In which The Gay Recluse asks a reader to think more conceptually.

In response to our recent Franco Harris Hot Gay Statue submission, Reader Queerunity writes:

all football players wear spandex, why is this gay?

We’re posting this comment — and thanks for bringing this up, Queerunity — because we think it raises an interesting point about the literal-minded nature of many people we’ve met (which is not to say Queerunity is part of this group), who tend to restrict their understanding of what is and isn’t gay, often with the underlying purpose of eradicating any reference to the millions of gays who existed (and made art) between the years of say, 500 BC and 1968, when you could pretty much be sent to the gallows for mentioning the words “hot” and “gay” in the same sentence.

So with regard to our Hot Gay Franco Harris Statue submission, we understand it to be gay because a gay reader took a picture of what he considered to be a smokin’ hot male ass (albeit a fake one). So yeah if you want to be really technical (and humorless) about it, the unstated implication here is that of course the statue isn’t “gay” — although we call it gay to be funnee ha ha — much less the person it represents (or those who wear spandex) but the photograph, which is obviously a reflection of the person taking it. As in literature (and many other arts), the gay voice (or here you might say the “gay eye”) doesn’t necessarily have to be represented by say, two dudes (or two ladies) fucking (although it might), but can shine through even when the subject matter — at least on its surface — makes no reference at all to anyone being gay. Try reading “hot bear” Henry James or Virginia Woolf and you’ll see what we mean. Or watch some Pasolini. Or listen to Husker Du. Etc. etc. etc.