Madonna worship - GET REAL PPL!
00ma...@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
all goes well.
Musical/artistic arguments aside, this Madonna-worship thing
is really pissing me off. Granted, I am somewhat new to the
community, but am I the only one who realizes how falling
all over this pop/sex/smut queen is setting up a stereotype?
As I become aware of all the stereotypes I get cast into
as I gradually come out on this campus, I try to make a
consciencous effort to break from them.
Now granted, it's nice to see someone in the music industry
gay-friendly, and yes some of those dancers are hot -
but come on people...there is nothing prophetic or
profound about this woman propping her tits around onstage
selling sex and trying to break down sexual barriers. Sex,
including bisexuality, has been used for a long long time -
Madonna is not some homosexual idol who should be worshipped
for her enlightening of the masses to the plight of sexual
repression.
Well, that's my $0.02 anyway.
Send appropriate flames to the address below
ryerson.schwark
>
>Musical/artistic arguments aside, this Madonna-worship thing
>is really pissing me off. Granted, I am somewhat new to the
>community, but am I the only one who realizes how falling
>all over this pop/sex/smut queen is setting up a stereotype?
Since you're new, take this free clue
"We don't give a fuck
what the bigots think of us."
Matthew Melmon
wrote:
>
> OK... this is my first attempt to post to this newsgroup, so I hope
> all goes well.
Glory be, halleluyaaaaa - thank you, THANK YOU for imparting upon
us - the wayword and intellectually weak - this cleansing vision
in your FIRST POST! How I have prayed, and prayed SO HARD, that
someone in the anonymous mass would find the strength to stand up
and speak, in a clear, strong voice - one of reason and purity -
of how far astray certain members of the gay community have gone to
actually consider *that* *woman* worthy of admiration. Yes, indeed,
it shall be recorded in the anals of history that you -
00ma...@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu - are a man of vision and courage.
It is my sincerest hope that, in pointing out to others what should
*not* be a part of *their* personality, you are made more comfortable
in what should be a part of *yours*
*X*
Tim Wilson
00ma...@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
OK... this is my first attempt to post to this newsgroup, so I hope
all goes well.
I'll wish you good luck. People have been nice to me.
Musical/artistic arguments aside, this Madonna-worship thing
is really pissing me off. Granted, I am somewhat new to the
community, but am I the only one who realizes how falling
all over this pop/sex/smut queen is setting up a stereotype?
I don't see how you put the musical or artistic aspects of Madonna
aside. I don't know what it means to think of Madonna without her
music, her music videos, her -- uh -- acting, her -- uh -- book.
Granted, she's also a self-promotion artist (and it's hip to denounce
her as such), but if her musical product didn't cut it with gazillions
of people, the self-hyped, remade, "new" Madonna (every eighteen
months) wouldn't have much impact.
Maybe it's more important to take people's stated tastes in
mass-market entertainers at face value, and less so to be concerned
about what other people are going to think about stereotypes.
--
Tim Wilson
Internet: t...@ear-ache.mit.edu
UUCP: mit-eddie!mit-athena!tim
Bad Colorado. No business.
WERLING
-Musical/artistic arguments aside, this Madonna-worship thing
-is really pissing me off. Granted, I am somewhat new to the
-community, but am I the only one who realizes how falling
-all over this pop/sex/smut queen is setting up a stereotype?
This may well be true, but what other people think really aren't
important. Gay people don't create stereotypes about the gay
community, homophobes do.
-As I become aware of all the stereotypes I get cast into
-as I gradually come out on this campus, I try to make a
-consciencous effort to break from them.
Do what you must to get to know yourself, to love yourself. If this
means denying yourself of anything that may fall into the category of
"stereotype," so be it. But many people identify with the community,
or with their own inner selves, in Madonna's flair, strength, verve,
image, attitude, rhythm...and this is a beautiful thing. This is more
important than the threat of creating a new stereotype.
-Now granted, it's nice to see someone in the music industry
-gay-friendly, and yes some of those dancers are hot -
-but come on people...there is nothing prophetic or
-profound about this woman propping her tits around onstage
-selling sex and trying to break down sexual barriers. Sex,
-including bisexuality, has been used for a long long time -
And the more people who do it the better. The more mega-famous people
who do it the better!
-Madonna is not some homosexual idol who should be worshipped
-for her enlightening of the masses to the plight of sexual
-repression.
Yes she is. The evidence is all around you. Your intent is
understandable, but you would benefit from trying to understand just
what this phenomenon is all about.
-Send appropriate flames to the address below
Heck no! Keep it on the forum!
--
Andrew Werling on Planet Yip awer...@nmsu.edu y...@acca.nmsu.edu
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable
uncertainty: not knowing what comes next."
--Faxe, in THE LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS, by Ursula K. Le Guin
Jess Anderson
In article <1993Jan15.023218.13662@bsu-ucs>
00ma...@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu, whose name we may only guess,
so far, writes, rather incautiously, I thought, but what the
hell:
>OK... this is my first attempt to post to this newsgroup,
>so I hope all goes well.
Mechanically, it did. Otherwise, well ...
>Musical/artistic arguments aside, this Madonna-worship thing
>is really pissing me off.
You're allowed to have any pet hate you like, of course,
but some of them have more consequences than others.
>Granted, I am somewhat new to the community,
This will buy you very little leeway, I believe.
>but am I the only one who realizes how falling all over this
>pop/sex/smut queen is setting up a stereotype?
Unless you've been cloistered for a decade, you must realize
things are at least a little more complicated than the
characterization you just made.
>As I become aware of all the stereotypes I get cast into as
>I gradually come out on this campus, I try to make a
>consciencous effort to break from them.
There's an old adage about the baby and the bathwater.
Being conscientious doesn't mean you're suddenly the
Messiah, either.
>Now granted, it's nice to see someone in the music industry
>gay-friendly, and yes some of those dancers are hot - but
>come on people...
So you object to the actor, not the act, is that it?
>there is nothing prophetic or profound about this woman
>propping her tits around onstage selling sex and trying to
>break down sexual barriers.
What's wrong with breaking down sexual barriers? We *do*
have quite a few, and most of them are pretty dumb, wouldn't
you say?
Naturally, I can't quite parse your "woman propping [?] her
tits around onstage" remark, because I can't tell for sure
if it's anti-woman, anti-tits, or anti-stage. Sounds to me,
though, like lots of anti-woman, a fair amount of anti-tits
(the which word in that context I think a lot of women here
won't like much, btw), and mild distaste for the public
nature of the show.
If I assume you're not trying to be obnoxious about it (to
be candid, it's a bit of a stretch, but like you said,
you're new here), then I have to wonder why you think your
audience should sign right up to be enlightened on all these
points.
>Sex, including bisexuality, has been used for a long long
>time -
So?
>Madonna is not some homosexual idol who should be worshipped
>for her enlightening of the masses to the plight of sexual
>repression.
So? She's a lot of things, right?
--
[Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin]
[Internet: ande...@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson]
[Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888]
[---------> Discrimination, Bigotry, and Hate are not Family Values <---------]
Jess Anderson
ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
>it shall be recorded in the anals of history
(spoken through the nether throat, apparently, as usual).
Matthew Melmon
(Jess Anderson) wrote:
>
> In article <mattm-150...@mcmelmon.apple.com>
> ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
>
> >it shall be recorded in the anals of history
>
> (spoken through the nether throat, apparently, as usual).
How observant of you, Jezeboo! It's OK, everyone - his *eyesight*,
at least, is as sharp as ever.
*X*
Roger Phillips
ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes
a flame worthy of the cabal, if there were one,
including:
> Yes, indeed,
> it shall be recorded in the anals of history that you -
> 00ma...@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu - are a man of vision and courage.
What makes you think that?
--
Roger Phillips ro...@quantime.co.uk
"*tick* n. crib-biting: a whimsy" -- Chambers English Dictionary (1988)
Matthew Melmon
(Roger Phillips) wrote:
> > Yes, indeed,
> > it shall be recorded in the anals of history that you -
> > 00ma...@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu - are a man of vision and courage.
> ^^^
> What makes you think that?
Actually, I think it was Tracey I told once that lesbians rarely
seem to have particularly emotional opinions about Madonna. You
are, however, correct in pointing out that 00mabeaty need not
necessarily be of the male sex...
*X*
(nor do I think a lesbian would say "Get real PPL" - but I
reserve the right to be wrong...)
Season Marie Taylor
>(nor do I think a lesbian would say "Get real PPL" - but I
>reserve the right to be wrong...)
I know a straight guy who dances like a lesbian who is always saying that,
but i don't think that qualifies. I think the expression is some sort of
sorority girl thing.
season
--
____
Season Taylor \ / "we are one body/we are one spirit/one breath/one
cz...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu\/ dream of life and death/.../one sex"
(yes, as in the 4) -sophie b. hawkins
Tracey McCartney
cz...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Season Marie Taylor) writes:
>
>I know a straight guy who dances like a lesbian who is always saying that,
>but i don't think that qualifies. I think the expression is some sort of
>sorority girl thing.
a lesbian" mean? One thing I've noticed is that lesbians, with a few notable
exceptions, don't dance very well (myself emphatically included). So is
your friend a bad dancer, or is he hampered by a tool belt or Birkies, or
what? : )
Tracey
Matthew Melmon
In article <16B5ADE4F...@ua1vm.ua.edu>, TMCC...@ua1vm.ua.edu (Tracey
McCartney) points out something only a lesbian could:
> One thing I've noticed is that lesbians, with a few notable
> exceptions, don't dance very well (myself emphatically included).
I do know one, only one, lesbian who can dance damn well (better,
I must admit, than poor little *X* - who hasn't Vogued in a while).
This, of course, means I *love* Dancing with Lesbians, because I
can skkkkaweeeeezzzzeeee them, and look good doing it...
*X*
(especially really big lesbians, with *really* big... well, you know)
Mike Reaser
>In addition to coming up with a postively *witty* thread title,
Try again, dear heart.
>In article <16B5ADE4F...@ua1vm.ua.edu>, TMCC...@ua1vm.ua.edu (Tracey
>McCartney) points out something only a lesbian could:
>> One thing I've noticed is that lesbians, with a few notable
>> exceptions, don't dance very well (myself emphatically included).
>I do know one, only one, lesbian who can dance damn well (better,
>I must admit, than poor little *X* - who hasn't Vogued in a while).
Well, how can you dearie? It must be hell, moving away from the
full-length wraparound mirror where you inspect your bouffant prior
to any rhythmic movement.
We just _musn't_, _musn't_, _musn't_ have our hair move more than
ourselves, should we?
>This, of course, means I *love* Dancing with Lesbians, because I
>can skkkkaweeeeezzzzeeee them, and look good doing it...
"Good" compared to what? Most lesbians I know have more _real_
class and taste than (and, yup, I'm going to use a stereotype on
poor Matthewma) the typcial twink or twink-chaser around here.
>*X*
>(especially really big lesbians, with *really* big... well, you know)
Trucks? Tires? Hair?
--
=======================================================================
Mike Reaser, Hewlett-Packard N. Amer. Response Center - Atlanta
Internet: m...@hpuerca.atl.hp.com
NBCS: B5 f t w g+ k s I barely speak for myself, so
#include <standard.disclaimer> don't make me speak for HP
=======================================================================
Season Marie Taylor
okay, you're right, i should have seen this coming. it's not that he
doesn't dance well, it's just the way he dances--the way he moves his feet
and his arms. i don't really know how to describe it, but all my friends
agree that he dances like a lesbian.
season, who is not hampered by a tool belt OR Birkies (though i do own a
pair) when she dances
Season Marie Taylor
>McCartney) points out something only a lesbian could:
>> One thing I've noticed is that lesbians, with a few notable
>> exceptions, don't dance very well (myself emphatically included).
>I do know one, only one, lesbian who can dance damn well (better,
>I must admit, than poor little *X* - who hasn't Vogued in a while).
>This, of course, means I *love* Dancing with Lesbians, because I
>can skkkkaweeeeezzzzeeee them, and look good doing it...
honey, if you tried to "skkkkaweeeeezzzzeeee" me, you would not end up
looking good
season, whose best friend says dances fairly well
00bbh...@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
people People PEOPLE!
What does all this have to do with Madonna as an idol?
Huh?!
David Speakman
In article <1993Jan19.020236.13789@bsu-ucs>, 00bbh...@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:
> In article <mattm-180...@mcmelmon.apple.com>, ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
>> In article <1993Jan17.1...@quantime.co.uk>, ro...@quantime.co.uk
>> (Roger Phillips) wrote:
>>
>>> > Yes, indeed,
>>> > it shall be recorded in the anals of history that you -
>>> > 00ma...@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu - are a man of vision and courage.
>>> ^^^
>>> What makes you think that?
>> 00mabeaty need not
>> necessarily be of the male sex...
00mabeaty, Mike Beaty is male. Although, I haven't checked to make sure! :)
>
> people People PEOPLE!
> What does all this have to do with Madonna as an idol?
> Huh?!
Hi 00bbharris, aka Brandon Harris!
________________________________________
Attention all People posting from Ball State who use VAX:
Add a version of this line to your login.com to identify yourself:
$ define news_personalname "Your Name Here"
Mine says
$ define news_personalname "David Speakman"
Get it? Either do that or sign your postings.
Thanks!
--
---\"Faster than //\\//\\/David Speakman\//\\//\\ .---------------------------.
----\ a speeding \00dasp...@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu/ | S5/8 bg-l-y+zno+x+auv+j+ |
----/\ Lambda.." //\\/hoc...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu\\//\\ | B0/1 t+k+s- |
---/ \ \\d000...@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu\// `---------------------------'
John Dorrance
out the WHL WRD.
--
tha...@cwis.unomaha.edu * John Dorrance * Disco Diva y Flamenco Chico
You would be surprised at what resides in your insides.
S7/9 g++l+(+)y++z++/--(++!!!)o+(+)x+a++uv(++)j+
Matthew Melmon
> people People PEOPLE!
> What does all this have to do with Madonna as an idol?
> Huh?!
*Excuse* me, but Madonna is not an idol....
She is an *icon*
*X*
(sniff)
Matthew Melmon
Reaser) wrote:
>
> In <mattm-180...@mcmelmon.apple.com> ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
>
> >In addition to coming up with a postively *witty* thread title,
>
Snort! And, by example, *anything* you've *ever* written is to
believed as having been "witty?" Please. With an entire
*newsgroup* devoted to killing off Wesley, the best you could
do is some high-powered explosives and French cooking. Pathetic.
> We just _musn't_, _musn't_, _musn't_ have our hair move more than
> ourselves, should we?
An *excellent* example of why bears shouldn't dance. Hair *should*,
in fact, move. It should flop about in boyish ways. The more
flop, the more youthful appeal. There is, indeed, an art to
flop. It must bounce over the eyes, obscuring them, and yet it
must do so in a controled, orderly fashion - so as not to look
frazzled. And after the flop, there should be a slight stringiness
to the hair. Not *too* much stringiness, but just ever so slight,
so that it may be brushed back with one hand, while walking over to
the bar, only to fall back over the eyes and yet not block vision
to such an extent that walking becomes a dangerous exercise
(especially with all those damn cigarettes). Now, there are times,
during particularly high-energy songs, that one will want to thrash
one's head about in violent circles, creating the buzz-saw effect
with the hair. After such dervish frenzies, it is best to visit
the little boys room and comb your fungus - perhaps while, and at
the same time, even - being orally serviced by one of the many
available, lurking, large game animals. But if he doesn't finish
before the hair is once again in place, best to leave it at that.
There are probably more experienced technicians at the bar...
> >(especially really big lesbians, with *really* big... well, you know)
>
> Trucks? Tires? Hair?
Perhaps you *wouldn't* know...
*X*
Mike Reaser
>In article <C12sA...@hpuerca.atl.hp.com>, m...@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Mike
>Reaser) wrote:
>>
>> In <mattm-180...@mcmelmon.apple.com> ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
>>
>> >In addition to coming up with a postively *witty* thread title,
>>
>> Try again, dear heart.
>Snort! And, by example, *anything* you've *ever* written is to
>believed as having been "witty?" Please. With an entire
>*newsgroup* devoted to killing off Wesley, the best you could
>do is some high-powered explosives and French cooking. Pathetic.
And the best you could do was agree with the statement about Jonathan
Frakes being a "tub of lard". While his weight has definitely moved
in a non-negative direction (damn, I'm watching too much C-SPAN :-),
and his character development has approached the depth of a mud puddle
in a drought, the "lard controversy" proved that the words _tact_ and
_manners_ are foreign to you. Pitiful.
At least some of us can depend on having our wits about us ... but, of
course, all those chemicals in all those cosmetic preparations for one's
hair, skin, nails, etc., _do_ have their effects, don't they?
>> We just _musn't_, _musn't_, _musn't_ have our hair move more than
>> ourselves, should we?
[ ... *X*'s latest msturbatory fantasy deleted ... ]
Honey, what brand of shampoo _do_ _you_ _use_?
GloryHole by Redken?
OnYourKnees by Jhirmack?
>> >(especially really big lesbians, with *really* big... well, you know)
>>
>> Trucks? Tires? Hair?
>Perhaps you *wouldn't* know...
Oh, perhaps I would, but really, Splat (may I call you Splat? or is
Splut or X or Splat-slut appropriate?) you must learn to finish any
sentence you begin.
I know lesbians with *really* big trucks, big tires on their cars,
"big hair" taller than anything Suzanne Sugarbaker would have worn
on _Designing Women_ -- as well as *really* big breasts and/or butts.
Which did you mean, dear?
Matthew Melmon
bog, blissfully ignorant that his chosen path leads only unto
his own doom. Out of his depth, the bear bellows in rage at
the shadowy forces of darkness dancing ever-so-slighltly beyond
his matted paw. The will-o-wisp takes aim:
In article <C14Br...@hpuerca.atl.hp.com>, m...@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Mike
Reaser) wrote:
> At least some of us can depend on having our wits about us ... but, of
> course, all those chemicals in all those cosmetic preparations for one's
> hair, skin, nails, etc., _do_ have their effects, don't they?
That they do! That they do! Try some! You may find yourself
wondering, "My how my hair shines! My how my body emits an almost
pleasant aroma! My how people gaze upon me in wonder!"
Why, it would make you quite the dapper four-legged predator.
> >> We just _musn't_, _musn't_, _musn't_ have our hair move more than
> >> ourselves, should we?
>
> [ ... *X*'s latest msturbatory fantasy deleted ... ]
>
> Honey, what brand of shampoo _do_ _you_ _use_?
Hah! Wouldn't *you* like ta know? But at least you know the
word. Shampoo, that is. Quite the clever chemical compound.
But you wouldn't know that word, now, would you? <pat> <pat>
Poor bear. But we can't *all* be clever, can we? If we were,
it would be time for a re-definition, wouldn't it? <pat>
<pat> Don't think about that *too* hard - it dims the primal
instincts. And we can't have that. Nope, certainly not.
> I know lesbians with *really* big trucks, big tires on their cars,
> "big hair" taller than anything Suzanne Sugarbaker would have worn
> on _Designing Women_ -- as well as *really* big breasts and/or butts.
>
> Which did you mean, dear?
Where the artists pre-defines the meaning of his art, he
has robbed from his audience. I shall leave to you, poofles,
to take your pick.
*X*
Season Marie Taylor
>*Excuse* me, but Madonna is not an idol....
>She is an *icon*
or perhaps even a goddess?
season
Season Marie Taylor
>> >(especially really big lesbians, with *really* big... well, you know)
>> Trucks? Tires? Hair?
>Perhaps you *wouldn't* know...
and *you* would? please.
ELLERO ROGER A
>Roger Phillips ro...@quantime.co.uk
>"*tick* n. crib-biting: a whimsy" -- Chambers English Dictionary (1988)
Let's have a hoagie sale!!
Matthew Melmon
cz...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (Season Marie Taylor) wrote:
>
> In article <mattm-190...@mcmelmon.apple.com> ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
>
> >*Excuse* me, but Madonna is not an idol....
> >She is an *icon*
>
> or perhaps even a goddess?
I can live with that. Has a certain je ne said quote
*X*
Matthew Melmon
>
> >> >(especially really big lesbians, with *really* big... well, you know)
>
> >> Trucks? Tires? Hair?
>
> >Perhaps you *wouldn't* know...
>
> and *you* would? please.
Active imagination.
*X*
Jess Anderson
m...@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Mike Reaser) writes:
>In <mattm-190...@mcmelmon.apple.com> ma...@apple.com
>(Matthew Melmon) writes:
>[ ... *X*'s latest msturbatory fantasy deleted ... ]
>Honey, what brand of shampoo _do_ _you_ _use_?
>GloryHole by Redken?
Teehee^13
Mike Reaser
>Active imagination.
Nope. "Fevered", maybe, "Repetitive", certainly, "Active"? Nawwww...
Mike Reaser
>Har, har, har! Avast! One of the Furry Folk waddles into the
>bog, blissfully ignorant that his chosen path leads only unto
>his own doom. Out of his depth, the bear bellows in rage at
>the shadowy forces of darkness dancing ever-so-slighltly beyond
>his matted paw. The will-o-wisp takes aim:
Oh, get over it. When you've chaired Science Fiction and Speculative
Fiction conventions, a third-rate Tolkien wannabe strikes not fear but
rather nausea in me.
>In article <C14Br...@hpuerca.atl.hp.com>, m...@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Mike
>Reaser) wrote:
>That they do! That they do! Try some! You may find yourself
>wondering, "My how my hair shines! My how my body emits an almost
>pleasant aroma! My how people gaze upon me in wonder!"
"My the glazed look in my eyes from mistaking my finishing rinse
for lube!"
"My how my chin looks lovely pulled up to my forehead after my perm
went that 5 extra minutes!"
>Why, it would make you quite the dapper four-legged predator.
Dapper predator? Much of the time.
Four legged? And all this time I thought I had only _one_, uh,
well...
>> Honey, what brand of shampoo _do_ _you_ _use_?
>Hah! Wouldn't *you* like ta know? But at least you know the
>word. Shampoo, that is. Quite the clever chemical compound.
>But you wouldn't know that word, now, would you? <pat> <pat>
No. I use Aussie Mega Nourishing Cleanser. Gentler on the hair
than you typical "suds'em, strip'em, rinse'em" shampoos.
>Poor bear. But we can't *all* be clever, can we? If we were,
>it would be time for a re-definition, wouldn't it? <pat>
Ohhhhhh, I understand now. Being cranky, whiny, and using *really*
*big* *words* we heard on Joan Rivers this morning (or was it the
Def Comedy Jam on HBO last night?) is the definition of "clever".
And I always thought that it was the definition of "twink".
><pat> Don't think about that *too* hard - it dims the primal
>instincts. And we can't have that. Nope, certainly not.
That's because some of us _can_ think on issues other than where our
next crotch partner might be.
>> I know lesbians with *really* big trucks, big tires on their cars,
>> "big hair" taller than anything Suzanne Sugarbaker would have worn
>> on _Designing Women_ -- as well as *really* big breasts and/or butts.
>>
>> Which did you mean, dear?
>Where the artists pre-defines the meaning of his art, he
>has robbed from his audience. I shall leave to you, poofles,
>to take your pick.
Then I'll take "Presidents" for $200, Alex.
Paul Hastings
>In <mattm-190...@mcmelmon.apple.com> ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
>
>>Poor bear. But we can't *all* be clever, can we? If we were,
>>it would be time for a re-definition, wouldn't it? <pat>
>
>Ohhhhhh, I understand now. Being cranky, whiny, and using *really*
>*big* *words* we heard on Joan Rivers this morning (or was it the
>Def Comedy Jam on HBO last night?) is the definition of "clever".
>
>And I always thought that it was the definition of "twink".
>
Negative, my hirsute comrade; verily 'tis naught but the characteristic
attributes of nigh-unto all of Smurfdom, this aforemenrioned employment
of polysyllabic synonyms for overly simplistic 'words'.
-paul
--
Butch Smurf S6 b++ g l y+ z+ n+ o+ x+ a-u v+ j+
It's a smurf thing; I don't understand.
Joseph Francis
>Har, har, har! Avast! One of the Furry Folk waddles into the
>bog, blissfully ignorant that his chosen path leads only unto
>his own doom. Out of his depth, the bear bellows in rage at
>the shadowy forces of darkness dancing ever-so-slighltly beyond
>his matted paw. The will-o-wisp takes aim:
>
>In article <C14Br...@hpuerca.atl.hp.com>, m...@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Mike
>Reaser) wrote:
>
>> At least some of us can depend on having our wits about us ... but, of
>> course, all those chemicals in all those cosmetic preparations for one's
>> hair, skin, nails, etc., _do_ have their effects, don't they?
>
>That they do! That they do! Try some! You may find yourself
>wondering, "My how my hair shines! My how my body emits an almost
>pleasant aroma! My how people gaze upon me in wonder!"
Went to the Palace last Sunday. Usual drag, pendelton shirt open to
the waist to show the pecs and abs, a *BIG* *BLACK* *BELT*, Levi's,
litewate hiking booties, and of course, a huge mass of sunlicked blond
hair on top of my head, and a thick resplendent sandy-blond
beard/aureole spreading in curls like DaVinci's God as he reaches
towards adam on the cieling of the Sistine chapel: the usual sort of
bear.
Entreed. Listened to "Rhythm is a Dancer" or something like that while
listless neotenates X'd out tried to improvise having rhythm, looks,
charm, wit, or at least monied parents. Drank a beer. Eventually went
to the bathroom. Young godlike creature looking like Harry Hamlin's
more attractive younger brother zones in on me. Wide shoulders,
whipcrack fine muscles, an ass you could eat with a fork, but use a
spoon for every drop, eyes like the wine at the bottom of a glass,
cupid lips, and as he took his shirt off, a very fine dusting of hair
sprayed over what was an apparently naturally tan body, with beautiful
Tom-of-Finland nipples. He croaked something looking at me and X'd
out, he fell to his knees just as I was starting to take a piss. He
desperately tried to get my ruttish root interested, but amateur
boychick manipulations should be saved for those out of the know. I
eventually picked him up, more physical than metaphorical, dusted him
off after he grovelled, and sent him on his way, his eyes bedewed with
tender chicken tears of frustration. "Please" he croaked again, with a
charming North Carolina accent. I felt sorry for him, yet another
Chicken closet bear, and explained to him about moustache credibility
in the modern world. Decided the plase was just too too fun, and not
wanting to see another underfed and overgrown Posnatal Abortion
Advocacy posterchild try to substitute a haircut for emotion sauntered
out with the young touching my beard reverently, hesitantly,
adoringly. Closet Bears. youi know the type. Twinks. The ones who the
loudest.
Remembered being cruised by JP Gaultier in The Colhearne in London, a
nice bear bar. Thierry Mughler at The Keller. Who has the last laugh?
Bwahahahahah.
--
US Jojo; damp, slighly soiled, but tasty nonetheless.
Matthew Melmon
> Oh, get over it. When you've chaired Science Fiction and Speculative
> Fiction conventions, a third-rate Tolkien wannabe strikes not fear but
> rather nausea in me.
Har, har, har! Conventions! I suppose "science fiction"
and "speculative fiction" don't draw the fuzzy-fuzzy-hat
and cheap-artificial-fabric crowds?
Hah! Not...
> That's because some of us _can_ think on issues other than where our
> next crotch partner might be.
But then again, some of you *have* to <dot> <dot> <dot>
*X*
Mike Reaser
tries to be Alexander Woolcott
and ends up sounding like the Court Jester
(or was that the Village Idiot?)
>Yet more fun with fur!
>
>> Oh, get over it. When you've chaired Science Fiction and Speculative
>> Fiction conventions, a third-rate Tolkien wannabe strikes not fear but
>> rather nausea in me.
>Har, har, har! Conventions! I suppose "science fiction"
>and "speculative fiction" don't draw the fuzzy-fuzzy-hat
>and cheap-artificial-fabric crowds?
>Hah! Not...
Sure -- as do most of the "GlamourQueen" (tm) bars here in Atlanta.
Your "if I'm with the _beautiful people_ then I'll be _beautiful_,
too" crowd.
Honey, come to Atlanta and check out Backstreet, the Armory, or
Metro on any given night. (Sanity check for Atlanta-area motssers:
any other clubs you'd include?) Generally, you'll find three types of
people:
1. AFH's: The basic Attitude From Hell queens -- their shit
doesn't stink, because they don't shit. It's just
too below _them_ to ever do anything that icky.
2. CRQ's: Confused Redneck Queens; they know they're queer,
they can even go to the bars in "TheBigCity", but
their fashion sense is some bizarre combination of
Wal-Mart, Ben Franklin, and Dollar General Stores.
Kind of chambray shirts, jeans with Nashville-style
white topstitching (circa 1977), and brand-new
tennis shoes.
3. AHO's: Assorted Hangers-On. May show up with an AFH, but
by the end of the evening is talking to a CRQ because
the AHO just didn't quite have TheLook for that night.
Occasionally, you'll be luck and find that rare person from the fourth
category -- a real person.
Alter these basic descriptions from "queen" to "dweeb", and you've
got most SF conventions.
>> That's because some of us _can_ think on issues other than where our
>> next crotch partner might be.
>But then again, some of you *have* to <dot> <dot> <dot>
And some of us haven't had to in years, since we found our husbear
(who gets off work an hour before I do <dot> <dot> <dot> )
Matthew Melmon
Francis) wrote:
> Remembered being cruised by JP Gaultier in The Colhearne in London, a
> nice bear bar. Thierry Mughler at The Keller. Who has the last laugh?
The one who gets *Jason* *Priestley*
*X*
(not sure if Joseph Francis is to be believed, but he *does* -
and perhaps other bears should take note - at least write enjoyable
stories <dot> <dot> <dot>)
Matthew Melmon
There's a lot of life in this bear, I'll give him that.
> 1. AFH's: The basic Attitude From Hell queens -- their shit
> doesn't stink, because they don't shit. It's just
> too below _them_ to ever do anything that icky.
[read: people who turned him down, hard]
> 2. CRQ's: Confused Redneck Queens; they know they're queer,
> they can even go to the bars in "TheBigCity", but
> their fashion sense is some bizarre combination of
> Wal-Mart, Ben Franklin, and Dollar General Stores.
> Kind of chambray shirts, jeans with Nashville-style
> white topstitching (circa 1977), and brand-new
> tennis shoes.
[read: people who turned him down, soft]
> 3. AHO's: Assorted Hangers-On. May show up with an AFH, but
> by the end of the evening is talking to a CRQ because
> the AHO just didn't quite have TheLook for that night.
[read: people he turned down, but doesn't want to take reponsibility
for]
> Occasionally, you'll be luck and find that rare person from the fourth
> category -- a real person.
[read: him]
> Alter these basic descriptions from "queen" to "dweeb", and you've
> got most SF conventions.
[read: he wasn't very popular in high school, either]
> >> That's because some of us _can_ think on issues other than where our
> >> next crotch partner might be.
>
> >But then again, some of you *have* to <dot> <dot> <dot>
>
> And some of us haven't had to in years, since we found our husbear
> (who gets off work an hour before I do <dot> <dot> <dot> )
[read: to many AFH, CRQ, and AHO's to keep track of]
Mike Reaser
>There's a lot of life in this bear, I'll give him that.
I _do_ tend to be lively, just ask my friends.
>> 1. AFH's: The basic Attitude From Hell queens -- their shit
>[read: people who turned him down, hard]
Read: People Matthew knows better than to glance at, even once.
>
>> 2. CRQ's: Confused Redneck Queens; they know they're queer,
>[read: people who turned him down, soft]
Read: People Matthew cruised who slung the same amount of (if not
more) attitude at him as he threw at them.
>
>> 3. AHO's: Assorted Hangers-On. May show up with an AFH, but
>[read: people he turned down, but doesn't want to take reponsibility
>for]
>
Read: Matthew's target trick du jour who, once they cleared out
of the smoky bar (hey, let's tie as many threads together
as possible), excused himself to go to the bathroom.
In Alaska.
>> Occasionally, you'll be luck and find that rare person from the fourth
>> category -- a real person.
>[read: him]
Read: Or anyone who values the strength of their neurons as opposed
to the holding strength of their mousse, gel, or hair spray.
>> Alter these basic descriptions from "queen" to "dweeb", and you've
>> got most SF conventions.
>[read: he wasn't very popular in high school, either]
(Let's see, I have to translate this into prissyqueenspeak for Matthew.)
Au contraire, sweetheart. The crowd of which I was part was one of the
two "in" crowds -- one composed of the jocks and cheerleaders, the other
containing the "brains" and musicians.
But, then again, I didn't (and don't) give a damn about the opinions held
by self-proclaimed "divas" about my friends. I've never needed to use
strangers to try to validate my life. Parking tickets, yes, life, no.
>> And some of us haven't had to in years, since we found our husbear
>> (who gets off work an hour before I do <dot> <dot> <dot> )
>[read: to many AFH, CRQ, and AHO's to keep track of]
Read: Nope, just one, and out of category four. And next month we'll
reach our third anniversary.
*!SNAP!*
Rod Williams
>>*Excuse* me, but Madonna is not an idol....
>>She is an *icon*
>
>or perhaps even a goddess?
In an article on fashions seen at Inaugural events in
Washington this week, one of the New York Times's queerer
reporters, Degen Pener, reports:
At a luncheon given Tuesday by Elle magazine for Maya
Angelou, who delivered the inaugural poem, Ingrid
Casares, who works in the Los Angeles office of
Wilhelmina models and is best known as Madonna's
current companion, showed up in a pin-striped man's
suit by the French designer Jean-Paul Gaultier and
small black-rimmed sunglasses with amber lenses.
(He also reported that at the benefit for People fpor the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), k. d. lang wore non-
leather Doc Martens, and Sara Gilbert wore non-leather
combat boots)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san ramon, ca -=- rjw...@pacbell.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kenny aka Mel
> So is
> your friend a bad dancer, or is he hampered by a tool belt or Birkies, or
> what? : )
bzzzzzzt! thank you for playing, you may go back to
your seat. in fact, better yet, we will have these two
big men escort you out!
karen
+======================================================+
Karen S. Kenny
"Of course, you silly things!" kke...@gems.vcu.edu
Medical College of VA
Richmond, VA
+======================================================+