Queer Eye For The Straight Guy WTF

<3 <3 <3

I watched the online episode in Yass. It was really weird. I didn't quite understand why they flew them out there and then did a weird abbreviated episode.

ANTONI: https://open.spotify.com/user/spotify/playlist/37i9dQZF1DX5nluNjMjoM0?si=hfkAZ8CGQsS_g9RGv0PGxg
KARAMO: https://open.spotify.com/user/spotify/playlist/37i9dQZF1DXbHwYW9IUCXA?si=KoPwCnAlRSe_wQCZUwl5eQ
JONATHAN: https://open.spotify.com/user/spotify/playlist/37i9dQZF1DWTarG7u0F62S?si=pbC0QDrhTveIdOS-9rJzDA
BOBBY: https://open.spotify.com/user/spotify/playlist/37i9dQZF1DX0AFojabHxv3?si=Hdij9IWhR5utphEzZtwopA
TAN: https://open.spotify.com/user/spotify/playlist/37i9dQZF1DX6G79ZQrQjvV?si=yDn0SFe7Rm6xHXOMJhDLYw

― I Never Promised You A Hose Harden (Eric H.), Thursday, 21 June 2018 14:31 (four days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

tan should post to ilx

bobby should not be allowed to do this again

also i'd like to echo everyone saying that this series comes to a crashing halt in ep 6. watching that vile arian guy shrugging off the enthusiasm of the fab five like they'd just told him to tie his shoelaces or something was gross. shouldn't have screened the episode

first five episodes lovely tho

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, was it really that bad? Yeah he was a typical entitled, inconsiderate gamer slob, but they actually did a decent job of calling out his lies and forcing him to admit at least some responsibility, which for that kind of 24(?) year old dude is some achievement. Also he seemed quite appreciative of what they had done for him. I think he was just very insecure and avoidant, which isn't surprising for someone of that age, and because he's able to easily hide from people for most of the day and probably only has superficial interactions at clubs and bars, he never really has anyone confronting him, and appears to be hanging out with a crowd of bros, whom would probably subscribe to "no drama", "chill bro" principles, despite their own disappointments which they only indirectly expressed through the show. He ignored Tan's advice about dressing, which Tan strongly disapproved of, but he's hardly the first to do that, and if you go back to Tom from S1, wasn't he basically dressed in an unbuttoned shirt over a t-shirt, looking about 40 years too old for those clothes? I know a more formal dinner should require a more formal shirt, but would you and should you expect someone of that age to follow all of their advice? Especially in that more casual sort of crowd. He definitely has some growing up to do but I think he took at least a few steps, and he also has the advantage of watching the show to be able to see how he comes across and what might be endorsed or disapproved of by others.

imago, i sent you a webmail through ilx about a month ago. did you get it? it's cool if you got it and didn't feel like replying!

I hate this show, Scott Thompson otm

What’s also remarkable about Buddy is how he’s a counterweight to the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy vision of homosexuality.
Please, don’t … ugh.

Those depictions have historically communicated that being gay means a million different stereotypical things having to do with fashion and decorating and lisps and all that bullshit. But, in reality, the only definitional aspect of being gay is attraction to men. In an infuriating irony, that sexual impulse is the one thing those kinds of characters aren’t allowed to talk about.
Totally. And it castrates us. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy was part of the castration of gay males in the last 20, 30 years. In order for us to be accepted, we had to give up our dicks. You can dress it up all you like, but deep down, that’s what being gay is about: fucking. Even our move towards gay marriage is a weird trade-off. When people said, “Love wins!” it’s like, no — sex wins. Love did not win. Fucking won. You’ve always been allowed to love whoever you want. You have not been allowed to fuck who you want. I’m going to get in trouble for saying that, but that’s the truth.

But, in reality, the only definitional aspect of being gay is attraction to men.

for the most part, this is total bullshit fwiw, and i spend a fair bit of time around a lot of gays.

that's what masc for masc guys want to you think. in about 1% of occasions i could say that "there's nothing gay about that guy other than that he likes men and likes fucking them"

masc for masc guys

that seems like an odd characterization of scott thompson but idk

in the other 99% of times they are gay in ways other than fucking and that includes having good taste, being good at design, being bitchy, being camp or sarcastic or whatever.

idk who scott thompson is but he's wrong.

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

having good taste, being good at design, being bitchy, being camp or sarcastic or whatever

there's nothing inherently gay about any of these things. Thompson's perspective is generally in line with the Gore Vidal truism that there are no homosexual people, only homosexual acts.

that's not a truism.

like thinking lisping is gay or wearing makeup is gay or liking interior design is gay, why enforce these stupid stereotypes that are based on all sorts of historically complicated (and often unpleasant) foundations.

didn't see the webmail yet as i never check the email account it's connected to - will do tomorrow, ty for the heads-up!

fine, replace truism with epigram

xp

imago, I was in Ladywell for a few days and webmailed you to ask if you were around for a drink!

you don't have to go to lisping gays or wearing makeup to find things that define being gay. you're projecting that onto it.

i agree that those things don't define it but neither does fucking but, sure, if you want then scott thompson knows what being gay is and i don't.

ah damn ok! maybe next time, sorry i didn't see it sooner!

i sent my number, stay in touch!

i'm glad we've reached this point because i think the tension between gay and queer identities/roles/stereotypes and the extent of mainstream acceptance and approval of those identities/roles/stereotypes is worth discussing or arguing over. Queer Eye is not really the show to do that though. it's simplistic, it goes for neat resolutions, it's conformist while making slightly risque comments and references to gay practices that make it seem more transgressive than it is. it's for safe gays, it's for gays that still go to church, it's for the gays that revere authority and want to forgive arseholes for being arseholes, the ones that look down on activists and shun them for being too gay or vocal or abnormal and act as gatekeepers for the community. it's for platitudinous gays that like tacky inspirational quotes that sentimentalise everything, it's for gays that are eager to please. and yet it's still enjoyable and has the odd good insight.

when did you get so wise? /gay sarcasm.

that was lame, sorry.

lol

the show now in its reincarnation isn’t nearly as narrowly prescriptive as the original show was

I feel ambivalent/cognitively dissonant about this because I'm finding myself agreeing with some of what Shakey posted but also leaning more toward your perspective, Jed. I'm looking at what I wrote and wondering whether I'm being a massive hypocrite or projecting my insecurities about my own sexuality and the sexuality and expression of others. Whether I'm wanting to view a more normalised, sanitised representation that covers up or glosses over or stereotypically only winks or jokes about anything resembling same sex desire, that's pretending to be more sophisticated, that isn't acknowledging base desires or just being matter of fact about homo fucking. Something that revels in certain stereotypes but almost refuses to admit others. Sometimes i watch something like Queer Eye and it seems positive in its self confidence, but then I can't help but be critical of it and its version of gayness, of what kind of messages it's putting out. Part of me doesn't gaf about them being gay when they're pushing quotes by Rumi etc. That's just a certain kind of sentimentalist.

I agree it has broadened too, Veg.

i didn't think it was hypocritical at all, sorry for my flippant response to your good post(s). i'll respond properly when i'm sober.

No what I mean is I'm looking at what I'm criticising about Queer Eye and whether I've been more or less the same in some respects, I mean with passivity or tacit condoning of people rejecting other people for not being normal enough or whatever. But then I also wonder whether it's always about sexuality. Sometimes it's about them being truly cringeworthy and annoying Amanda Palmer kind of personality types. And they will make it about about sexuality and you'll maybe believe it is, when it's really more about their stupid and annoying traits.

having a Monday session eh? *makes drinky drinky motion*

or r u getting drunk off the power of my posts

sorry that should be what i'm criticising about what i perceive to be a typical gay Queer Eye fan xposts

to interrupt these more thoughtful posts: the thing i struggled with the most in this show is tan being dogmatic about clothes while never being the best dressed of the group (antoni i kiss you and yr neckerchiefs). i want someone to go and make faces at his wardrobe and throw away all his hideous print shirts.

I think Tan dresses well for his build and background.

I think Scott Thompson is wrong in a modern sense. But I can see where he is speaking from (old school, white homosexual man).

My issue with Arian is the same as I have had with a few other subjects, I just hate if scammers get on the show in or people who don't seem worthy (because they seem jerky or ungrateful) of the thousands of dollars in services and stuff. But it's a mutual give and take so whatever.

I have nothing against the Tan shirts, but he has really turned out to be a one-trick pony. He gave Skyler a sparkly jacket, sure, but virtually everything else in the closet was the usual stuff. He hardly takes their personality and tastes into account at all.

dresses well for his background?

He's an english fashion designer, that does mostly women's clothing now. I find hit or miss print shirts like, a trademark.

He knows they love a rolled up sleeve, they just don't know it yet xposts

He's a little guy!

I kind of dig a rolled up sleeve too. Most shirts sold in mainstream stores have terrible cuts/proportions for most people and who has time/$ to tailor everything.

I just got dressed and my t shirt has pre rolled up sleeves. So much better.

I bought my mr veg a fashionable cream-colored tshirt with variegated horizontal stripes for his birthday & he made this face like “youve been watching too much Queer Eye” but it looked good so I feel vindicated

i have never actively bought clothes for mr veg before and tbh idk if i would do it again
feels a bit weird?

I recently talked my husband into rolling his sleeves - he likes short sleeve Patagonia button-downs but I’ve always hated how big and baggy the sleeves are. So much better rolled - yerac otm.

i'm glad we've reached this point because i think the tension between gay and queer identities/roles/stereotypes and the extent of mainstream acceptance and approval of those identities/roles/stereotypes is worth discussing or arguing over.

I agree with this. I identify as "gay" and would get laughed out of the room if I identified as "queer," so

me too and some of my gay friends would be horrified if someone called them queer.

I would be flattered, not horrified, but I know I fall short of the tag.