Torchwood – Miracle Day – Episode 1

Right, first things first, I don’t THINK this could be construed as containing spoilers (especially since we’re being shafted on air dates versus the US, and rest of the world!) but just in case ….

S

P

O

I

L

E

R

S

Right, that’s over with.

Let me say, before I go any further, that I enjoyed it. I really did, good romp, great hook in terms of the premise for the series, cool … go for it RTD!

Now, the things I find LESS wonderful;

  • Theme music:- yes, it’s petty, and silly, and childish, but I really liked the Torchwood “theme” and I missed it. There didn’t really seem to be much of a “start” to the show, and it felt odd.
  • Gloss: throwing money at something doesn’t always necessarily improve it. There was a LOT of gloss in this. That doesn’t make it bad, in and of itself, but at times it seemed more like “look, LOOK, we can afford a fucking HELICOPTER!!” than there actually being a call for it.
  • Characters: um, what characters? The old regulars were, of course, magnificent as ever. Gwen’s parents were memorable. Even the baby was adorable. But the Americans … oh, the Americans. Who are any of them? I couldn’t tell you any of their names, I have vague ideas of their back stories but, to be frank, I’m certain I’m confusing one with another. And, perhaps more importantly, I don’t care about any of them.  This isn’t good …
  •  One really awkward bit: crossing the bridge, the CIA agent’s comments about Wales and England being separate may as well have had big, red, bold letters flashing up over top saying “EXPOSITION!! PAY ATTENTION AMERICANS!!!” Shoe-horn that in, did you Russell?
Bottom line: it wasn’t bad, it’s probably a lot better than much other television out there, but … it doesn’t have the zing of the first 2.5 series, at least so far. I’ll keep watching it, and I’ll almost certainly keep enjoying it; but in this instance, at least, it appears that bigger is NOT better!

The Rock Hudson problem – 2011

This is not “news” per se, but it’s the sort of thing which needs to be reported on and brought to the fore as much as possible.

The quick version: Colton Haynes is a not-too-brilliant American actor, who’s starring in the new MTV show “Teen Wolf”. He may or may not be gay. He also appeared, as a teen, in a photoshoot for XY magazine, aimed at gay teen youth, in which photoshoot he a) was shirtless and b) kisses another boy! Shock.

The trouble is, an attorney has been sending threatening letters demanding the removal of any copies of those pictures online, making claims along the lines that they are “private”. Despite having been published in a national US magazine and/or that they are pornographic or sexually explicit.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t want any embarrassment to be caused to young Haynes. What I do want, however, is and end to the subtle, low level of homophobia which moves like this seem to perpetuate. The idea that pictures of him, kissing another boy, are likely to end, or at least, damage his career. The idea that such pictures are inherently pornographic or sexually explicit.

So let’s see shall we:

XY Magazine – 2006

Colton Haynes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As the magazine says, “shocking”.

Colton Haynes – recent photos

Let’s see the hugely different, non-private, non-explicit, non-shocking photos with which his attorney has no problem shall we?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, there you go – clearly a huge difference!

Basically, I think these photos need to be kept out there, and the story kept out there, because;

  • the attempt to remove them from the public domain intimates that there is something inherently shameful in homosexuality,
  • it perpetuates the idea – which may therefore become self-realising – that to make a career in Hollywood requires one either not to be, or not to be perceived to be, gay,
  • it’s a deeply worrying threat to freedom of expression,

    and, of course,

  • they are very nice pictures! The boy is easy on the eyes!

So, that’s my little bit of activism for the day!

 

1 – these pictures may be copyright – if so, I will happily remove them if so advised

2 – I don’t know Colton Haynes’ sexuality; any speculation is just that – or wishful thinking

3 – more coverage here and here

A couple more pics from the XY shoot, just to keep them out there:

 

 

 

 

You. Utter. Bastard.

Like many, I’ve been following the blog of “A Gay Girl in Damascus”. (No, I’m not linking to it – for obvious reasons.)

Like many, I’m SICKENED to discover that this is a scam, a lie, a hoax.

I’d started following the blog about a month or so ago. I have sat and wept at some of the things that have been described in it, feeling impotently empathetic. A horrible feeling.

I’ve experienced optimism and pessimism in near equal measure, often within the same post.

So, what’s the problem? If the emotional response is genuine, and the circumstances being “described” are essentially accurate, why the outrage?

Simple; the lies which make up THIS blog breed doubt in any others of similar nature. The next time we read an apparently earnest, heartfelt cry for help from an LGBTQ person in such a regime, we will hesitate and wonder. And apathy will be more likely.

Apathy, the enemy of any advances in these states.

And that is why, along with P Z Myers, I say “Screw You, Tom McMaster”.

 

Read the coward’s excuse below:

Continue reading

Latest GScene Column

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000167 EndHTML:0000004270 StartFragment:0000000451 EndFragment:0000004254

Who is my gay hero?

Well, setting aside for the moment the torrid ramblings of my fevered, late night imagination, and assuming that Tom Welling, of Smallville fame, really is not, in fact, actually a proponent of penile pleasure, I’d have to say that I have trouble answering this particular question.

In some ways, we are blessed with a surfeit of potential gay heroes: high heel wielding drag queens from New York, 1969, standing up for themselves and all of us against bigoted police forces, and starting in many ways the modern gay civil rights movement; Alan Turing, possibly one of the more obvious choices – a genius, bridging in some ways the gap between Einstein and Hawking, one of the greatest minds on this world, subsequently suffering government mandated chemical castration to correct his “deviancy”; Michaelangelo, incredible artist and genius, tortured by his sexuality yet turning the conflict into beauty; Stephen Fry, perhaps the only modern world polymath, from petty criminal to petit- and haut-bourgeois darling, beloved luvvie; the list isn’t endless, but it’s pretty bloody long!

But why do our heroes have to be gay? Are we still so insular and isolated that we can only relate to and respect people whose sexual proclivities mirror our own?

My hero, a fact which I don’t consider something of which to be ashamed, is the Doctor. Yes, Doctor Who.

He’s not gay – per se – but he almost certainly isn’t straight either.

Especially when you consider that the Doctor with whom I grew up was Peter Davison – he could scarcely be less of a sexual being. But then, none of the (now known as) classic Doctors was sexual. There was famously “no hanky-panky in the Tardis”.

And as a putatively gay teen, unable to relate to the traditional heterosexual images of masculinity and heroism (even if not sure why at the time) the Doctor’s uniquely non-sexual, non-violent, non-aggressive form of heroism was incredibly appealing. He was, to me, everything that the rest of the humdrum, human heroes weren’t; self-sacrificing, witty, intellectual and cerebral, rather than physical and violent.

Now the Doctor has been resurrected for the modern age, and things have changed somewhat. He’s now at least aware of sex and sexuality, though he seems not to dip his “toe” into that particular “water” too often! Of more importance though, is that he’s definitely NOT straight now; something for which we partly have (gay) Russell T Davies to thank, and partly the changed nature of society. He’s far more free-and-easy when it comes to sex, as his relationship with Captain Jack alone more than adequately demonstrates.

Should it not be possible, however, for me to find a GAY hero? I don’t think it’s needed actually; anyone I consider a hero, would be that regardless of their sexuality, not because of it! And that’s the best way for it to be!

So, my gay hero? He’s a fictional, non-human, and – perhaps oddly – non-gay man. Deal with it!

 

GScene Column - June 2011 - Canada Dry


 

Tea and Kittens … I need Tea and Kittens!

I really ought, by now, to know better than to read the Daily Hate.

It is, after all, the sheerest shit and fantasy. Mouthpiece for the views of the BNP/EDL/National Socialist Party. Scaremongering, anti-science, anti-humanity really.

But it still hurts my brain to see things like this:

Daily Mail Screenshot 2011-06-01 at 12.49.10 Mobiles CAN cause cancer.

 

Well, I find myself thinking, that’s big news. Wonder how come it hasn’t been picked up more widely. So I click through to the article …

Daily Mail Screenshot 2011-06-01 at 12.49.23

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah. Ok.

Excellent journalistic integrity there. You jackasses!

And the stupid doesn’t stop there, oh no. The further you read, the more apparent it becomes that nothing has changed. NOTHING.

Is it possible to rule out, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a possible, potential, maybe causal link between excessive use of a mobile ‘phone and carcinogenesis? No.

Does that mean that “mobile ‘phones can cause cancer”? NO – you fucking fucks!

This shit shows, yet again, why we need a PCC with teeth, and an enforceable code of conduct for the media. Not some laissez-fucking-faire self-regulation which may as well be a circle jerk of bullshit peddling wankers for all the good it does.

Oh, and the Tea and Kittens reference? It’s all about this, and the lovely content I really should be looking at, instead of Mein Daily Kampf!

Apparently, Cameron’s Tories can now dictate FUTURE laws!

This is an obscene transgression of the established constitutional settlement of the UK – and no-one notices!?!?!

The “UK Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill”, currently before Parliament, purports to be able to bind this Parliament’s successors, specifically in Sections 2 and 4:

2 Legal instruments

No Minister of the Crown shall make or implement any legal instrument which—

(a)is inconsistent with this Act; or

(b)increases the functions of the European Union affecting the United
Kingdom

without requiring it to be approved in a referendum of the electorate in the United Kingdom

4 Royal Assent

No Bill shall be presented to Her Majesty the Queen for her Royal Assent which contravenes this Act or amends this Act or which purports so to do except and until the Bill, having been approved by both Houses of Parliament, has also been approved in a referendum of the electorate in the United Kingdom pursuant to an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament.

How?! How can this Parliament modify the method by which a future Parliament can pass a bill into law?

Simple answer; it can’t! If it could, then the entire basis of the rule of law in our system would fall apart! It sickens me that nothing is being done to stop this farrago proceeding, and more so, that there is next-to-no publicity surrounding this bill. Pandering of the worst sort to the most moronic factions of the Daily Mail & Telegraph brigades.

Sickening.

Gscene Column – April 2011

Why am I gay? Why, oh why, oh why? Gnashing of gums, wailing and crying … etc.

You may as well ask why am I white? Or male? Or a pompous prick? None of these questions really admits of an answer deeper than “because” … and neither does the question of the cause, or root, or why and wherefore of my homosexuality.

Do I believe our sexuality is an innate trait, laid down for us in the genetic makeup of our very beings? Yes, I’d have to accept that as the most likely reason. Can I rule out environmental factors; upbringing, pollution, pregnant women with a 40-a-day Mayfair habit? Of course I can’t. I’m not a biologist, and even if I were, those questions haven’t been answered definitively!

Perhaps of more interest would be to ask why this question is still being asked? Why does it matter why I’m (or anybody else is) gay? The answer to those questions may be more valuable than a final determination that a certain combination of amino acids led inexorably to my preference for chaps!

Obviously, the reason that the questions are asked is that it is still not seen as “normal” to be gay. Even those who are “tolerant” or “accepting” of homosexuality – words which in and of themselves indicate the basic discomfort of the people who use them – don’t actually feel on a visceral level that we are normal. That doesn’t mean their judgment extends to considering us wrong, immoral or evil – necessarily. But it reflects an “us and them” attitude which, even if not operating on a conscious level, influences a huge range of behaviours and beliefs.

This outlook is on a par with “I’m not racist, but …” or “some of my best friends are black”. The very act of distinguishing denotes the separation in the mind of the person speaking. “There’s nothing wrong with being gay … but why do they have to shove it down our throats?” or “I don’t mind homosexuals … but marriage is between a man and a woman”. It’s all the same shit, different shovel!

I’m not arguing for some undifferentiated pablum world in which we are all the same and Benetton ads are far more monochromatic. I’m not saying that we should live without acknowledging that we are different; among other things, it would be awful to hit on a straight guy and be unable to understand his reticence!

I am, however, arguing that the question “why” – beloved of two year olds the world over – is in this context probably a bad thing. Asking why someone is gay, or black, or female … implies a judgment. Or possibly even disapproval. Until we can move past that, asking why can cause nothing but harm.

So if anyone asks me why I am gay, I can only have one response.

Why not?

Full magazine here.

A fabulous restaurant – well worth trying!

We first tried The Meadow Restaurant for a Sunday brunch almost two years ago, and it’s remained one of our favourites ever since.

Stylish, in terms of decor and of food, but never putting style over substance. The breakfast/brunch menu was originally quite small, but has subsequently expanded, without compromising any of the pluses which first excited us! My favourite – in any breakfast setting – is a modified Eggs Benedict; sometimes, the modification can lead to problems, whether with the serving staff taking it down correctly, or with the kitchen implementing it properly. At the Meadow, this has never been an issue. Not just that, but the meals have always been wonderfully flavourful, delicately balanced, tasty and – above all – enjoyable.

The ethos of the restaurant is one of local, seasonal food, but without the sanctimony often found accompanying such approaches. The ingredients are of a consistently high standard, the service impeccable, and the ambience relaxed and stylish.

Highly recommended!

A day in hand … same sex hand holding!

Please, do visit this site, and do what you can to support the cause – everyone can hold someone’s hand, and moment by moment, we can move to change the way society sees same sex couples!

A Day In Hand announces 1st anniversary of (Same-sex hand holding) Sshh! Saturdays
Saturday 25th September 2010

“If you want to live in a world where you can hold your partner’s hand in the street….
hold your partner’s hand in the street.”

David Watkins, Founder, A Day In Hand

Same Sex Hand Holding

Live your love

Please celebrate the anniversary with us!

Where?
The World. Wherever you are.
When?
Saturday September 25th. Anytime you like.
What?
Hold hands with someone of the same gender. Whoever they may be.
Step outside. Take a picture. Email toyourstories@adayinhand.com.
Go for a walk. Don’t let go. Live your love. Note your surprise… when nothing happens.
Don’t ignore your survival instincts, but don’t be oppressed by them either.

SSHH

The site is at: http://www.adayinhand.com/news/1stanniversaryofsshhsat

Oh …. and something that makes me very pleased personally ….

David Miliband