Daily Archives: August 20, 2009

Potbellies in, buffness out?

Is this actually becoming the new standard of male attractiveness? (If so, then I’m one attractive guy! [But I don’t have man-boobs (not that there’s anything wrong with that!) and I’m a bit more endowed than that…])

Has the chiseled, buff look been so co-opted by gay men over the past several years that the chiseled, buff look now actually is considered to be effeminate?

How fucking pleasantly ironic if so!

I was delighted to see a recent piece on the New York Times’ website indicate that perhaps this is so — and that the potbelly (the “Ralph Kramden”) apparently is in. From the piece:

…[T]his year an unexpected element has been added to [men’s popular] look, and that is a burgeoning potbelly [that] one might term the “Ralph Kramden.”

Too pronounced to be blamed on the slouchy cut of a T-shirt, too modest in size to be termed a proper beer gut, developed too young to come under the heading of a paunch, the Ralph Kramden is everywhere to be seen lately…

Leading with a belly is a male privilege of long standing, of course, a symbol of prosperity in most cultures and of freedom from anxieties about body image that have plagued women since Eve.

Until recently, men were under no particular obligation to exhibit bulging deltoids and shredded abdominals; that all changed, said David Zinczenko, the editor of Men’s Health, when women moved into the work force in numbers. “The only ripples Ralph Kramden” and successors like Mike Brady of “The Brady Bunch” had to demonstrate were in their billfolds, said Mr. Zinczenko, himself a dogged crusader in the battle of the muffin top. “But that traditional male role has changed.”

As women have come to outnumber men in the workplace, it becomes more important than ever for guys to armor themselves, Mr. Zinczenko said, with the “complete package of financial and physical,” to billboard their abilities as survivors of the cultural and economic wilds.

This makes sense, in a way, but how does one account for the new prevalence of Ralph Kramdens? Have men given in or given up? …

“I sort of think the six-pack abs obsession got so prissy it stopped being masculine,” is how Aaron Hicklin, the editor of [the gay men’s magazine] Out, explains the emergence of the Ralph Kramden. What once seemed young and hot, for gay and straight men alike, now seems passé.

Like manscaping, spray-on tans and other metrosexual affectations, having a belly one can bounce quarters off suggests that you may have too much time on your hands.

“It’s not cool to be seen spending so much time fussing around about your body,” Mr. Hicklin said.

And so guys can happily and guiltlessly go to seed.

Women have almost never gotten a pass on the need to maintain their bodies, while men always have, said Robert Morea, a personal fitness trainer (full disclosure: my own).

It would be too much, he added, to suggest that “potbellies are suddenly OK,” but as lean muscle and functionality become the new gym mantras, hypertrophied He-Men with grapefruit biceps and blister-pack abs have come to resemble specimens from a diorama of “A Vanished World.”

“When do you ever see that guy, anyway?” Mr. Morea asked, referring to those legendary Men’s Health cover models, with their rippling torsos and famished smiles. “The only time you really see that guy, he’s standing in front of an Abercrombie & Fitch store.”

Perhaps, he suggested, there is really only one of them. “It’s the same guy. They just move him around.”

I’m not advocating that the “Ralph Kramden” should be the new gold standard for gay men’s look and that thus those soon-to-be-extinct dinosaurs with the “grapefruit biceps” should stop lifting weights and start developing watermelon abs.

I advocate that we gay men learn how to love and appreciate each other as human beings rather than as mere pieces of meat and that we see the beauty in all kinds of physical forms.

And, as much as this “bear”* might love to see chunky become the new gold standard of gay male beauty and to see the gym rats fall by the wayside — it would seem like exquisitely rare poetic justice — I hate gay clones and I don’t want voluptuous to become the new buff. Clones are clones, no matter how much body fat they are packing.

Speaking of gay clones, I understand that the gay men of the Castro district of San Francisco in the 1970s all looked alike — ectomorphic (slim) to mildly to moderately mesomorphic (muscular) — so that the phenomenon of gay clones has been with us for decades, apparently.

When I attended the Castro Street Fair almost two years ago, it was apparent that the ideal gay look was chiseled and buff (i.e., extremely mesomorphic).

After the thousandth shirtless hyper-mesomorphic clone that I saw at the street fair, I saw some normal-looking gay guys (that is, ectomorphic to mildly mesomorphic, not too thin but not buff or fat, either) at a kissing booth. After all of the nauseating mesomorphic clones, who apparently think that they’re special by copying everyone else, the ectomorphs-by-comparison at the kissing booth were looking very appealing to me. Seriously; after all of those walking slabs of beef I just wanted to see some normal guys.

When I see an uber-buff gay guy, I don’t think: Stud! I think: This guy spends waaay too much time in the gym to have developed any sort of a personality. This guy cares way too much about what others think of his appearance to have any substance. And of course he’s going to judge me by the same superficial standards by which he judges himself. And I think: The aging process is going to chew this guy up and spit him out.

Not that you can’t take care of yourself. Not that I oppose healthful practices.

But the swarms of sides of beef that I saw at the Castro Street Fair almost two years ago weren’t about health. They were about vanity and about wanting to be at the top of the gay-looks pecking order. My guess is that many if not most of them were on steroids, causing long-term damage to their bodies as well as to their souls.

The buff look became the gold standard for gay men sometime in the 1990s. Maybe it was the economic plenty of the Clinton years that freed up so many gay men’s time to be able to live in the gym.  

Gay porn, on which I am a bit of an expert, went from normal-looking guys in the 1970s to the early to mid-1980s to the buff look by the 1990s to the present.

Guys in 1970s mainstream gay porn rarely were fat, it is true, but they weren’t bodybuilders, either. Today, virtually no gay porn star can make it big unless he’s big because he lives in the gym.

Hopefully, the New York Times piece is correct and this is about to change.

Before I wrap this up, let me share a personal anecdote:

I attend a gay men’s discussion group once a week and a newbie named Albert (his real first name) came this past week. He’s about my age and he has a significant “Ralph Kramden” going on.

All that I could see (and feel) was Albert’s strong, positive energy. He’s newly out of the closet, says that he’s a construction foreman, and he looks it; you wouldn’t know that he’s gay unless he told you.

After group, when I remarked to another gay guy who had attended the group that I found Albert to be an attractive man (admittedly, it’s a contributing factor that Albert at least somewhat resembles a [slimmer] ex-boyfriend of mine whom I’ll always love), my peer stated that no, not with that belly is Albert attractive!


I saw Albert, and apparently all that my peer could see was Fat Albert.    

We gay men want acceptance from the non-gay community when we don’t exactly have a shitload of acceptance within our own…

Yeah, you betcha, I sure in the hell hope that chunky becomes acceptable within the gay community. And that thin remains in.

And that it’s even still OK to be buff, too. 

P.S. I stumbled upon a Slate article critical of the New York Times piece on potbellies.

I hate Slate. First of all, it’s owned by mega-corporation MSN, so I’ve always been suspect of Slate from the get-go. Secondly, the writers always seem to look down upon their audience.

Anyway, the Slate writer writes that the New York Times writer “names no leader of potbelly hipness and uncovers no evidence of hip potbellies in the cinema, the stage, the concert hall, the night club or elsewhere. It’s just these random guts strolling around New York.”

OK, it’s not like they’re going to do a scientific study on the critically important subject of the hipness of potbellies, but the New York Times writer might be correct. And if potbellies are just now becoming hip, it would take a little bit of time for that fact to be reflected in the popular culture (duh!).

It seems to me that in times of economic downturn, people might focus less on the extras, less on the cosmetic. If you can’t make your house payment, maybe the status of your abdominal muscles isn’t so important to you anymore.

Time will tell whether or not the bulge is the new black.

*I put quotation marks around the word because while physically I am a “bear,” I don’t partake of the bear subculture and I don’t think that I have the “bear” persona.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Another GOP deception debunked

I’m on the Repugnican National Committee’s e-mail list — know thy enemy — and RNC chairweasel Michael Steele is credited with having written this in an RNC fundraising e-mail that I received this morning:

Barack Obama recently said, “I think private insurers should be able to compete…. If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.”

The President is acknowledging what Republicans have been saying all along: That the private sector does a better job offering choices and delivering services to customers in a competitive and cost-effective manner than a government-run monopoly.

But Obama and liberal Democrats in Congress are pushing for a government-run health care scheme that is inefficient, limits choices and hemorrhages taxpayer money like the Post Office.

Two weeks ago, the Post Office was called a “high-risk” federal agency by the Government Accountability Office. The Post Office will have a $7 billion operating loss this year. So what makes the President, Nancy Pelosi and their left-wing allies think that government bureaucracy can run health care better than the private sector?

Robert, it’s clear Americans simply aren’t buying into the Democrats’ government-run health care experiment. They are waking up to the fact that the Democrats are trying to strip us of more of our freedoms all in the name of their “government knows best” philosophy.

Your generous support of the RNC is critical to laying the foundation Republicans need to defeat the Democrats and stop their leftward push to control every facet and detail of our lives.

Please help the RNC recruit and train the next generation of conservative Republican candidates who are committed to our core values of limited government, fiscal discipline and personal responsibility by making a secure online contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50, or $25 today.

No matter how the President and his liberal allies try to spin it, they cannot escape the fact that his government-run health care plan would increase costs, increase taxes, increase the deficit and reduce health care choice and quality.

Robert, we can win this fight and stop the Democrats from another government takeover. Please give as generously as you can to help defeat Barack Obama’s risky health care scheme. 

OK, first off, the most obvious: Comparing the U.S. Postal Service and private-sector delivery services like FedEx and UPS to health care is like comparing pineapples to oranges.

Secondly, the U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 — it hardly was some “government takeover” of what the private sector already had been doing better.

Thirdly, the U.S. Postal Service is not funded primarily by the American taxpayer, as the RNC e-mail implies; it’s funded primarily by its sales of postage and other postal services and products.* In this respect it’s much like a government-owned business.

Last but not least, the main reason that the U.S. Postal Service is having a budget crisis now can be summed up in a word: the Internet.

The 200-plus-year-old USPS had quite an infrastructure in place before the Internet boomed. (Indeed, only Wal-Mart employs more civilians in the United States than does the USPS.) Now, with e-mails and online transactions and other Internet-based communications that make the USPS unnecessary, the USPS indeed is hemorrhaging money.

But again, that’s because of the Internet, which drastically reduced the need for the USPS’s services — within what, only about a decade? — not because the government can’t do things as well as can the private sector.

The private-sector United Parcel Service (UPS) and FedEx developed in the shadow of the U.S. Postal Service. That is, their business models and infrastructure were developed around the long-pre-existing USPS, and they are much, much younger than the USPS — and, of course, their volume is much lower than that of the USPS — so if FedEx and UPS are doing OK right now while the USPS is struggling, that’s why.

Speaking of the private sector, I hate having anything delivered by UPS. The UPS drivers stick around for maybe five seconds after ringing the doorbell before they fly back inside their trucks and zoom off. That’s what corporate greed causes: given a delivery quota, the UPS drivers don’t have time to wait even 10 seconds for you to answer the fucking door, I surmise.

And because a UPS package once went missing from my porch, UPS refuses to leave packages at my address ever again — but UPS only delivers during business hours from Monday through Friday, when I’m at work. So I have to have any UPS packages redirected to my boyfriend’s place in order to actually receive them. (UPS will leave my redirected packages at my boyfriend’s place — but they won’t leave my packages at my own home. That’s corporate logic for you.)

For me, UPS hardly has been convenient or timely or efficient — and their employees are mildly friendly at best. The U.S. Postal Service will leave packages on my front porch — and delivers on Saturdays. And their employees are much friendlier than are UPS employees, probably because USPS employees are taken much better care of than are UPS employees, who are only corporate slaves.

Better taken-care-of employees are happier employees, and happier employees do a better job. Under the corporate model, in which you extract everything that you can from your employees while giving them as little in pay and as little in benefits as you can, happiness is impossible for a sane individual.

No, the profits-over-people private sector can’t do it better than the government can do it.

Yes, the U.S. Postal Service is struggling and is downsizing due to the impact of the Internet and, let’s not forget, due to the impact of the shitty economy in general. (Newspapers and other printed media also are suffering — are downsizing or folding altogether — due to the unexpected, relatively sudden rise of the Internet and the BushCheneyCorp-induced shitty economy.)

Again, the U.S. Postal Service’s woes are not because the government can’t do anything right, and the RNC fundraising e-mail falsely implies that President Obama actually agrees with the Repugnicans’ philosophy that privatization is superior.

While Steele is at it, he even gets the “freedom” meme in there, even though his and his fellow Repugnican overlords’ central interest certainly is not Americans’ freedom, but is corporations’ ever-increasing profits. Corporate profiteering — even from basic human needs like health care — far from giving them more freedom, turns average Americans into slaves to the corporations.

Perversely Orwellianly, the Repugnican/wingnut noise machine calls continued slavery to corporations “freedom” and calls any attempt to free Americans from corporate slavery “tyranny.”   

The Repugnicans not only blatantly mislead and lie to their own supporters, whom they want to enslave to their corporate interests, but then ask their supporters to give them donations afterward.

*According to a recent CNNMoney.com article:

Contrary to what many people might guess, the USPS is not a government agency. It hasn’t received direct subsidies since the early 1980s. Aside from a miniscule fraction of its budget for free mail services for the blind and Congress’ franking privileges, the Postal Service pays its own way with postage revenues, which in fiscal year 2008 reached $75 billion.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized