I Am SUCH a Jock

A Fantasy in Photos

I know who won Wimbledon, and who won the World Cup. I've never felt so sporty.



Congrats to Amelie Mauresmo who walked off the court at Wimbledon a winner. Check out AfterEllen.com's roundup of Amelie's win, and the significance of her being an out lesbian in women's tennis. AfterEllen also pays tribute lesbian goddess Martina. Love them!

MEANWHILE, my head has been spinning with World Cup fever ...

Mark Simpson, possibly my favorite smartass gay thinker ever, says it was the sporno spirit that really made Italy the winner:

 

I'm keeping tabs on my straight pal, cool-dude-Bob, in his new job over at the World Championship Sports Network where he seems to have a keen eye for sexy, sweaty jocks -- AND has the generosity of spirit to send me links to help alleviate any potential moments of boredom in my workday ... because he knows I love sports, I mean.

Photos: The Final -- Italy Captures the Cup
Photos: France vs. Portugal: Viva Zizou!

 

My adored blogger-buddy Joe.My.God almost made me wet my pants with his ultra-jock account of HIS World Cup weekend, which even includes a vocabulary tickler:

"Over the last month I watched more soccer than in the previous 46 years of my life... For the Final, the Farmboyz, Vasco, David and I joined a extremely packed house at Chelsea's Gym Bar, arriving at the unholy hour of 1:30pm. I was already hungover and sleep deprived from the previous night, in which the Farmboyz and I visited the East Village's Boys' Room, the twink bar to end all twink bars, where we squicked out the young smooth baby fags with our creepy elderly hairiness." Keep Reading...

And finally, the men of Queerty don't fail to entertain by riding the fine line between reporting and smut:




God, I love SPORTS, but now that World Cup is over, this blog will get back to more cerebral topics, I'm sure.

 Comments | Worth Repeating: Home | Gay Galleries, Video, Pen Pals, More

'The Devil Wears Prada': One Stomach Flu Away from Perfect

 

If you can run in heels, do so as fast as you possibly can to see 'The Devil Wears Prada.' I'm billing it The Most Fun Movie of the Summer.

Somebody (I think USA Today?) said the audience for this film is 79% women. If that's true, the remainder breaks down like this: 18% gay men, 2% metrosexual/questioning, and 1% straight dudes who got dragged to the theater by a their wife/girlfriend. Read: This movie is very gay.

There's nothing gay on the surface, mind you. Even Stanley Tucci's Nigel -- almost a gay everyman in this film -- isn't that gay. (Actually he's very gay, but it's just so beside the point in the script. Brilliant!)

No, what's so deliciously homo about this movie is very old-fashioned: It's got style, attitude, and a bitch you love to hate and hate to love. It almost harkins back to Hollywood's Golden Age. Think Joan Crawford in 'Mildred Pierce,' or Bette Davis as Margo Channing in 'All About Eve.' Razor-sharp lines flow out of Meryl Streep's geniusly crafted Miranda Priestly like so much bling: "The details of your incompetence do not interest me." 

Every gay man worth his Manolos-for-men has a favorite line uttered by Norma Shearer, Joan Fontaine, Roz Russell or, again, Joan Crawford, in George Cukor's iconic and beloved-by-the-gays 1939 masterpiece, 'The Women'. I predict that 'The Devil Wears Prada' could join the ranks. In 20 years, don't be surprised if gay men throw around lines like "I'm one stomach flu away from reaching my goal weight."

At least I hope so. If they do, it would mean that gay men haven't been completely, boringly mainstreamed. It would mean we still hold on to that certain je-ne-sais-quoi that makes us special. I saw 'The Devil Wears Prada' at the Gateway Cinema in Fort Lauderdale. The audience was at least 60% gay. Have you ever noticed how we laugh at stuff other people don't? There's just a nuance that we pick up on. A sense of irony mixed with camp surrounded by a feverish appreciation of women who aren't afraid to let people know this isn't their first time at the rodeo.

Meryl Streep is superb in this role. Very few actresses could imbue a character with so many horrid behaviors, while still revealing a vulnerability that makes viewers see that she's only human (dressed like a goddess.) Anne Hathaway is a likeable Cinderella you can't help root for, especially when she's up against Emily, the hysterically evil step-sister/colleague.

I know the film is a comedy/drama, but it also doesn't miss the chance to point a well-manicured finger at the twisted business that is fashion, plus women's body image issues, bad bosses and selfish ambition.

But mostly, it's a romp. A mad-dash ride with the top down, Hermès scarf blowing in the wind, dishing the dirt with your best girlfriend.

That's all.

'The Devil Wears Prada': Watch Clip | Get Showtimes

Comments | Worth Repeating: Home | Gay Galleries, Video, Pen Pals, More

Tags: The Devil Wears Prada, Meryl Streep, Movies

World Cup Hotties

What's more fun than watching German fans cry?

Seeing Italian fans get nekkid!

Click here for more World Cup Hotties 

Tags: World Cup

Why Can't Gays Marry in New York? Because We Make Horrible Parents

Story: New York Supreme Court Rules Against Gay Marriage



'We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal.' * 
-- Declaration of Independence

*New York Supreme Court: Unless you're gay or lesbian

It's the week of July Fourth, and Americans across this great land of ours have paused to celebrate the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, the document that eloquently and defiantly proclaims belief in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

That sentiment and this week's patriotic celebrations strike me as more than a little ironic. Why? Because New York’s highest court today voted 4-2 to deny equal marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples.

What is shocking is the blatant homophobia and incredibly tired arguments in the written decision. (Read a PDF of the decision here.) It truly blows my mind that the court would have the guts, not to mention ignorance (malice?) to deny same-sex marriage based on their contention that kids need a mommy and a daddy. But that's what they did.

After citing a few of the "316 benefits" of marriage that straight people get to enjoy -- including "significant tax advantages," "rights to be treated as family members" for insurance benefits and health care decisions, and get this: "the symbolic benefit, or moral satisfaction, of seeing their relationships recognized by the State" -- the court goes on to put gay people in our place:

... We conclude, however, that there are at least two grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the Legislature has enacted. Others have been advanced, but we will discuss only these two, both of which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to the welfare of children.

First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of the children, is it more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement -- in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long term commitment to each other.

The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse ...

There is a second reason: The Legislature could believe that is it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule -- some children who never know their fathers, or their mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes -- but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold.

Did you get all that? The court doesn't want gays to marry because kids need a mommy and a daddy. It doesn't want gays to marry because straight people have sex/children the way God intended (?!): They're driven by "accident or impulse." First of all, that's incredibly insulting to straight people, and second, it makes no sense. The very fact that gay people have to work so hard to adopt or find alternate ways of giving birth should be evidence enough that, for those gay men and lesbians who choose to have children, they really want them. There's nothing accidental about our families. And there is no factual basis for their argument that kids of gay parents are any less well-adjusted or taken care of than those of hetero parents.

Don't even get me started about the straight divorce rate, the number of single-parent households, the incredibly high and outrageously under-prosecuted number of deadbeat straight dads who ignore their kids and underpay or never pay child support. Are these the families children of every hetero-headed household benefit so much from? "Having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what a man and a woman are like." Sorry to burst your bubble, Judges, but if that's what you think America looks like, you're dreaming.

But why are we even having this discussion? Gay marriage is about the union of two people -- in and of itself. Why should child welfare be the central argument of the Court's decision -- especially when gay people become parents every single day, despite the fact that our relationships aren't recognized by the state?

This battle should be about equality. Nothing else. If the justices had any of the moral sense that they so self-righteously tried to express in this case, they would have decided that discrimination is wrong.

At least Chief Judge Judith Kaye stood up for the real meaning of the Declaration of Independence in her dissent: "Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them."

More:
Two Top Courts Rule Against Gay Marriage (Washington Post, Free Registration Required)

Comments | Worth Repeating: Home | Gay Galleries, Video, Pen Pals, More

Tags: Gay Marriage, New York

Retirement Communities: Now With More Gay

Do You See Yourself in a Gay Retirement Community?

Seymour Sirota, 79, who moved to RainbowVision retirement community with his partner.

My friends and I often joke about life together in our gay golden years, which seem to get only slightly less surreal as they steadily inch their way toward us. We wax poetic about celebrating silver and golden wedding anniversaries, reminiscing about what the 70s were REALLY like, and listening to gays who pioneered the gayby boom brag about their grandchildren. Of course we'll look better than our straight senior counterparts thanks to good moisturizers.

We also talk about where this will all take place. Will we gravitate to our favorite vacation haunts of Provincetown, Palm Springs and Fort Lauderdale, or remain in our urban gayborhoods? Or, will we take part in a new retirement trend we used to only dream about: gay retirement communities. 

USA Today had a smart piece yesterday about gay retirement communities, with an emphasis on RainbowVision, one such gay and lesbian "village" located in Sante Fe. I have to commend USA Today since, once again, the way in which they write about gay topics is refreshingly natural. It's topical, but doesn't talk about the GLBT community in a marginalized or sensationalized way. Other mainstream media outlets could take a lesson here. Not only that, but they do a good job of pointing out some of the inequalities gays face (no Social Security survivor benefits, taxable inheritance events that real married people aren't subject to, etc.)

At RainbowVision, "residents can eat in El Centro's cafeteria, work out in the Billie Jean King Fitness Center & Spa, book a massage, take a yoga or Pilates class, soak in a hot tub, sign up for physical therapy and acupuncture, or treat themselves to facials.  There are art studios, meeting rooms, a lounge and cabaret. Assisted-living apartments on the top floor are an option when residents grow frail but don't want to leave."

It seems only natural that gay retirement communities would come to exist. For many people, they can serve as an important lifeline, a way to stay connected to people with whom they have something in common. They also can provide important medical care for GLBT patients who might not get what they need from mainstream healthcare because of homophobia or other factors.

I'm 100% for gay retirement communities sprouting up as a much-needed alternative for lots of gay men and lesbians. As for me ... I don't know exactly how I will feel about moving to such a place. On the one hand, having a cabaret onsite surrounded by my gay tribe sounds like it could be a fun, supportive and healthy environment. On the other, I kind of like living with gay and straight people around me -- you know, the way the world is supposed to be. And besides, who else is going to tell my straight friend that he should never ever wear those socks with that outfit?

What about you?

Comments | Worth Repeating: Home | Gay Galleries, Video, Pen Pals, More

 

Gays in the Military: 'When Asked, I Told'

A woman writes an eloquent and heartfelt editorial about serving in -- and getting kicked out of -- the U.S. military. 

Here's a taste of the article:

I stopped counting at 52. That's how many times just this week I've heard someone at work mention their spouse in casual conversation: "I have to leave early today to take my wife to the doctor" or "My husband hates shopping."

Now imagine if you were told by your employer that you couldn't talk about the person in your life. Imagine you couldn't even acknowledge their existence. If you slip and casually say, "My girlfriend and I are in love and we want to get married," you don't get congratulated ... you get fired.

That's what happened to me because I violated the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

She also nails an excellent point about how corporate America is leaving the U.S. government in the dust when it comes to treating gay men and lesbians fairly and equally. Check it out. It's very well done.

'When Asked, I Told' by Rhonda K. Davis (New York Daily News)

Comments | Worth Repeating: Home | Gay Galleries, Video, Pen Pals, More

 

World Cup Fever

Do I follow sports? No.

Do I appreciate hottie athletes?  Yes.

Do I love it when cool straight guy pals of mine send me homo-things-of interest? You betcha.

Click & Drool Photo Gallery: Hunks of the World Cup
Plus: Beach Volleyball Babes