen, not to mention the Hepburn book, how difficult was it to get old-timers, especially gay ones, to open up about homosexual matters?

Mann: I had been told that most of that era’s survivors would be reluctant to talk about gay issues, and in the beginning there was reluctance. But it was about getting to know them and gaining their trust. When I look back on the experience it was the most wonderful part of doing these books. These people understood that their stories mattered, and that they had been an important part of history.

Blade: Did you find that some people you interviewed tried to cover up someone’s homosexuality even if the person, say Schlesinger, had been more or less out of the closet?

Mann: Not really. We’re finally in a time when sexuality is considered part of the entirety of human experience. With John Schlesinger it was easy because as [actor] Michael York put it, John and his partner [photographer] Michael Childers were the poster children for Out Gay People in Hollywood.

Blade: Interviewing people for your various books, do you still find that many people think of homosexuality in a pre-Stonewall way, like some “dirty little secret?”

Mann: Certainly there are people who still hold that view but they are increasingly becoming the minority. There are definitely these people who haven’t moved with the times, however. One gentleman told me that he wouldn’t discuss sexuality with me. Then in the next issue of Vanity Fair he’s talking all about the sex lives of famous heterosexuals. Obviously, the sexuality he didn’t want to discuss was gay

Blade: Your books are scrupulously researched and well-documented. How do you feel about books in which people are revealed to be gay or bisexual without any sources, interviews or substantiation? Do you think this ultimately hurts all biographers of closeted gay subjects?

Mann: In the seventies, a lot of books said this person or that person was gay but there were no sources or footnotes. I believe this caused a back lash. But now the pendulum is swinging the other way. Anyway, it’s really about seeing your subjects in context.

Blade: Do you find, especially with Hepburn, that even some of her gay and lesbian fans argue that she’s totally straight or that you were wrong to “out” her? If so, what’s up with that?

Mann: Hepburn’s legend was so strong, so heavily imprinted on our culture, some people feel that the way she laid it down shouldn’t even be challenged – if she didn’t want to talk about it, why should we? More than just an actress, she was a symbol of the American character. But it does her a disservice to cover up the truth. I was very scrupulous in not using labels which might have given the wrong impression.

Blade: During Gay Pride week Gay City News [New York] ran a piece on Hepburn’s niece in which she asserted that Kate and Tracy were “rampantly heterosexual,” that anyone who suggested otherwise was wrong, and left it at that. Were you flabbergasted?

Mann: I was surprised and yet I wasn’t. There are people who were close to Hepburn for whom the legend has personal value, who have vested interests in maintaining the Hepburn image. How is someone ‘rampantly heterosexual’ anyway? How could Katharine Houghton [Hepburn’s niece] really know about the sexuality of Hepburn or Tracy? Sometimes the people who are closest to us know us the least. There probably wasn’t space left in the article to present another point of view.

Blade: Do you agree that homosexuals who are publicly homophobic should be outed, but that others have to make that journey themselves? How do you feel about Perez Hilton outing various celebrities?

Mann: I’m a journalist and I believe in telling the truth. Every situation is individual and needs to be weighed on its own merit. There are times it’s absolutely relevant to talk about it. It’s an easier call to make if they’re hypocritical and hurt the community. Used respectfully, the truth is never inappropriate.

Blade: Your next book is on Elizabeth Taylor. What can you tell us about it? Some people were shocked when Richard Burton once told an interviewer that he’d had homosexual relations. I suppose you’ll delve into that.

Mann: The more I research Burton, the more I admire him. Although Burton was not gay, he was completely free in his sexuality. He may have once fooled around with a mentor, maybe Laurence Olivier; he had no shame about it. This is my first biography on a heterosexual subject, but there are quite a lot of gay men in Liz Taylor’s story, a lot of gay Hollywood.

Blade: With celebrities and icons being so influential these days, how harmful is it that the truth about people’s sexuality is not taught in schools and is kept from the public?

Mann: A person’s sexuality should never be so central that it obliterates everything else, but it’s very important to tell the full story of a person’s life. For instance, students who were studying Walt Whitman understood what they were reading more fully when they knew about all the facets of his life.

William Schoell is the author of biographies of The Rat Pack, Dean Martin, Joan Crawford, Giuseppe Verdi, Robert Redford, Edgar Allan Poe and many others.

Gay Teens Coming Out in the New York Times

The September 27th 2009 New York Times Magazine section had an interesting article entitled "Coming Out in Middle School" by Benoit Denizet-Lewis. [I believe he's the same guy who wrote the piece about young gay couples a few months ago, the one with the weird photos that made the guys sort of look like Stepford Wives.]

According to this piece young people are coming out earlier and earlier these days, at 13, 14 or 15. These are not even high schoolers, but junior high schoolers. Most of the boys at that age identify as gay; many of the girls as bisexual. [Are there no lesbians anymore? Of course there are!]

A good point is made that it's offensive to ask a gay kid if he's sure he's gay when nobody ever asks a young person who identifies as straight if they're sure they're straight. No one tells straight-identified kids that they're just going through a phase, so why should anyone say it to gay kids?

Now it was awhile ago -- don't laugh, and you know who you are! -- but I recall having an attraction to men not long after reaching puberty, although by no means did I identify as gay. That didn't happen until I was in my early twenties.

I rigidly repressed my attraction to men all through high school and through most of college. I did not have sexual fantasies about any of my college roommates. It wasn't until I was 19 or 20 that I got a full-fledged "crush" on another male classmate. [Joey, what ever became of ye? He was a hot little guy. What is there about hot little guys?]

If these kids can avoid all the angst and drama and have a secure sexual identity when they're younger, so much the better. And for those who ask if they're "boxing themselves in" with a gay identity, what's the problem if they are? What's wrong with a gay identity? What's wrong with being gay? [Frankly I've had enough of this "sexual fluidity" bullshit.]

According to this article, some of these kids knew they were attracted to their own sex as early as age ten! Now I have on occasion met gay men who say they knew they had homosexual feelings as early as nine or ten, but it does seem a little remarkable as most people don't reach puberty until 12 or 13. Perhaps the "attraction" they felt wasn't exactly sexual in nature -- until the hormones kicked in. As for me, who remembers that far back?

As for the "how do you know you're really gay if you don't try it with women?" -- well, just try saying that in reverse. I tried it with women, and it was no big deal. Definitely not my cup of java. And please don't send me emails insisting I'm really bisexual just because I fucked a few women in my younger days. It certainly doesn't make me more of a man than gay guys who've never slept with a gal. But in our macho American society if you don't fuck women you ain't a stud, which is why so many guys who are -- if they're honest with themselves -- gay keep insisting that they're bi. Get real!

The article was hopeful in many ways. For instance: "Many parents just don't assume anymore that their kids will have a sad, difficult life just because they're gay."

And: "This is the first generation of gay kids who have the great joy of being able to argue with their parents about dating, just like their straight peers do."

Now, more than ever, self-hating homos just seem so ludicrously out of date.

Images Behind the Scenes

There will be plenty on the blogosphere about the March on Washington, Obama's speech. and so on. I have to say right off the bat that I disagree with Barney Frank that the "only thing the marchers are putting pressure on is the grass." Anything that helps to focus attention on Gay Rights, Gay Marriage, and other gay-related issues is all to the good.

As I've often said, many [straight and gay] people learn -- or at least think they learn -- about gay people and homosexuality not only from the news, but even more from our images in the media, in films, theater, and TV shows. Crap like The Producers [see photo] does little to help the cause of equal rights.

Okay, it's been a busy weekend and I'm a bit lazy today. So I'm linking to a page at High and Low New York where I have write-ups of various gay-related books, movies, and television programs.

You can read a review of Lance Bass' autobiography. You can see what I thought of the TV show Gay, Straight or Taken, the telefilm Wedding Wars, and the British mini-series Bob and Rose.

Not to mention the films Notes on a Scandal, The Night Listener with Robin Williams, Kinsey, The Groomsmen, and of course The Producers (don't get me started!).

Next time: A look at the recent New York Times magazine piece on gay teens coming out.

Too Stupid for Words

So this week New York magazine has done a cover story on Neil Patrick Harris, whom they dub the first (openly) gay break out TV star.

So what do they have him doing on the cover?

That's right -- putting on lipstick.

Do you think they would have asked a straight actor to do that?

Yeah, that's what so many gay men do (especially in the bear community) -- put on their shirt, their tie -- and then slap on some bright red lipstick.

I was gratified to see that on the magazine's web site plenty of people were put off, a bit appalled, and even angry about the dumb cover.

Of course, some people just don't get it.

One commenter said that actors wear make up and that it would be funny if a straight actor put on lipstick, so what's wrong with a gay actor doing it etc. etc. etc. Another posted that it was part of a "theatrical" scene not a "gay" scene. Surrrrre. C'mon, did they have to tout this openly gay actor with a shot of him putting on lipstick!? [Besides, Harris is not wearing drag but what appears to be a typical business outfit, so why would he fucking need lipstick?]

The point is that straight men and gay men are perceived differently in our society. Gay men have been struggling for decades to be accepted as men.

Why did Harris even agree to pose for this shot? In the reasonably well put together article by Emily Nussbaum he says, in reference to his boyfriend, "if I say something like 'He didn’t wave flags,’ it sounds like I’m disrespecting people that do, who I think are tremendously important, but there’s more than one way to get into people’s psyches."

That's always been one of the big problems for the gay community. Celebrities always get more attention than activists from the media and general public (and the gay community) but celebrities don't always have a strong gay identity or feel any need to "wave a flag" or think responsibly about the gay image.

Later in the article, which looks at other Out actors and their chances for becoming stars or leading men, Nussbaum writes: "When Grey’s Anatomy’s T. R. Knight came out, it underlined his lack of chemistry with his female co-stars."

I never watched Grey's Anatomy but I always bristle at the suggestion that a gay actor can't do convincing love scenes with women . I mean, Rock Hudson certainly did and he was by no means a particularly great actor. Suggesting that gay men can't be convincing leading men in hetero romantic dramas or comedies is forgetting that it's all about acting. [In any case, Harris has just been cast in a leading "straight" role in a romantic comedy.]

Back to Harris and his lipstick. I don't know if it was a straight person who came up with this idea (or Harris?) or a really dizzy queen who thought it would be cute -- oy vey! -- but combining "gay" with make up is so old hat and tiresome, so indicative of the narrow perception in which the very diverse gay male community is held, that it really makes you think that even forty years after Stonewall it's "three steps forward and two steps backward."

And I think of all the homosexual men who stay in the closet or won't identity as gay because they think (rightly, I'm afraid) that the dominant gay male image in most people's minds is that of a silly "queen" who wears make up and pliably swishes about on the command of some dumbnut photographer.

New York will probably justify the cover by saying that it's edgier and more attention-getting than a more standard shot of Harris would have been. But where is their imagination? Is Harris putting on lipstick really the best they can come up with?

Not inventive. Not imagination. Not clever.

Just stupid, disrespectful -- and debasing.

Questioning?

A newspaper in Portland, Oregon reported:

"Sharing a meal at a Loaves & Fishes Center gives senior citizens the opportunity to save money, get out of the house, catch up with old friends and make new ones. Now GLBT seniors can enjoy these activities at a new Loaves & Fishes site designed as a safe, welcoming space for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, questioning and intersex seniors. This is the first program of its kind in the Northwest."
Don't get me wrong. I think there should be special spaces and programs for LGBT seniors, but what made me laugh is the inclusion in the news story of the word "questioning." [The inclusion of "intersex" also gave me pause, as I doubt if there's any -- or many -- intersexed individuals in Portland or anywhere else. Not putting anyone down, here, just being factual. At least they didn't include "asexual!"]
I mean, imagine being a senior citizen and you're still "questioning" your sexuality!
Of course, this probably isn't as bizarre as it sounds, as there are many repressed and closeted individuals-in-denial of all ages within the fringes of the gay community. Larry Craig, anyone? And all those "straight" guys seeking regular sex with men that gay therapist Joe Kort thinks are really heterosexual. Give me a break!
Still, imagine that you're pushing eighty and you're still confused about your sexual orientation!
Confusion is understandable in youth. You don't fit the stereotypes, you have some (minor) interest in the opposite sex, you're dealing with internalized homophobia and so on. But after awhile one has to face the facts.
In other words, if you're questioning whether or not you're gay, you're probably gay.
And as I've said many times, it's okay to be gay.

A HOST OF GAY IMAGES

OF SOAPS AND COMICS

When I first mentioned the new lesbian Batwoman in Detective Comics, I mentioned how there had been a very sympathetic lesbian character, a cop, in Superman some years back. Well her name was Maggie Sawyer and she's now captain of the Major Crimes Unit. Guess who shows up in only the third installment of the new Batwoman series (Detective 856)? Our gal Batwoman, dressed in a tuxedo and with an odd make up job [definitely a "lipstick lesbian"] runs into Maggie at a fundraising gala in Gotham -- or is it Metropolis? Anyway, Maggie, too, is dressed in a tuxedo. Somehow Maggie [who used to have a lover] immediately surmises that Kate/Batwoman is a lesbian and asks her for a dance [see photo].

Frankly, I find this all just a little too precious -- and self-conscious, for lack of a better word. I don't think a tuxedo on a woman is necessarily a code for "lesbian." [Generally whenever I see woman in tuxes they tend to be orchestra conductors, but that doesn't mean they're gay.] The whole business with Kate and Maggie is just a little too cute.

I have no idea of the orientation of the writer Greg Rucka. Rucka writes in today's typical comics style, meaning he takes up right where the last installment left off, there's no synopsis to remind you of who the various players are, and you're left to fend for yourself. Rucka does try to maintain a certain level of characterization, but I'm not certain he has any real idea of how to deal with Batwoman's lesbianism.

But then I confess that I had no idea that the new female Question -- who has a back up strip in Detective -- was also a lesbian and had just broken up with Batwoman. [We saw the break up in the Batwoman strip.] I was told this by a comics fan at my favorite bar. This back story about The Question may have been revealed in another comic at some point, but it certainly wasn't made known in the story itself.

Moving from the comics to the soaps:

I wrote a while back about the actor who quit The Young and the Restless in a huff because he didn't want to play a gay role ["Adam"] and kiss another actor. Big mistake. The "kiss" -- when it came -- was off-camera so we never got to see anyone lock lips. There was no actual softcore or after-glow sex scene, either. We just saw the two men buttoning up their shirts when it was over. Adam insists that it was a one time thing, but neither Rafe, the man he slept with [basically to use him, but still ...], or Adam's girlfriend, are convinced -- in fact, she broke up with Adam when she found out. Adam's father, Victor, told him he was okay with his being gay and Adam really didn't say anything, although he probably still identifies as straight. Adam is a fairly loathsome character, being nasty and under-handed to his father's new wife, Ashley, who has done nothing but be kind to him. Rafe, on the other hand, is a much more positive character, and is openly gay.

The Young and the Restless also introduced another gay character named Phillip Chancellor. Actually the character -- and the actor -- were on the show twenty years ago when Philip was killed off. Now the story is -- and this could only happen in the soaps -- that Phillip faked his death because he couldn't deal with being a Chancellor [with all the expectations that went with it] and with being gay. I've heard of some weird reactions to being in the closet, but faking your own death! Phillip is played by an openly gay actor, Thom Bierdz -- who played the role twenty years ago as well -- but he seems to do little else but wander around trying to bond with his son and ex-wife and apologize to the family members who were shocked that he never gave them a chance to accept him for who he is. A nice-looking man, he seems never to have had a long-time relationship, doesn't seem that happy being gay, and certainly has zero gay identity. If this is Y&R's idea of a positive gay character, all I can say is that they've got to be kidding. Hopefully Phillip will lose that hang dog expression and be given an actual storyline or two. It would also be interesting if Adam comes to accept that he's attracted to men.

The gay characters are much better handled on As the World Turns, as I wrote about a while back. Luke and Noah remain a positive and interesting gay couple, but it's obvious -- this being a soap opera, after all -- that their commitment will be tested in future episodes. The show has introduced a cute professor who is helping Noah work on his screenplay. [In a completely absurd development, Noah had to fly to Hollywood on the day of Luke's father's funeral to meet with -- get this! -- Jude Law about his screenplay. Right. A college kid with no agent and Jude Law. Law himself did not appear on the show, but of course no one expected he would.] Luke seems to be getting a bit jealous of all the time Noah spends with the professor.

Stay tuned!