Hey I was standing in front of the urinal today doing what I do there, and I looked at the advertisement on the wall in front of me -- it said "If you could be putting out a forest fire right now, you're a Mitchum Man."
Amelie Gillette is hott.
No, she really is.
standing in front of the urinal today doing what I do there
We're busy people, TMK. Just say "soliciting" and get on with the story.
I don't know, apo, I think that the guy who lit his pubic hair on fire might be even less gay.
But man, there is some funny shit on the intarwebs.
Well, it seems that Roland Barthes was wrong about amateur striptease and erotic power. Check out how wrong, though:
gauche steps, unsatisfactory dancing, girls constantly threatened by immobility, and above all by a 'technical' awkwardness (the resistance of briefs, dress or bra) which gives to the gestures of unveiling an unexpected importance, denying the woman the alibi of art and the refuge of being an object, imprisoning her in a condition of weakness and timorousness. (1954-56)We've got all of those elements here--I especially liked the karate-kick manoeuver--but since it's a beer-bellied man rather than a "girl," the effect is comic rather than erotic.
Weird.
(And yeah, I know Barthes prefered him some Algerian boys.)
5: Not weird at all. What Barthes was talking about was profoundly gendered; that's all the explanation I need for the difference there. Now, not erotic and not gay are not the same thing, and this guy is probably not gay but definitely not erotic, but surely he really doesn't mean to be. Intention is surely part of the reason for the effect. He's in a stupid contest, utterly without erotic meaning to him, and he knows it.
Another victim of high self-esteem. Can nothing be done for these people?
The second link at MAE's site that BG links in 4 is really something.
I'm not drinking myself to death, I'm challenging what it is to have a liver.
IDP, you're right on both counts: Barthes's observations are gendered, and this dude is participating in his own farce. I'm just trying to imagine this particular guy doing a striptease that could tip over into the erotic zone, and I'm failing.
Mcmc's comment signals something else: although this guy is giving us permission to laugh, he's also insisting on that third-twist of irony--"no, really, despite all that, I'm serious"--and it's still not working.
He's a salesman, maybe he's lost track.
I thought after I wrote that he must after all be capable of erotic expression, easily enough supposed but not in the form of a dance, for sure. He's the guy willing to wrestle the bear, which explains his showing up for this without any real sense of showmanship. The Full Monty guys took it seriously, although it wasn't erotic to me.
I think I could find that routine simultaneously funny and sexy if I found the guy attractive.
On dial-up, I had time to fetch my copy of Mythologies and re-read "Striptease" before the damn thing even downloaded. IDP is right. The paragraph Jackmormon quotes is profoundly gendered, so not that weird. However, it does suggest that Barthes would've loved gonzo pron.
But overall, I think the video supports Barthes thesis: that [bodies] are desexualized at the very moment when [they are] stripped naked. And that's the very thing that makes this video the "least gay thing ever"--it's total and absolute denial of sexualization.
(Offhand reasons this guy is the "least gay":
1) The Three Stooges hair.
2) He's a salesman (but probably not for a company like, say, Philosophy).
3) His beer belly.
4) His garage sale belt.
5) Removing his black socks last. (I thought that was a cliché.)
I could probably think of more were I not 2/3s of the way through a bottle of wine.)
All of this advertises him as an unsexualized creature. It signifies as Barthes says "nakedness as a natural vesture of woman, which amounts in the end to to regaining a perfectly chaste state of the flesh."
Personally, I'd hit Barthes (Foucault, not so much) if that bakery (or was it a laundry?) truck hadn't done so already.
How on the gods' green Earth can you watch that guy do that dance and still have enough brain left to use the word "gendered"? My prefrontal cortex hanged itself before he had the coat off.
Reading this thread without seeing the video is extremely enjoyable. I bet Weiner felt this way about our tubgirl discussion.
I'd forgotten about tubgirl. Gawd, you're a bastard.
This is a much better video of a man setting his crotch on fire than the ones linked to in the link in 4, and the song's not bad to boot.
Sigh, apostropher. After you had given me so much joy. . .
Gay & Ghey?
Ya'll dun lost me on the terminology...
Was I the only one shouting "Nooo!" at the screen once he got to work on the shirt?
The dude seriously needs some new moves. His Harlem-Globetrotters-through-the-legs move was clever for, say, the sport jacket and I guess the tie, but the time we got to the pants, it was pretty played.
I tried to watch this last night, but I had to stop after about 10 seconds because I was laughing too hard.
The second link at MAE's site that BG links in 4 is really something.
That video represents the only time I've seen the image of another man's penis and thought "I'm so glad my dick is smaller than his."
20: Gay=homosexual. Ghey=irritating middle-school insult, roughly equivalent to 'lame', that some people are spelling differently in an attempt to convey that they mean no insult to actual gay people by using it. Myself, I think the whole thing is misguided.
Myself, I think the whole thing is misguided.
I think the whole thing is an insulting and patronizing false dichotomy. Oh yes, everyone who uses "gay" or "ghey" as an insult must have the utmost respect for me and my boyfriend and various of my friends who are something other than hetero. That's why they're using it, right?
I wonder how far I'd get if I started using the n-word as an insult but spelled it differently?
(I'm not trying to attack you, LB, I'm trying to agree. Just an FYI, in case it comes out sounding wrong.)
As a side note, however, describing something as the most/least "gay thing ever" is NOT something I find insulting if it has to do with sexuality, esp. an awareness thereof, homoeroticism, etc. Describing a lame strip-tease by a chunky dude in a boring suit as "the least gay thing ever," and describing a bunch of hot guys skating together as "most gay thing ever" is something I take as a compliment. I'm just talking about the middle-school insult variety of using the term "gay" in a perjorative manner.
I think you're dead right. We had one of our trademark marathon threads on this a while back -- I don't know if you were lurking at that point.
There you go again with that whole "lurkers are gay" thing again, LB.
McManlyPants, your objections are totally gay. You big homo.
I wonder how far I'd get if I started using the n-word as an insult but spelled it differently?
"spelled it differently" should be "spelled it differently" and "n-word" should be "anti-semitic".
McManlyPants, your objections are totally gay. You big homo.
Breeder!
We had one of our trademark marathon threads on this a while back -- I don't know if you were lurking at that point.
I was not, in fact, lurking at the time. I did go read the main post, but fuck if I'm wading through 646 comments. O. M. G.
If the question is merely how to poke fun at feminine men, though, Jesus H. with a Prada bag; couldn't y'all have turned to some of us for guidance? The term you want, if you need a term that makes fun of feminine men but doesn't slander, you know, me, is the term "nelly."
Carson from Queer Eye: both gay & nelly
Richard Simmons: almost certainly gay, certainly nelly
Cowboys On Ice: definitely gay, but not at all nelly.
Does this help? I could produce graphs if needed.
We ended up settling on "prissy," though some dissenters remain.
We live much too far east to still be awake, dude. I'd better call it a night.
I think "nelly" is a fine word, but of course this discussion doesn't answer the main question, why is it okay to make fun of feminine men? I understand that in a world where it's no longer okay to make fun of unfogged posters' grammar, we must find something to laugh at, but, you know, talkity-talk gender roles talkity violation of implicit heirarchy talkity, talkity, talkity patriarchy talkity tool of oppression, what?
why is it okay to make fun of feminine men?
Clearly we should be making fun of masculine women instead.
mcmc, I don't know if you were around for the gay thread, but many of us vociferously objected to the conclusion that it was okay to make fun of feminine men.
Tia, what's so "gay" about the thread, hm?
35: Tia, I was lurking only occasionally at that point, and didn't read the whole thread. I wholeheartedly endorse your remarks in the linked comment.
why is it okay to make fun of feminine men?
As apostropher quite rightly points out, it was late late late last night when I was commenting. As such, I decided to skip the next question that occurred to me, which was, why should anyone make fun of them, anyway? My goal, instead, was to stick to the matter at hand in the interest of not spending the whole night yammering.
38: a better question. the impulse to make such jokes will eventually die, horribly crushed under the necessity of explaining why they're funny.