so the other day jess and i wandered around various touristy sites in madrid and candidly snapped pics of some of the male eye candy indigenous to the region. enjoy!
BLOG | SUBSCRIBE | SEARCH, ARCHIVES, ETC.
archive for the‘gender’ category
where’s chris? [makin' it rain in spain, madrid]
Saturday, May 2nd, 2009
you got scammed.
Sunday, December 21st, 2008
dear liberal america,
you just got scammed.
remember when all those green party friends of yours told you that barack obama was “too good to be true?” that he was “just another part of the machine?” that his promises of hope were “hollow and just another ploy for a well-established capitalist regime to gain control of america’s resources for financial gain?”
but you were like : “no way! he’s the real deal!”
and then remember when you heard that he didn’t support gay marriage but did support civil unions?
but you were like : “nah… he’s just doing that because he has to placate the masses! he really does support gay marriage but he’s just saying he doesn’t to get elected!”
and then, very recently, remember when barack obama chose evangelical pastor rick warren to deliver the invocation at his innauguration - a man that equates homosexuality to incest and pedophilia?
and you’re like : “….oh fuck.”
yeah. that’s called : you just got scammed.
all those hippy, anarchist, pinko friends of yours (remember the ones you said fucked up the election in 2000?) were right. apparently barack obama wasn’t only pandering to the ex-republicans and homo-haters out there with his attempt at moderate policy - he was also pandering to you. and i know. now you feel bad that you were swayed by his glorious speeches and that this dude made you involved in politics for the first time in your adult life and now he’s shitting all over your human rights… but really.
what did you expect?
wait, i know that too. you thought that this guy was tapped in to what was really going on. this guy has youtube fireside chats. you thought that if the american people have a problem with him, he’ll be more aware of it and swift-acting-to-fix-it than any other president. and just a few days ago you thought that surely the backlash on the internet over this decision will get to him and make him realize that most of his supporters aren’t cool with this.
but again, you’re wrong.
and it’s not for not trying. check out change.gov’s “join the discussion” pages and look at the comments. people use the internet and don’t like this decision. but what has it warranted from the obama campaign? just another “we’re trying to bring people together” line of bullshit.
i have a news flash for you mr. prez. you’ve got us. we’re all cozy and together and we all voted for you. now is not the time to try to win over those that didn’t by seducing them with hate. john mccain tried that, remember? and it didn’t work.
and fuck that bullshit of “well, all those bible thumpers are americans too. we said we’re gonna reach across the aisle and that’s who’s on the other side, so deal.” first of all, i was never a fan of that. i wanted this dude to just convince everyone that being a democrat is better. i want those “people on the other side” to come over to our side - i’m not interested in fulfilling their hateful agendas. there’s not a simple difference of opinion here. it’s not like my side likes vanilla ice cream and their side likes chocolate. my side (or at least the smart ones) favor human rights for ALL humans. their side would rather us fags would just disappear and let jesus do his work without any interruptions.
in this case, i’m saying my side is right. and guess what? i always say that. that’s the whole point of being ON A SIDE. fuck these false hopes of unifying our nation in simple singular political fell swoops. why doesn’t barack obama do what he does best (or at least what i thought he did best) and educate.
why not teach all those idiots that hate gay people that there’s no difference between gay and straight people! that we share a fuck load of stuff! instead of saying : “america, it’s great to be gay and it’s also great to hate gays. that’s what unity means!”
getting scammed sucks. i don’t even know what to think anymore.
and i’m sorry all you smelly, nader-ites out there. i was wrong. i guess you were right - still fucking annoying - but right.
ugh.
xo chris
dear liberal america,
you just got scammed.
remember when all those green party friends of yours told you that barack obama was “too good to be true?” that he was “just another part of the machine?” that his promises of hope were “hollow and just another ploy for a well-established capitalist regime to gain control of america’s resources for financial gain?”
but you were like : “no way! he’s the real deal!”
and then remember when you heard that he didn’t support gay marriage but did support civil unions?
but you were like : “nah… he’s just doing that because he has to placate the masses! he really does support gay marriage but he’s just saying he doesn’t to get elected!”
and then, very recently, remember when barack obama chose evangelical pastor rick warren to deliver the invocation at his innauguration - a man that equates homosexuality to incest and pedophilia?
and you’re like : “….oh fuck.”
yeah. that’s called : you just got scammed.
all those hippy, anarchist, pinko friends of yours (remember the ones you said fucked up the election in 2000?) were right. apparently barack obama wasn’t only pandering to the ex-republicans and homo-haters out there with his attempt at moderate policy - he was also pandering to you. and i know. now you feel bad that you were swayed by his glorious speeches and that this dude made you involved in politics for the first time in your adult life and now he’s shitting all over your human rights… but really.
what did you expect?
wait, i know that too. you thought that this guy was tapped in to what was really going on. this guy has youtube fireside chats. you thought that if the american people have a problem with him, he’ll be more aware of it and swift-acting-to-fix-it than any other president. and just a few days ago you thought that surely the backlash on the internet over this decision will get to him and make him realize that most of his supporters aren’t cool with this.
but again, you’re wrong.
and it’s not for not trying. check out change.gov’s “join the discussion” pages and look at the comments. people use the internet and don’t like this decision. but what has it warranted from the obama campaign? just another “we’re trying to bring people together” line of bullshit.
i have a news flash for you mr. prez. you’ve got us. we’re all cozy and together and we all voted for you. now is not the time to try to win over those that didn’t by seducing them with hate. john mccain tried that, remember? and it didn’t work.
and fuck that bullshit of “well, all those bible thumpers are americans too. we said we’re gonna reach across the aisle and that’s who’s on the other side, so deal.” first of all, i was never a fan of that. i wanted this dude to just convince everyone that being a democrat is better. i want those “people on the other side” to come over to our side - i’m not interested in fulfilling their hateful agendas. there’s not a simple difference of opinion here. it’s not like my side likes vanilla ice cream and their side likes chocolate. my side (or at least the smart ones) favor human rights for ALL humans. their side would rather us fags would just disappear and let jesus do his work without any interruptions.
in this case, i’m saying my side is right. and guess what? i always say that. that’s the whole point of being ON A SIDE. fuck these false hopes of unifying our nation in simple singular political fell swoops. why doesn’t barack obama do what he does best (or at least what i thought he did best) and educate.
why not teach all those idiots that hate gay people that there’s no difference between gay and straight people! that we share a fuck load of stuff! instead of saying : “america, it’s great to be gay and it’s also great to hate gays. that’s what unity means!”
getting scammed sucks. i don’t even know what to think anymore.
and i’m sorry all you smelly, nader-ites out there. i was wrong. i guess you were right - still fucking annoying - but right.
ugh.
xo chris
a jihad for love
Friday, May 23rd, 2008
last night i saw a jihad for love at ifc center. this movie was produced by the same guy that made ‘trembling before g-d,’ that film about gays and lesbians in the orthodox jewish community. a jihad for love deals with gays and lesbians living in the muslim world and reconciling their religion and their sexuality - a personal struggle that is exacerbated by the strict and discriminatory laws of the countries they live in.
the screening included an intro speech by the filmmakers - producer Sandi Simcha Dubowski, director Parvez Sharma - and Imam Muhsin Hendricksman, a south african muslim man who appears in the film. the filmmakers expressed joy that their screenings have made a huge impact on how gays and lesbians are dealt with in the muslim world, if not legislatively, then sociologically - screening to sold out theaters across the world. unfortunately the turn-out at ifc was weak. we rushed to the theater to get the best seats only to find a nearly empty house peppered with a couple of gay men and the filmmakers themselves. we got some free popcorn with jess’ auteur membership card and camped out in some cushy, center seats.
the film was fascinating/disturbing/heartbreaking/inspiring/informative and beautiful. in contrast to trembling before g-d, a jihad for love featured people who’s lives i could relate to easily. they were all relatively young and - i’ll say it - attractive. the ‘characters’ portrayed could easily have evolved into stars in the next big, gay sundance hit from the muslim world. the only thing this movie lacked was individual throughlines. most characters were only represented in one continuous segment and their stories weren’t given the freedom to resonate off each other.
another issue that was touched on but not thoroughly fleshed out, was the different experiences of gay men in the muslim world versus lesbians. gay men are persecuted and banished from society, but lesbians - specifically because they are women - simply do not exist. one scene in the movie showed a lesbian couple searching an islamic law book for verses against lesbianism and coming up nearly dry. in fact, one could make an entirely separate film about the struggles of lesbians in the muslim faith. there were so many unanswered questions that could have been posed to the women featured in this film. i wanted to know how their experience as a woman rates to their experience as a lesbian. do both just totally suck? does it even matter?
there was minimal discussion of transgender issues in the film - e.g. this one drag party that was documented in a trippy way and looked cool. but other than that there was only one man who described living as a woman and then realizing that it was displeasing allah to change the body he had been given, so he quelled his transgendered feelings, got a wife and had gay affairs on the side. as in most films (ye, any mass media representation) gay issues and gender issues are usually kept separate. unfortunately, the intersectionality of gender, sexuality and religion was kind of thrown to the wayside in this film - a mistake that may have limited a jihad for love to only scratch the surface of a tantalizing and fascinating world of issues.
all that said, it was still an important film screening that every gay person and their mother should have attended (don’t worry, i called mine to tell her about it). unfortunately new york gays are too ghettoized to realize that their community reaches outside the borders of manhattan and their cushy junior one bedrooms. just as the rich, white, gay intelligentsia has difficulty in associating with the transgendered community, gays in the muslim community also remain as strangers. the ramifications of a community of people discriminated against for the same reason, coming together to solve problems and actualize the goals of their social movement would be huge. unfortunately, most people had better things to do on thursday night. i only hope that like, trembling before g-d, a jihad for love makes an impact on the netflix circuit - maybe it’s easier to stomach international atrocities with cosmo in hand, on your crate and barrel sofa.
last night i saw a jihad for love at ifc center. this movie was produced by the same guy that made ‘trembling before g-d,’ that film about gays and lesbians in the orthodox jewish community. a jihad for love deals with gays and lesbians living in the muslim world and reconciling their religion and their sexuality - a personal struggle that is exacerbated by the strict and discriminatory laws of the countries they live in.
the screening included an intro speech by the filmmakers - producer Sandi Simcha Dubowski, director Parvez Sharma - and Imam Muhsin Hendricksman, a south african muslim man who appears in the film. the filmmakers expressed joy that their screenings have made a huge impact on how gays and lesbians are dealt with in the muslim world, if not legislatively, then sociologically - screening to sold out theaters across the world. unfortunately the turn-out at ifc was weak. we rushed to the theater to get the best seats only to find a nearly empty house peppered with a couple of gay men and the filmmakers themselves. we got some free popcorn with jess’ auteur membership card and camped out in some cushy, center seats.
the film was fascinating/disturbing/heartbreaking/inspiring/informative and beautiful. in contrast to trembling before g-d, a jihad for love featured people who’s lives i could relate to easily. they were all relatively young and - i’ll say it - attractive. the ‘characters’ portrayed could easily have evolved into stars in the next big, gay sundance hit from the muslim world. the only thing this movie lacked was individual throughlines. most characters were only represented in one continuous segment and their stories weren’t given the freedom to resonate off each other.
another issue that was touched on but not thoroughly fleshed out, was the different experiences of gay men in the muslim world versus lesbians. gay men are persecuted and banished from society, but lesbians - specifically because they are women - simply do not exist. one scene in the movie showed a lesbian couple searching an islamic law book for verses against lesbianism and coming up nearly dry. in fact, one could make an entirely separate film about the struggles of lesbians in the muslim faith. there were so many unanswered questions that could have been posed to the women featured in this film. i wanted to know how their experience as a woman rates to their experience as a lesbian. do both just totally suck? does it even matter?
there was minimal discussion of transgender issues in the film - e.g. this one drag party that was documented in a trippy way and looked cool. but other than that there was only one man who described living as a woman and then realizing that it was displeasing allah to change the body he had been given, so he quelled his transgendered feelings, got a wife and had gay affairs on the side. as in most films (ye, any mass media representation) gay issues and gender issues are usually kept separate. unfortunately, the intersectionality of gender, sexuality and religion was kind of thrown to the wayside in this film - a mistake that may have limited a jihad for love to only scratch the surface of a tantalizing and fascinating world of issues.
all that said, it was still an important film screening that every gay person and their mother should have attended (don’t worry, i called mine to tell her about it). unfortunately new york gays are too ghettoized to realize that their community reaches outside the borders of manhattan and their cushy junior one bedrooms. just as the rich, white, gay intelligentsia has difficulty in associating with the transgendered community, gays in the muslim community also remain as strangers. the ramifications of a community of people discriminated against for the same reason, coming together to solve problems and actualize the goals of their social movement would be huge. unfortunately, most people had better things to do on thursday night. i only hope that like, trembling before g-d, a jihad for love makes an impact on the netflix circuit - maybe it’s easier to stomach international atrocities with cosmo in hand, on your crate and barrel sofa.
re-branded
Friday, May 9th, 2008
oxygen, the cable channel for women ages 18-49 (according to their press release) - recently purchased by NBC for $925 million - is rebranding. this means dumping the old “oh!” logo, for a sleeker, yellower look (seen above on mo’nique, host of oxygen’s show F.A.T. chance).
i became interested in this because i noticed a print ad at the 49th street NRW station displaying the new logo and describing their target audience as the “O generation : trenders, spenders and recommenders.” the ad was emblazoned with the wedding-ring-like symbol and featured ‘attractive and diverse’ women seeming to march through a mall with shopping bags in tote. surprise: this disturbed me.
when i got home, i read this article about how oxygen is basically targeting young women who want to look good and feel good, and are comfortable spending money on means to do so (read: rich). to me it was just another nauseating example of how our society marginalizes women by persuading them to think they are only worth what they buy - namely what they buy to make them look better. despite the catchiness of the rhyme, witnessing the embodiment of the idea of a cycle of consumerism irks me even without being attached to a misogynistic agenda - making this double-’ew.’
on the other hand, in some ways i am a trender, spender and recommender myself. and i do enjoy the cheesiness of some of oxygen’s programming (whenever i get a chance to flick on to it at my parents’ house - i don’t own a television) - but i still say lifetime’s better.
but whatever superficial attraction i may have to this kind of material it is seriously outweighed by my awareness of the societal dangers it induces and more importantly by the fact that my generation (men and women) is being forced to claim yet another fucking letter.
oxygen, the cable channel for women ages 18-49 (according to their press release) - recently purchased by NBC for $925 million - is rebranding. this means dumping the old “oh!” logo, for a sleeker, yellower look (seen above on mo’nique, host of oxygen’s show F.A.T. chance).
i became interested in this because i noticed a print ad at the 49th street NRW station displaying the new logo and describing their target audience as the “O generation : trenders, spenders and recommenders.” the ad was emblazoned with the wedding-ring-like symbol and featured ‘attractive and diverse’ women seeming to march through a mall with shopping bags in tote. surprise: this disturbed me.
when i got home, i read this article about how oxygen is basically targeting young women who want to look good and feel good, and are comfortable spending money on means to do so (read: rich). to me it was just another nauseating example of how our society marginalizes women by persuading them to think they are only worth what they buy - namely what they buy to make them look better. despite the catchiness of the rhyme, witnessing the embodiment of the idea of a cycle of consumerism irks me even without being attached to a misogynistic agenda - making this double-’ew.’
on the other hand, in some ways i am a trender, spender and recommender myself. and i do enjoy the cheesiness of some of oxygen’s programming (whenever i get a chance to flick on to it at my parents’ house - i don’t own a television) - but i still say lifetime’s better.
but whatever superficial attraction i may have to this kind of material it is seriously outweighed by my awareness of the societal dangers it induces and more importantly by the fact that my generation (men and women) is being forced to claim yet another fucking letter.
…and the city
Tuesday, May 6th, 2008
as i stood in the mess of times square yesterday, with my mid-morning cigarette, i was confronted with a six-story sarah jessica parker, clad in shimmery snakeskin or sequins or something, selling her new ’sex and the city’ movie. she’s pasted to the side of the marriot marquee and is skewed on a slight diagonal bustling through an ambiguous NYC blur of night and lights (not pictured above, couldn’t find the right pic on the net) like she was captured in the pose by paparazzi as she momentarily glanced up to politely greet an acquaintance while slinking out of a cab. i thought about this woman. about how her sheer presence heralds materialism - the hint of a designer clutch peeking into the frame.
as i stood in the mess of times square yesterday, with my mid-morning cigarette, i was confronted with a six-story sarah jessica parker, clad in shimmery snakeskin or sequins or something, selling her new ’sex and the city’ movie. she’s pasted to the side of the marriot marquee and is skewed on a slight diagonal bustling through an ambiguous NYC blur of night and lights (not pictured above, couldn’t find the right pic on the net) like she was captured in the pose by paparazzi as she momentarily glanced up to politely greet an acquaintance while slinking out of a cab. i thought about this woman. about how her sheer presence heralds materialism - the hint of a designer clutch peeking into the frame.
if i can feel the sun in my eyes
Friday, May 2nd, 2008
when it’s been one of those long days - little sleep, too much sugar - and you’ve just come from a gender pac cookoff featuring two top chef celebs that you’ve never heard of before because you don’t own a television.
when your subway ride home brewed thoughts of stagnation - life not moving quite fast enough for you, eh? - thoughts of where you wish you could go other than home. thoughts of what kind of old gay man you will be. whether or not it’s okay to skip dinner.
when any brush with gender theory makes you reevaluate the world - all you see, people around you, things you tolerate, things you stand up for, when it’s right to say something, refuting a discriminatory situation, swallowing your belief in what is right for money or something or sex.
when you’re already feeling hungover, or wait, is that just ’cause you haven’t slept for a few days. maybe. thinking about aspirin. used to go out and party time people. should you get on the l-train and wait for the night to begin?
… when these things occur, a clean (at least superficially) apartment with some stella and a little joan armatrading sounds pretty nice. even though you didn’t get high for free or get that cute intern’s phone number.
pretty nice indeed.
when it’s been one of those long days - little sleep, too much sugar - and you’ve just come from a gender pac cookoff featuring two top chef celebs that you’ve never heard of before because you don’t own a television.
when your subway ride home brewed thoughts of stagnation - life not moving quite fast enough for you, eh? - thoughts of where you wish you could go other than home. thoughts of what kind of old gay man you will be. whether or not it’s okay to skip dinner.
when any brush with gender theory makes you reevaluate the world - all you see, people around you, things you tolerate, things you stand up for, when it’s right to say something, refuting a discriminatory situation, swallowing your belief in what is right for money or something or sex.
when you’re already feeling hungover, or wait, is that just ’cause you haven’t slept for a few days. maybe. thinking about aspirin. used to go out and party time people. should you get on the l-train and wait for the night to begin?
… when these things occur, a clean (at least superficially) apartment with some stella and a little joan armatrading sounds pretty nice. even though you didn’t get high for free or get that cute intern’s phone number.
pretty nice indeed.