Alright, so having just woken up I don't have the clarity of mind yet to fully flesh this out, but bear with me. Yesterday I was watching 'Totally Gayer' on VH1. It all made me feel rather uneasy, not through homophobia, but through how fake it all is. Are we in the midst of gaysploitation? Is a phrase such as 'gaysploitation' indicative of straight people not really taking homosexuals seriously? How do gay people feel about the overwhelming crossover of gay culture into mainstream culture that we're seeing right now?

It all feels like a fad, although of course gay culture isn't a fad, it's life. It's just how it's being used. Are straight people in control of it, or are gay people behind this new wave of TV programmes and the like? It doesn't sit well with me, but I would like to know whether gay people feel better represented or to some degree used and further marginalized by the mockery of it all. To me it all feels a little disingenuous and more like a step backwards than forwards.

Your thoughts, if u will.

Go back to bed

luv4u said:

No, I woke up late, it's past 9am already. I've already missed the best part of the day.

I have nothing to add here. I do love the word disingenuous!!! More over I just wanted to say hello!


How are you mon?

If you go to P&R you will see that the "overexposure" is due mainly to the homophobes...

2the9s said:

I have nothing to add to this subject but HELLO! How are you Sir 9's?

Muse2NOPharaoh said:

Is that mon my wife Mon, or a hey mon Jamaican mon?

Shame nobody wants to contribute. I thought it was a decent enough topic for discussion.

2the9s said:

I don't waste my time with them anymore. Do you know they're illegally cultivating banality in there?

Fauxie said:

I think I'll ask a mod to move this thread there...

2the9s said:

Nooo!

This ain't political or religious.

Curse you 2the9's, curse you!!!

Fauxie said:

Forgive me, I find you interesting hoewever. I meant it in the Jamaican Mon sense. However,,, How is Lady Mon doing?

Fauxie said:

luv4u?? Clean up in GD!!

2the9s said:

You can't do that! I can't be found posting in that forum!

Where's a gay person when u need one?

Sheesh!

Muse2NOPharaoh said:

I know!

Motion to have 2the9's stricken from existence.

Muse2NOPharaoh said:

I thought so. I'm fine, Mon's well. She's sat here next to me watching the TV.

Are u well?

Fauxie said:

Here in lies the problem. For years, hip and wealthy straight people have looked to the gay community for its fashion and provocative lifestyle. Whatever the gay trend will soon become the popular trend. This exchange, while beneficial to both parties, is a rather superficial one. Take this relationship, add the exploitive mass media and what do you have?

Plain and simple. Gay flash sells. The gay orthodox, families, activists, accountants, lesbians without lipstick, drug free, gays who don’t party or can’t dance, don’t bring ratings or sell clothes. Not marketable, not seen.

Fauxie said:

Beyond well. I started an IRA yesterday.I need to set new goals. Life (when you work it) is so good!

lilgish said:

Wise!

Muse2NOPharaoh said:

Cool!

IRA?

The cartoonalization of gays.

I don't know how I feel about it. I'm exhausted over fighting (rhetoric) over my life. I guess the more exposure the better. I just want it to be matter of fact. Not like "Look he's gay, let's ask him something."


M

Fauxie said:

Q. What is an IRA?
A. An IRA is an INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNT. An IRA is a personal savings plan that provides income tax advantages to individuals saving money for retirement purposes.

Q. How does an IRA work?
A. You invest money in an IRA, up to the amounts allowable under the tax law. These investments are termed "contributions." In many instances an income tax deduction is available for the tax year for which the funds are contributed. The contributions, as well as the earnings and gains from these contributions, accumulate tax-free until you withdraw the money from the account. You therefore enjoy the ability to generate additional earnings, unreduced by taxes on these earnings, each year the funds remain within the IRA.

The withdrawals of the funds from the IRA are termed "distributions." Distributions are subject to income taxation, generally in the year in which you receive them. (Remember that in most cases you received an income tax deduction when you contributed the money to the IRA.) As with most things involving the government, the rules for distributions are more complicated than they need to be.

Since the original purpose of the IRA is to assist you in providing for your own retirement, there is a disincentive for withdrawing your IRA funds prior to an assumed retirement age of 59 1/2. This disincentive takes the form of a tax "penalty" in the amount of 10 % of the distributions received by you prior to age 59 1/2, unless certain exceptions apply. Given the complexity of this issue alone, professional advice should be obtained whenever significant amounts of distributions are needed prior to age 59 1/2. The fact is that many times the penalty can be avoided with proper planning. Obviously these distributions, whether before age 59 1/2 or later, are subject to income taxation upon receipt. Once you are age 59 1/2 this penalty, termed a "Premature Distribution" penalty, is no longer applicable.

On the flip side of the government not wanting you to withdraw your money at too young an age, it also has rules to prevent you from not withdrawing the money soon enough. (This is done in order that the government can tax it.) You usually need to begin taking money from your IRA no later than April 1 of the calendar year following the date you attained age 70 1/2. The rules established by the government regarding these Required Minimum Distributions, their timing, the amounts, the recalculations, and the effect various beneficiary designations have on them, are among the most complex of the Internal Revenue Code. The penalty is 50 % of the shortfall between what you should have withdrawn and the amounts you actually withdrew by the proper date. This punitive penalty is matched only by the civil fraud penalty in severity. The necessary calculations are therefore not something that most individuals should attempt on their own.

MIGUELGOMEZ said:

Yes, it's hardly a fluid, seamless integration into culture as a whole. It's still something else, something different, a part of life but still not to be confused with the norm whether portrayed in a more positive light now or not. Matter of fact, like u say, is what it should be.

Muse2NOPharaoh said:

Interesting. Thanks! I've been thinking a lot of late about similar things for the future. Right now I've got 7% interest on one savings account, fixed for a year, which I'm pretty happy with. I love saving money!

Hey, if God didn't want homosexuals to be overexposed he wouldn't have invented homophobic ranting.

2the9s said:

I'd imagine that's the devil's doing.

It's the crab people, come to take the world back over from humans.

The problem with VH-1/Queer-eye homosexual “exposure” is that gays are either portrayed as neutered comic relief effigies of real people, or they’re shown to be oversexed materialistic narcissists—and often, a combination of both.

Let’s face it—there is a segment of the homosexual population that exacerbates the stereotype of sexual overdriven love gods, and they are the easiest ones to notice. Having kissed a few men in my day, I must say that this is true. But that’s really material I’ll reserve for future threads.

But I beg to differ that homosexuals are overexposed in this country—they aren’t represented enough. Indeed, they are very much underrepresented. Hillsborough County (the county Tampa resides in) just passed a resolution banning Government sponsorship of gay displays in public libraries for the Month of June (even though the displays were always privately funded and never used tax payer dollars).

Today in Florida, gay men and women can’t marry, can’t adopt, and can’t be guaranteed that they won’t be harassed at work (though thankfully, many larger companies have already adopted gay friendly policies regardless of government influences).

With Jeb Bush, a classic neo-con Republican running our state, I don’t see a day in the near future that Homosexuals will be treated as equals.

So, back the uneasy media exposure deals. Unfortunately, they are inaquarate representations of the entire “gay” lifestyle, but to me, they are a necessary evil. There has to be SOME gay exposure that doesn’t involve condescending jokes (like the ones Johnny Carsen, Eddie Murphy, etc. used to blurt out so freely in the 80’s), and even though these shows are only a notch above that era, they at least attempt to sway the publics opinions in a positive direction no matter how misguided.

Hmmm. You know, it’s Saturday evening, I’m in a blah mood, and the best gay dance club in Tampa is hosting DJ Rob tonight.



Fauxie makes me feel inferior edit
[Edited 7/23/05 20:29pm]

Imago777 said:

Feel like Chicken Tonight?

Fauxie said: