Shoulda Woulda Coulda been America's Next Top Model...

Short and to the point...

Who SHOULD have won the competition (but who was unceremoniously and surprisingly DUMPED this week) ? Lisa!!! Out of all the girls, she showed the most model potential (flawless pictures, an understanding of the camera, complete synthesis with her body, ability to speak without sounding like a complete idiot, etc.). In addition, she actually had a PERSONALITY, which all of the remaining girls- with maybe the exception of Bre- lack. (Personality, or fearless nonchalance fueled by an alcohol addiction? Hmmmm....whatever, I DIG this chick!). I don't care about any of these girls anymore, and I probably won't be rushing home in the wee hours of Thursday morning to rewind the taped episode. Who am I kidding, of course I'll still watch- I'm addicted!!! I DO think Tyra Inc. fucked up by voting her off.

Who, in my estimation, is the most irritating?


I really thought I would give this to Jayla, the trashy cupie doll with the stripper's body (and walk). Then Nicole started in, and completely surpassed Miss "I only know how to give one blank stare" Jayla. In Bizarro world, Nicole would be the evil opposite of Nicole Kidman (hmmmm, didn't think about the name coincidence until now). However, whereas Nikki Kidman has a certain charm and elegance to go along with that milky white skin and stepchild red mane, 'babymodel' Nicole does nothing but extend those pouty lips, furrow those brows and whine. She takes DECENT pictures, but nothing that warrants booking a client from a go-see. I want her gone, NOW!!!

When all is said and done, who do I think is going to win (now that Lisa is no longer a threat)?

I saw this way back when, on week 2, when she delivered this knockout punch to the rest of the contestants...

THAT is a model!!!!! Although she is a little DRY in the personality department, what really matters is what u can deliver on celluloid. I mean, Naomi Campbell is no showstopper in the conversation department either, but you can't argue with the product she turns out. So, Nik is MY prediction for America's Next Top Model, Cycle 5.

digressing, digressing...

Questions for the Zeitgeist- November 19, 2005

1- What the HELL happened to Amerie? I had such high hopes for “Touch” , her second CD (her first CD, "All I Have", is an R&B ingénue CLASSIC as far as I’m concerned). “1 Thing” turned out to be just that. When an artist’s SECOND video (“Touch”) is even hotter than the first one, and it STILL doesn’t get play on the whole BET/MTV/VH-1 public-relations bullshit circuit, we have to question- who is making the decisions for this artist? BTW- for those that loved her first CD, there is a remix to “Why Don’t We Fall In Love?” on her second CD that is SICK!!! Get some...


2- Why hasn’t the world caught up to Octavius Terry? That boy has a voice AND something to say (www.octaviusterry.com). I ain’t mad at him at all. He has the vocal prowess equivalent (superior!) to any of the current John Legends/Anthony Hamiltons, et. al and the soul and raw guitar of India.Irie. I personally think he sings his ass off on "Miss Discontent"- a song every NON-hip-hop station should be playing. On top of that, when is the last time you heard a singer pen a song to his FATHER?!? Hello, J Records...




3- From Red Carpets to movie premieres and other prime photo opportunities---why do we only see Kimora Lee Simmons wearing Baby Phat clothing/accessories IN THE ADS? I mean, Baby Phat makes bags- why won’t she put down the Vuitton at least ONCE in a while? Kimora, your "baby daddy" is NEVER seen without rocking at least ONE piece of Phat Farm. If the DESIGNER for Baby Phat doesn’t believe in her own clothes enough to rock them, why should anybody else? UPDATE: Mrs. Simmons receives the ‘V-Style’ award for her Baby Phat line- AND DOESN’T WEAR BABY PHAT TO ACCEPT THE AWARD!!! She had enough time to dye her hair that RIDICULOUS shade of blonde, but not enough time to look through the Baby Phat collection for something to wear. Boy, I tell ya…






4- Didn’t Mariah Carey up her musical AND fashionista game with her“The Emancipation of Mimi” CD? After YEARS of bastardizing/raping old R&B standards, she’s back to ACTUALLY SINGING- and doing ORIGINAL material. Who knew? I’m back on the Mariah bandwagon. 4 million copies sold in the states and 6 million worldwide- and that’s BEFORE the "Ultra-Platinum" re-release.














HOWEVER….She looked like a complete WHORE at the Vibe awards.




C’mon Mimi, just when I was thinking you had learned from past mistakes…













5- Move over, Katie Couric. Isn’t CNN’s Nancy Grace the most irritating white woman on television? I don’t know what’s more insufferable- her drone, nasal voice or that ridiculous “1998 PRE- Jennifer Aniston Friends-like” combover/under/around that her hairstylist (who MUST hate her) insists on giving her.

6- Where the hell did Mehcad Brooks come from, and why is everyone on his dick?

7- Now that Robert Blake has been acquitted of his wife’s murder in the criminal trial and found 'liable' for said death in the civil trial, does that mean that white people finally have their O.J.? Its always amazing to me that someone could be set free when the criteria for guilt has to be “beyond a reasonable doubt”, yet be held responsible for the same death when all the prosecutor needs is a “preponderance of the evidence”…

8- Isn’t ABC’s ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ (Sundays, 10 PM EST) some of the most REFRESHING television drama to come along since, oh I don’t know, ‘ER’? The cast is smart, the storylines engaging, and the writing superb. Y’all better get some, don’t say I didn’t tell u about it back in the day…

9- Where is Lil Kim’s second single from “Naked Truth”? I mean, I wrote her off a long time ago, but she definitely did her thing-the CD is BANGIN’, so shouldn’t Atlantic/Queen Bee just say “eeeny meeeny miney moe” and just release SOMETHING to radio? Give that chick her platinum plaque!!!

10- Ok, I said I wasn’t going to comment on this, because EVERYBODY had something to say about it…BUT--- If someone walks up to you looking like THIS…wouldn’t you just ASSUME he was gay?

Moreover, if someone approached you in Jamaica looking like THIS…

wouldn’t you think she was CRAZY? (Shouts to Rod 2.0 for the HILARIOUS Terry montage!!!)

But I digress…

Is Gay Sex "Dead"?

www.sexinthe70s.com

At the beginning of “Gay Sex In The 70’s”, artist and activist Barton Benes is sifting through pictures of some of the men he’s “come across” during his sexual awakening in the 70s. He has chosen to immortalize these images by affixing them to jagged pieces of hardened clay and keeping them on his coffee table. One of the interesting things is that the pile is quite high- filled with “cowboys”, “leathermen”, “trade” and other staples of the gay community that any fan of the Village People would be completely familiar with. This is his segue into the tawdry tale that is his experience as a gay man in the city that never sleeps during one of the most turbulent and storied periods in gay history- and he is not alone or unique. Cart out the procession of older gay men with their own versions detailing the freedom of being “happy, carefree, and gay” during a period about which they wax poetic with so much zeal that is almost seems made up. However, we are presented with irrefutable evidence that is most certainly is NOT made up. What is so titillating about this- and one of the reasons the film succeeds- is the cross-section of subjects that the documentary puts in front of the camera; from pioneers of the ACT UP movement and The Gay Men’s Health Crisis to Larry Kramer (author of “Faggot”) and Mel Cheren (founder of West End Records, whose recordings were a large soundtrack of the PHENOMENON of Larry Levan and The Paradise Garage).

“Gay Sex in the 70s” is chock-full of stories (and imagery) of the “libertine” period of homosexuality- and examines the rise of the “sex without guilt or consequences” dogma that many a present-day fag longs to return to. It is Gay Camelot- the time immediately following the riots of Stonewall (which mentally “freed” gays as a whole) and right before the discovery of “GRID” (which would be renamed AIDS once the bigoted medical community realized this new disease affected more than just gays). This period is brought to life by Benes and other “survivors” of this era. All of which is book-ended by historical references, stock film of “Vintage Gay NYC” (the mere mention - never mind the footage-of The Paradise Garage made the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end), and thoughtfully-edited images of gay sex (dare I say classic porn?) that illustrate the bacchanalian revelry known as “gay sex” back then.

The film eases into the subject of STDs that became commonplace as a result of this “lifestyle” (is that where this expression comes from?), and tales of taking penicillin before a night of “partying” and such (one person’s re-telling of having gonorrhea of the throat was particularly NOT SEXY) lead us to the END of the fantasy. Benes talks about the “pervert” that asked him to wear a condom during sex. People start questioning whether they are destroying themselves literally with all the preoccupation with sex. It is then that AIDS rears its ugly head and, as one of the subjects put it, was “out the door before we could catch it”. Cue moral: gay sex in the 70s was GREAT, but would be greater if there were more of us around that could talk about it. Remember the irrefutable evidence that these tales were definitely NOT made up? Well, here goes. All of the men whose faces don the artistic clay chips on Benes’ coffee table- every last one of them- is now DEAD (it is inferred as a result of AIDS). Moreover, the stilts that held up the abandoned factories down at the pier (where footage showed men having anonymous sex by the hundreds) are now just a collection of thick wood pieces just barely visible above the water- a grim allegory for the hundreds of thousands of gay men that are no longer “above ground”.

The “RE-EDIT”…
Ok, the first thing that was interesting about this movie was that the vast majority of the audience attending the screening could have been in the movie. For the most part I was surrounded by older white homos out on the town with their lovers or ‘dates’. These were the people who nodded in agreement or who let out knowing laughs at points during the film that showed sex behind or in trucks parked down at the piers, orgy-parties on Fire Island, or taking a line of coke at Studio 54. No judgment- this just wasn’t MY experience (for the record, I wasn’t even OLD enough to be having sex during the 70’s!!!). . I knew that going into the theatre. I did, however, feel excluded from the discussion (as most black gay men can attest to when entrenched in conventionally “white gay” situations). I mean, black gay men DEFINITELY had sex in the 70’s, did we not? Maybe someone will make a documentary about THAT (hmmmm)

Another thing that was interesting was the arc of the film, and how it mimics the “gay” experience of the 70’s through present day. At the beginning “we” are titillated with erotic images of man-sex and Dionysian orgies. We are regaled with “I remember this one time…” stories that are fantastic in every sense of the word. We are shown how sex and sexual freedom changed our own perception of our homosexuality; it went from something to be ashamed of to something to be celebrated. I could almost feel the “pride” and freedom that was present during that time in the audience. However, when the onset of AIDS is broached, I can hear and feel a collective “sigh”- a feeling of the wind being taken from sails- in the voices of the movie as well as in the sorrowful moans of the audience members. This has to be what those that are still among us must be feeling about being gay BEYOND the 70s; a new-found sexual freedom “high” (which was really “the calm before the storm”), followed by so-called “consequences” of gaining said freedom, and a return to the restriction of such.

I wish I had made the earlier screening, because Joseph Lovett and other members of the cast were present afterwards to discuss the film. I would have asked about the idea that “gay sex in the 70’s” is just not that different from gay sex now. I mean, I know PERSONALLY that there is a large contingent of gay men out there at this very minute who are having indiscriminate “raw” sex with reckless abandon. The only difference now is that most don’t appear to be doing it with the freedom and license that those in the 70s seemed to; it’s been reduced to a subculture. Even as people are still having “gay sex” in the manner that is discussed herein, for the most part that behavior (which defined “gay” for a lot of people in the 70’s) is now reviled in the gay community- at least on the surface.

I think every gay person should cop this documentary once its released on DVD- put it on the shelf right next to “And the Band Played On” and “Paris Is Burning”.
But I digress…

Noah's Arc...let's get REAL

So... I've had a chance to FINALLY sit back and etch onto the tableau in my mind exactly how I feel about the whole 'Noah's Arc' controversy/debacle/ground-breaking series that has erupted on the LOGO channel (www.logoonline.com) and on countless online groups/blogs. Let me first admit something- being the prurient "pseudo-homo-thug" I sometimes like to THINK I am, I agreed with those that said that the show was unrealistic- that the characters were overdramatized fem/drag queens and that seeing those images of black gay men would only further marginalize US. I agreed with those that found Noah's "drag" disconcerting (I mean, c'mon, the last person I saw tie a scarf around their neck like that was Pinky Tuscadero on 'Happy Days'!!!). I agreed with those that complained that the only "masculine" offerings were the main character's mates. I agreed with those that pooh-poohed the idea of these decidedly feminine creatures actually having MANLY partners ("that would NEVER happen in real life!!").

And then I did something that I think a LOT of us should do- I let go of all the BULLSHIT. I let go of the FEAR of being represented by someone who was not as masculine as I purport to be. I let go of all of the stereotyping and nitpicking and critiquing of the "realness" of the show and realized---it IS realistic. It's SOMEBODY'S reality. This is SOMEBODY's story. There ARE millions of Noah's and Chances and Rickys and Alexes- and some of us are fortunate enough to know a lot of them. How many of OUR friends/associates possess the "I'm happy, I'm carefree, I'm gay- I was born this way" nonchalance of Noah, or the stoic witticism of Chance? How many of us, while at the club, enjoy the occassional company of a flamboyant femboy with a heart of gold like Alex? And while we're discussing REALNESS, how many of us know (or ARE or HAVE been), the 'looking-for-love-in-all-the-wrong-places' SLUT that we see in Ricky? Once I was able to put THAT into perspective, I was able to do what I should have been able to do in the first place---WATCH THE SHOW. I was able to dissect and discern the VOICE of the show- what it is trying to say. I'll say this; even if I don't necessarily relate personally to the main characters, I relate to its central theme; that through all the trials, tribulations and travails of this hurricane we call LIFE, it certainly is great to be able to have ONE other person in your life who will be there through thick and thin to complement, assist, and guide you through it. If you have more than one (in this case, THREE), you are truly blessed. Love is love is LOVE and you don't get any more DEEP than that. That when all is said and done- when the general population has devalued and denigrated you, when the love of your life turns out to be the regret you wish you hadn't had to experience, or when you need somebody to just back you up with a baseball bat (lol), we ALL hope to have SOMEBODY in our corner. I've only watched the first 3 episodes, and I already get that.

Now here I am, 3 episodes deep, and I'm deeming Noah's Arc Tivo-worthy. I think we as a COMMUNITY need to check ourselves with regard to who we're fighting against (ourselves?) and what exactly ARE the stories we want to tell about ourselves. Are we, as Noah so aptly states in the last episode, so caught up in "idolizing... hyper-masculine ideals" that we don't want our somewhat-limp-wristed brethrens' stories to be told? As there are undoubtedly countless stories we can tell (because we are NOT monolithic), I submit that this show opens the door (and indeed the DIALOGUE) for us to continue to tell the story of the gay diaspora. And before I come off all "holier-than-thou", I need to state what I think is the obvious- Wade and Trey are fine as F&*&^%%^CK!!! I hit the rewind button a COUPLE of times when Wade is shirtless on the treadmill or when Trey comes out of the bathroom KILLIN it in those boxer briefs! But I digress...

Wait...New York had SLAVES??!!!??

When our school textbooks pontificate on slavery in America, various southern American cities bear the brunt of our anger about perhaps the most horrific event in our history. So when those signs went up around the city about “Slavery in New York”, I had to double-take and think back to elementary school- being 10 years old watching “Roots” on television. Didn’t all of that happen in Georgia and other southern states? Isn’t that what a large part of the Civil War was about- the Northern state’s insistence that the southern states rid themselves of the “original” apartheid? The Northern states get off easy in this example. However, traditional history deletes the North’s establishment and CONTINUATION of this institution, and that story needs to be told. Thanks to the New York Historical Society’s $5 million exhibit (and a friend of mine, Teresa, who works there and gave me a PERSONAL tour), ALL of that has been called into question and onto the carpet, de-mystified, and put out there for everyone’s information/consideration. Alex Haley had ONE story, which focused on the psychological ramifications of slavery; and here is but one of MANY stories on the subject that we haven’t heard before: the economic benefits that slavery afforded rich Northern whites, and how slaves literally built one of the greatest cities in America. For those of us who missed the story about the “discovery” of an 18th-Century African burial ground in New York in 1991, this exhibit gives us context. For those that were intrigued by it, “Slavery in New York” furthers what any black person in America knows already- this country could NOT have become what it has without us; the foundation for this country was built on OUR backs.

The exhibit (www.SlaveryinNewYork.org) in and of itself is quite comprehensive and well-presented. The scope and depth of the northern slave trade is presented painstakingly in original documents, televised and live discussions, creative multimedia presentations, and the like. It starts with the Dutch dropping off Jan Rodrigues (an African) on American soil and continues through the darkest period of American history onto the establishment of African-American institutions post-Civil War. In between, you get a rich history of how for almost 300 years, slavery- and whites’ perceived necessity of its preservation- established itself as THE most important product in New Amsterdam, and how that mindset (and laws enacted to further that mindset) built one of the most formidable ports in the north- which we now call New York.

And now…the RE-EDIT:
I think this information is important for too many reasons to discuss- if only to open the dialogue about historical inaccuracies, political correctness and a “setting-straight” of the facts, be they known or unknown. In this vein, one of a couple of things that struck me was that there was a movement AFTER the emancipation of blacks to “keep us in our place”, even though we were free. The part of the exhibit that dealt with how “free” blacks were treated after the Civil War was the most interesting to me. After we were raped of our skills and talents and used until we served no other purpose, after our backs and bodies were irreparably damaged through unspeakably vile labor (interred remains at the African Burial Ground found broken neck bones, trauma to spines and other signs of repeated stress), we were STILL not allowed to profit. Once blacks were freed, the need for “higher-paying” skilled jobs was available. To my amazement, it wasn’t blacks- who had performed all of those duties in slavery- that were given the opportunity to profit. For the most part, it was the new immigrant Irish (who’d begun landing here- can you say “Gangs of New York”?) that were given access to those economically-empowering jobs. Also interesting was how blacks tried- to varying degrees of failure- to assimilate into society post-emancipation. Although both blacks and Irish were seen as “second-class citizens” (and lampooned in cartoons and other communications) blacks still persevered, establishing their own churches, institutions, and aristocracy. “Slavery in New York” examines the establishment of the first black bourgeoisie (Pierre Toussaint, for example- who was a married hairdresser with an adopted daughter, by the way- hmmm), while skating over the very REAL fact that this city’s current bourgeoisie- the “old New York families”- had the vast majority of their fortunes made as a result of the slave trade, either directly or indirectly (do the names Tiffany, Astor, Livingston, Stuyvesant- to name a FEW- sound familiar?). Those living in the wealthy enclaves we now call Greenwich Village and SOHO sleep on the ground that formerly had slave footprints (and residences). It could be argued that “The City that Never Sleeps” is kept awake by the screaming souls of black folk. These heroes robbed of their skills, their culture, their LIVES, who found themselves placed here courtesy of The Dutch Trading Company for centuries of inhuman conditions and expectations; and whose 20,000 skeletal remains have only recently been properly interred and memorialized (www.africanburialground.com) are still awake- and I suspect not going to sleep any time soon. But I digress-for now anyway…