by anna at 08:50 AM on May 29, 2004
Like CBS's ill-fated reality venture The Beverly Hillbillies, wherein actual hicks were deposited in the posh environs of Beverly Hills and hilarious hijinks ensue, Fox has now put the kibosh on Dude, Seriously, I'm Gay. Our culture will suffer immeasurable losses as a result.
Right. First of all, what have these reality show producers been licking---hallucinogenic toads? Where have they been ensconced all these years since the advent of political correctness, which is really just a derisive term for being somewhat sensitive to the sensibilities of others (unless they happen to be wily lawyers or buxom blonde women. Witness: What do you call nine lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean? A start. Why do blondes have flat heads? So you have someplace to set your beer....)
In the pilot, contestants were vying for $50,000. They had to convince gay men that they too were indeed gay. In the background, a so-called "jury of their queers" sat in judgement as to how well they were doing in the masquerade.
One can just imagine their snidely stereotypical, Simon Cowell-esque commentary. "Way too swishy for my taste," one juror harrumphs, reading from a cue card. Another adds, "Yeah that was just so over the top." "But I just loved the leather vest." "Hated it." "So Village People." And so forth, all scripted in advance as is every utterance on all supposed "reality" shows.
The contestants reportedly claimed that they'd found themselves trapped in their "worst gay nightmare," whatever that means. One confessed to a former wresting teammate that he'd been attracted to the sport because it afforded him an opportunity to come in close contact with "sweaty boys." Another had to "fork-feed" his date. (Which, I suppose, is better than force-feed.) There was no actual intimacy shown, however. Clever editing, one presumes.
Let's not forget that these guys went into this with eyes wide open and a pile of explicitly worded releases signed, dated and witnessed. They knew exactly what they were getting into. Yet they were perfectly willing to undergo this sort of thing for money and perhaps that gutteral 15 seconds of reality TV "fame."
My guess is that for $50,000, a lot of strictly heterosexual men would allow other guys to do just about anything to them. Whether they could or would actively participate i.e. be the giver or doer is another question entirely. But if all they had to do was passively allow an act to occur, I'd guess many would go right along and cash that hefty check ASAP. They might even secretly enjoy certain ministrations. So long as they had the remote control in their hands, that is.
Thank the Lord (and gay activists who protested so loudly) this trash will never make the airways. But I must say, I might have tuned in to see The Beverly Hillbillies had it made the cut. (The show, that is, not the movie, which must rank as one the worst cinematic atrocities this side of Gigli.) Who knew that rural folk had activists? I'd always thought they were among those few groups (see above) that you could still poke fun at without fear o' being publicly castigated as an insensitve boor who should perform community service in a heavy petting zoo.
According to CNN, NBC has stealth-created a copycat show. So you may get your fix, after all. The concept sounds interesting to me, also. But surely they get TV in (most of) Appalachia. Anyone that applies to be on a reality show has got to know what they're in for by now.
by jean at May 31, 2004 4:29 AM
Hmmm. I am always interested in the names that advocacy groups cloak themselves in. The "Center for Rural Studies" sounds pretty bland and innocuous. And speaking of which, does the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People have any plans to update its moniker?
by anna at May 31, 2004 8:12 AM
Ah, that is true. I interned a summer for the Campaign for New Priorities, and I think it would have been much less effective if it was named Defense Spending is Insanely Out of Control. :)
By the way, by "gutteral" did you mean "guttering", as in "to burn low and unsteadily; to flicker"? Just curious!
by jean at June 1, 2004 3:22 AM
Jean has done it all. I guess what I meant was related to the gutter, lower in class than bona fide fame: gutteral (not like the throaty noise some folks make.)
by anna at June 1, 2004 7:49 AM
Didn't Bravo do a show like this a few years ago? Yawn. Anyway, did you know there is a reality show like American Idol where they praise the really awful singers instead of the good ones? At the end they will crown the worst one for everyone to laugh at. They try to justify it as not being cruel by saying they are looking for people who are entertaining. Didn't we learn anything from the book/movie Carrie? Whatever — and we wonder why things like Columbine happen.
by MrBlank at June 1, 2004 10:38 AM
My friends at work and I have had a running discussion we bring up about every six months. How much money would it take for one of us to suck a dick? Well, one million was the amount during the first round of talks until it got to me. "Well Rob, how much", my buddy asked. "One hundred thousand dollars", I answered. They all started giving me crap about it. They couldn't believe I would do it for that paltry amount of money. I asked them "If no one knows but you, you wouldn't do it for one hundred grand?". "No one else will know?" was the collective question. "No" I say. "Hell, then one hundred thousand sounds about right" the rest of the guys agreed. So, it seems to me that the extra money was for pure pride, or better yet the loss of some, and not the actual sucking of the dick. I found that amusing.
by Ezy at June 1, 2004 10:43 AM
So Ezy, is that to completion? And how much for letting a guy suck or boo-foo you? It must be less, maybe $6000 or so.
by anna at June 1, 2004 6:16 PM
I run a $5995 special on Saturday nights Anna. It's all the rage.
Nope, no happy ending. They cost 200k.
by Ezy at June 2, 2004 9:43 AM
Well that sucks.
by anna at June 2, 2004 6:01 PM
Got it, Anna.
Why are guys so averse to doing something they happily let their girlfriends/wives do to them? This is sort of a graphic thought-- but those are the same mouths that they kiss, aren't they?
by jean at June 3, 2004 2:55 AM
Well, you know what they say about love versus true love vis-a-vis orifice sequences.
by anna at June 3, 2004 7:46 AM
I'm not sure Jean. I'll kiss Amy after she has gone down on me but that's my junk she had in her mouth. I think it's a lot different when the junk isn't your own.
by Ezy at June 3, 2004 10:00 AM
Does it ever occur to anyone else that, MG willing, there's a permanent record of all these discussions, this one in particular?
by anna at June 3, 2004 6:20 PM
Damn!! That was my friend writing all of that nonsense. His name is Dave.
by Ezy at June 3, 2004 6:37 PM
Thanks for the candid answer, Ezy. I'll have to ponder that one.
I've come to like the concept of oral sex less and less over the years, even though I think I'm pretty liberal about most other sexual practices. It's strange.
by jean at June 4, 2004 7:22 AM
Actually, oral sex is one of my favorites. I've always liked it. There's nothing like the feeling of being able to make the lady you're with cum with just your tongue. Powerful. I was actually taught by a bisexual girl I was friends with back in the day. I spent the better part of a summer between her thighs. She told me she wouldn't let me stop until I could eat like a woman. Good stuff.
by Ezy at June 4, 2004 9:36 AM