In which The Gay Recluse becomes increasingly obsessed with the George Washington Bridge.

Time of photographs: April 19th, 7:00-8:00 (ish).

Washington Heights is a place of extremes.

Even the clouds are intense.

Life is nothing but abrasive.

Washington Heights is completely bereft of visionaries.

But resonates with the dead genius of the past.

Here we have been destroyed by music.

As our hearing thankfully goes, we watch the sky.

Nothing ever changes.

“I, too am obsessed with the George Washington Bridge, and have been ever since as stoned youths me and my friends cavorted in the park on the New Jersey side that is directly below the place where the roadway meets the land. We were convinced that the Bridge is the largest thing in the world. For a true enthusiast such as yourself, I strongly recommend a stroll across the span, and then a picnic lunch along the walking paths underneath. Disclaimer: individual results may vary; inebriants are recommended to enhance the forcefulness of the desired optical effects.”

– The Blind Architect, 2008.


In which The Gay Recluse scores selected opinion pieces in The Times.

Bob Herbert/Road Map To Defeat

The Short Version: I’m sad!

In his words: “Instead of capitalizing on the political advantages presented by these issues, the Democrats, with their increasingly small-minded approach to this election, are squandering them.”

Score: D (Dull)
Herbert would be well advised to look a few months down the road instead of falling into the same trap as those he criticizes. And! Has there ever in the history of civilization been a political race of any import that was fought exclusively on high ideals? We’re not sure why Clinton versus Obama should be the exception.

Gail Collins/The Fat Bush Theory

The Short Version: Remember George W. Bush? He’s still really dumb!

In her words: “I hope now you can appreciate just how useful the Bush global-warming initiative is.”

The Score: A (A relief)
Thank you, Gail Collins for diverting our attention away from Obama and Clinton while they iron things out and at the same time reminding us how stupid John McCain our current leader is.


In which The Gay Recluse updates his informal but rather telling quantitative analysis of Modern Love, the weekly Style Section (of The Times) column in which openly gay writers almost never appear, and even less frequently describe a romantic relationship.

This week’s piece: The Joy of Marriage Was Ours, for a While

Subject: A women reflects on her annulled California marriage and subsequent divorce from her partner. Nice job, Torie Osborn and Daniel Jones! Obviously we’re happy to see a gay piece in Modern Love, and we hope it’s the beginning of a trend! (But! For our even more pessimistic version, click here.)

Filed under: Gay Woman on Relationships

The updated tally (or why we feel like animals in the zoo): 7 out of 175 columns by openly gay writers; 2 out of 175 on female gay relationships; 0 out of 175 on male gay relationships. In what is arguably the “gayest” section of The Times, more women have written about gay men than gay men have.

Outstanding question to Daniel Jones, editor of Modern Love: Is this the start of a trend?

Straight Woman on Relationships iiiii iiiii iiiii iiiii iiiii iiiii iiiii iiiii ii (42)
Straight Woman on Family iiiii iiiii iiiii iiiii iiiii iiiii iiiii (35)
Straight Woman on “Looking for Love” iiiii iiiii iiiii iiiii iiiii iiiii iii (33)
Straight Woman on Breaking Up iiiii iiiii iiiii iiiii iii (23)
Straight Man on Relationships iiiii iiiii i (11)
Straight Man on Breakup iiiiii (6)
Straight Woman on Gay Men iiiii i (6)
Straight Man on Family iiiii i(6)
Straight Man on “Looking for Love” iiiii (5)
Gay Man on Family ii (2)
Gay Woman on Relationship ii (2)
Gay Woman on Family i (1)
Gay Man on Self-Hatred i (1)
Gay Man on Prom Date i (1)
Ambiguous/Nurse on Drugs i (1)


In which The Gay Recluse provides a somewhat more pessimistic alternative to this week’s Modern Love offering in The Times. Those looking for our quantitative analysis should click here.

By TORIE OSBORN and THE GAY RECLUSE

Published: April 20, 2008

GAY marriage was never my issue — until I actually tried it. A little more than four years ago I stood in the glorious, echoing rotunda of San Francisco City Hall, looking into my partner’s eyes and vowing love forever. Little did I grasp that enthusiastically participating in this sunny rite of passage would expose me to its depressing shadow side. Then, I was naïve and optimistic; now I am learning to embrace a more comfortable, if pessimistic, view of life.

I surprised myself, getting married. I had boycotted the weddings of many straight “friends” (and ersatz political allies in our battle for equality), resenting them as one by one they chose to embrace their privilege, leaving “us” — gays and lesbians — stranded.

In the subsequent years, the gay civil rights movement steadily inched forward, securing a few legal rights for couples that varied state by state. In California, my partner and I signed a pointless domestic partnership registry in 2001, and then, a scant two years later, we were granted a whole lot of slightly less pointless benefits involving inheritance, medical issues, adoption and state taxation. Still, it seemed enough for me. I worried that the gay movement’s focus on marriage was eclipsing the ability of our “community” to ally with others on the global issues that increasingly fueled my own political passions: namely, environmental sustainability and economic justice. At the time, My fanatical attachment to illusory notions of political “change” prevented me from acknowledging — much less examining — the true longing and dissatisfaction that was already coursing through me.

But when Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco started handing out wedding licenses in 2004, my partner and I succumbed to the magnetic pull of “history.” We not only joined the wedding parade of 4,000 couples streaming to City Hall, we convinced our closest friends, three lesbian couples, to make it a communal experience. Each of the other couples had been together at least 20 years; we were the babies in the bunch, having been together just 6 years. Feminists all, we chose March 8, International Women’s Day, as our wedding day. I can remember the almost nauseating giddiness I felt at the time; though inwardly I knew that nothing attached to this rite — at least with this person — would make me “happy.” This is why in my memories I appear so sadly desperate.

As a longtime social activist, I had participated in more than a few acts of civil disobedience, but I convinced myself that none had been more profound and wonderful as our wedding ceremony. There we were in that rotunda, and I found myself flashing back more than two decades to when I lived in San Francisco and City Hall was a daunting symbol of exclusion, a place of regular and rowdy protest.

I was getting married not a hundred yards from where, in 1978, the city supervisor, Harvey Milk, the first openly gay official to be elected to any substantial political office, was assassinated along with Mayor George Moscone. I was there that tragic night, weeping outside in silence with thousands of others, our candles wavering against the numbing grief. I went back when Harvey Milk’s killer got a meager seven-year sentence and our boiling rage at the injustice exploded into a riot: police cars were burned and windows shattered. I’m not sorry I did any of this – obviously, gays deserve equal treatment under the law – but I do regret participating in these events so mindlessly, to the extent that I believed any of it would ultimately effect my personal happiness. As I like to say now: resignation is almost always better than retaliation.

A “social revolution” later, my wedding day began at the Los Angeles International Airport at 6 a.m., meeting up with the other couples and our entourage of children and friends. One couple wore matching long white gowns with delicious décolletage that swept away early morning grumpiness. On the flight, our collective exuberance prompted the entire 7 a.m. commuter flight into a rousing rendition of “We’re Getting Married in the Morning.” Over the loudspeaker, the pilot congratulated “our gay friends traveling north to get married,” and we got hugs and tears from every flight attendant on our way out.

My partner and I had met seven years earlier, WNBA games – cliché but true! – and long hikes our courtship fare. She was 12 years younger and one year into her surgery residency, a self-described “domestic monog” — which should have been my first clue! — looking to settle down. I had lived alone for 11 years, never ready to commit, so I was reluctant even to live together. But she persisted, and after a couple of years I jumped in with both feet, trading up my condo for a small house to share. We acquired a calico named Pumpkin – the perfect lolcat! – and our family was complete. We both had jobs we were “passionate” about — she, her surgery residency, and I, executive director of Los Angeles’s social-justice foundation before I joined the senior staff for the new mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa.

While it lasted, I liked to tell people that our relationship paralleled the steady unfolding of gay relationship rights: we exchanged rings after that symbolic state registry sign-up, but our domestic partnership started feeling concrete the day we received a letter from California’s secretary of the state warning us if we weren’t ready for the panoply of rights and responsibilities of legal domestic partnership we should unregister by year’s end.

I was convinced that we were ready. I said things like “life is good.” Like so many couples looking for something to distract themselves from the splintering bonds of their relationship, we remodeled the house. I’m embarrassed to think that I ever said things like this, but I regularly claimed that we had built a “wonderful life” of activism, fulfilling work, poker games, Palm Springs weekends, and annual hiking trips in the Sierras. We didn’t need to watch The L Word: we lived it! In retrospect, however, our life together seems as superficial and somehow hollow – albeit in an occasionally fun and mindless sort of way – as a television show.

I think because we knew our relationship was essentially broken and didn’t want to admit it, and despite telling people that we were not sold on the all-importance of marriage equality, we nevertheless indulged in the trappings of the ceremony with all the restraint of The Real Housewives of Orange County. After the actual ceremony, we returned at midnight to our home in Los Angeles, where we found the house “magically” festooned, front and back, in wedding decorations. The “friendly elves” who had engineered this aesthetic travesty turned out to be my co-workers, who had sneaked over that day to surprise us and spread the word to our neighbors. As we approached, we saw that a white carpet had been laid up to the front door and was strewn with pink rose petals and anchored by a pile of hastily gathered gifts: Girl Scout cookies from the creepy young twins down the way, a regifted plant from the Christian woman (yuck) next door, many bouquets of cheap red roses. It was disgusting and tacky but I felt obligated to pretend otherwise.

And then what I think of as “the outpouring” really began: over the following weeks, we received hundreds of presents and cards and e-mail messages from just about every corner of our lives. My partner’s entire department of mostly male assholes surgeons sent a stereotypical but useful “lesbian” present: a generous gift certificate to Home Depot. My favorite gift came from the staff of a Korean workers’ rights group supported by the foundation I ran: two gorgeous, painted wooden ducks, a Korean tradition. We gave them a place of honor in the living room, near the elegantly framed marriage license that had come, sickeningly, on rainbow-tinted, luminescent paper. Is there anyone gay who isn’t tired of being represented by a rainbow?

This “astonishing outpouring of support” from our straight “friends” brought home the cliché that I actually believed at the time: getting married is a rite of passage into a wide circle of shared humanity. With a real wedding — not a commitment ceremony, not a domestic partnership registry — we were initiated into a miserable circle of people who automatically “affirmed our very beings.” It was a sad club we never even knew existed until we joined. While I obviously support the right of anyone to do so, in my case, as soon as I was in, I wanted out.

Not that I admitted this. WHEN, four months later, the California Supreme Court annulled the marriages, I was driving on the freeway and heard the news. I felt so sick to my stomach that I had to pull off the road. That I’d predicted this outcome made it no less heartbreaking, even if — on a personal level only — I was kind of relieved.

Our marriage by this point was a charade, even as we claimed that our domestic bliss had deepened and that things felt “different,” the bonds more “secure.” Obviously it couldn’t last. Even when something seems secure — which our marriage was decidedly not — I now believe that life’s passages as a rule will shape-shift into another, sadder one. On our three-year annulled-wedding anniversary, my partner finally announced over a fancy French dinner — I was like, couldn’t it have waited an hour? — that she was leaving me. As much has I had been wanting this to end, the reality was nevertheless overwhelming, because it stripped me of so many routines, which even when we hate them can provide a source of comfort. My world collapsed, I entered a dark tunnel, and it has taken me most of this past year to begin to emerge. It turned out to be yet another embarrassing cliché: I carried her through her residency and the establishment of her career, and now it was supposed to be my turn, but she was like “smell you later, beyotch!” The psychiatrist we consulted ridiculously called it a “change in structure of support needs.” I called it throwing me off a cliff. Of course, breakups are more complicated, but that’s how it felt. What I now realize is that on some level, I wanted to be thrown, because the sight of the rocks below is perhaps the only vision of life on which we can rely with any certainty.

By this point, the court had already dissolved our impromptu marriage and had yet to make definitive law on the issue. Even so, our hard-fought rights of domestic partnership required lawyers and legal proceedings to undo it: just like for straight people! And I am grateful for those laws, as they are meant to protect those like me who, in the end, find themselves to be the financially disadvantaged partner. I couldn’t help but note the irony that all my fighting for 30 years for gay civil rights had come down to … paperwork.

And my divorce meant I was inducted into yet another circle of (mostly) “sisterhood”: women left because we married asshole doctors before they finished their residencies. I got a call from a total stranger who had heard my story from a friend and felt compelled to call and gently lecture me in a voice mail message: How had I not known about the legendary ability of asshole surgeons to split off from their feelings?

Another “friend,” a psychologist, leaned forward over dinner and told me about a ridiculous “study” he had seen that documented the prevalence of physicians’ postresidency divorce. “It’s a commonly known syndrome in the field of couples counseling,” he told me with an apologetic smile. I wanted to stab him in the eye with my fork!

As for the big picture, the California Supreme Court recently heard arguments on the gay marriage case. It’s been four years since “magic” lit up San Francisco’s City Hall and my own life began to crumble. Despite my personal outcome, I’m still glad for that moment and what it meant; otherwise I might still be the superficial, optimistic woman I was back then. Thanks to a straight mayor’s instincts for publicity, I learned how wrong I was to have settled for near-marriage — domestic partnership. I’m crossing my fingers in the hope that California follows Massachusetts and decides to replace domestic partnership with real marriage, so that others can find their own versions of the same truth that I have.

A year has passed since I was forced to experience “the dark side” of a legally binding union. To a stranger, I would say the bright side has been its safety net — divorce equality. Obviously, I’m not unhappy to say I took my “husband” to the cleaners! With help from my friends, I was able to stay upright on the horror-ride of grief and ultimately come through “stronger” and “more whole.” More truthfully, I have embraced a certain pessimistic resignation that paradoxically enough has stirred in my soul like the sweet eye of a violet; it emerged from the stillness that follows grief.

Like many before me I’m a little wiser, a little more self-knowing, deeply chastened but more comfortable in my own skin. Thanks to those domestic partner laws, Pumpkin and I can stay in the house, and I’m beginning to think I may not remain a bitter gay divorcée forever. Resignation has never tasted so sweet.

Torie Osborn, formerly the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, is an adviser to the mayor of Los Angeles and several foundations.


In which The Gay Recluse rather quickly gets lung cancer.

Date of Photographs: April 18, 2008

We’ve noticed that almost every chimney in Washington Heights is spewing thick, black smoke these days.

It’s definitely a lot worse than it’s ever been, which leads us to ask: Does it have anything to do with the rising cost of oil?

Answer: Yes, pretty much.

Check out these minutes from the March 6, 2008 Community Board 12 Meeting:

HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES – March 6, 2008

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Simon, Isaiah Bing, Martin Collins, Beatrice Hall, Pamela Palanque North and Matt Chachere (Public Member).

GUESTS: Harry E. Mayer, DEP; Ana L. Parks, WEACT; Maria Lizardo, Northern Manhattan

Residential smoke – Committee had asked last month why CD 12 had highest # of such complaints (37) in Manhattan in December. Mayer reported that DEP took 176 samples from apartment building boilers to check on quality of oil and will have results of tests in a few weeks.

From the February minutes:

Simon: Why did CB 12 have highest # of residential smoke complaints (37) in Manhattan in December?

Mayer: Smoke complaints probably result from poor quality oil. Inspectors find that dirty oil or waste oil is mixed with clean oil, or that boilers are not calibrated. He agreed to check on past complaints in CD 12 to see if this is a consistent pattern here.

Bing: More enforcement is needed on this issue. Supers don’t have #6 boiler licenses. Boilers have poor combustion controls. Many boilers in this community are 50 years old; lifespan is only 25 years.

Mayer: We can help supers calibrate boilers. DEP’s goal is to correct problem, not just issue Notices of Violations. We’ll come down hard on landlords who don’t make repairs.

Residents of Washington Heights: When you see this, call 311 and report the shit!

The oily black smoke of 100-year-old boilers disperses daily across the rooftops in Washington Heights, heedless of those who suffer from pneumonia, asthma and tuberculosis. Officials and politicians? Not even footnotes in this story, which is about the aggregation of capital and the relentless rise of the metropolis.

–The Gay Recluse, 9/29/07


In which The Gay Recluse becomes increasingly obsessed with the George Washington Bridge.

Date of photographs: April 18, 2008, 8:00pm-ish

I, too, have an obsession with the George Washington Bridge. However, mine involves a nagging compulsion to complete a football pass from the deck of the bridge to a buddy on the ground below.

Ryan Pissed and Petty (March 31, 2008)


In which Dante and Zephyr take over The Gay Recluse.

Friends, consider this! While it is incontestable that there are many cats around the world who are happily (or not!) photographed and displayed in a staggering array of sizes, colors and dispositions, it is important to be sensitive to diversity and henceforth be mindful of the following fact: not every cat is lolcat!


In which The Gay Recluse scores selected opinion pieces in The Times.

Paul Krugman/Clinging to a Stereotype

The Short Version: Obama makes me mad!

In his words: “Over all, none of this suggests that people turn to God out of economic frustration.”

Score: D (Desparate)
Krugman is really annoyed that Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the nomination don’t look too good, so he spends an entire column rehashing the already done-to-death “bittergate.” We wish he would get over it, and stop quoting his professorial friends in a futile battle against common sense. 

David Brooks/How Obama Fell To Earth

The Short Version: I used to love him, but OMG now I hate him!

In his words: “Now, Democrats are deeply worried their nominee will lose in November. ”

The Score: F (Fake)
That the Clinton/Obama scuffle is helping McCain is obviously the Republican story du jour, and Brooks delivers his “disappointment” with Obama with all the sincerity of sex-scandalized politician at the press conference. We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: The Maverick is a pompous, shallow loser, which will become quite apparent once he goes head-to-head with either Obama or Clinton. (He may still win, but that’s another issue.) The only reason people like him is because they haven’t seen him in action. (Zzzzzz.)   


In which Dante and Zephyr take over The Gay Recluse.

Friends! Let’s be perfectly clear: not every cat is a lolcat!


In which The Gay Recluse becomes increasingly obsessed with The George Washington Bridge.

Time and date of photographs: April 17, 2008, 7:00 – 8:00 pm (ish).

Originally the George Washington Bridge was meant to be clad in stone but fortunately they ran out of money.

This is not a pattern we ever get tired of looking at.

Even when the image is kind of blurry.

Designers take note! The color is perfect, too.

“I, too am obsessed with the George Washington Bridge, and have been ever since as stoned youths me and my friends cavorted in the park on the New Jersey side that is directly below the place where the roadway meets the land. We were convinced that the Bridge is the largest thing in the world. For a true enthusiast such as yourself, I strongly recommend a stroll across the span, and then a picnic lunch along the walking paths underneath. Disclaimer: individual results may vary; inebriants are recommended to enhance the forcefulness of the desired optical effects.”

– The Blind Architect, 2008.


In which The Gay Recluse scores selected opinion pieces in The Times.

Gail Collins/Battle of the Baggage

The Short Version: We’re all very tired.

In her words: “I know it’s been a hard couple of weeks, people. You were all excited about this election and now you feel like someone who got all dressed up for a great event and wound up at a B-list party with a cash bar.”

Score: A- (Anomie)
Collins captures the fatigue we all feel watching the Democratic primaries without letting too much of it creep into her prose.

Nicholas Kristof/Divided They Fall

The Short Version: Children! Let me explain why you might vote for McCain after watching your Democratic candidate go down in flames.

In his words: “To understand your feelings about Wednesday night’s debate, consider the Dartmouth-Princeton football game in 1951. ”

The Score: D- (Deadly)
Anyone who votes for McCain because of the Obama-Clinton battle is an idiot and we don’t need Daddy to tell us why.

Roger Cohen/Race and American Memory

The Short Version: Why doesn’t the U.S. solve its race problems with a major museum dedicated to African-American history and culture! Oh wait, it’s on the way!

In his words: “The decision, approved by Congress in 2003, to build the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture, to open in 2015, reflects a desire to plug this hole in the nation’s memory.”

The Score: D- (Dopey)
With his usual mix of barfy idealism and catalog prose, Cohen reminds us what it’s like to live in his world, where museums still matter.  


In which The Gay Recluse hears from two correspondents at once.

Today we received the following report and very large photograph from London:

The London Eye and The Jessica Watch team up for some fox hunting in London.

Woah, Nellie! Is that a fox? (Apparently so, according to The London Eye and The Jessica Watch.)

Thanks for sending in that breaking news, TGR correspondents! Coincidentally, we also encountered a wild beast in our garden today, and likewise armed with a camera, we photographed the rampaging beast.

Check it out:

Crunch! It looks like a cat, but keep in mind that the diameter of the bamboo is 12″, which makes the beast close to forty feet long!!! (Luckily nobody was injured…next time we might not be so lucky!)

If anyone else sees wild, ferocious and Godzilla-like creatures in your garden, please send pix so that everyone can be on the alert!


In which The Gay Recluse scores selected opinion pieces in The Times.

Maureen Dowd/Eggheads and Cheese Balls

The Short Version: Obama and Hillary are both floundering.

In her words: “At match points, when Hillary fights like a cornered raccoon, Obama retreats into law professor mode.”

Score: B- (Basic)
This column doesn’t break any new ground as Dowd trots out the usual reasons why people think Obama is an elitist (namely, because he is) and why Clinton is not (because she has no shame). One thing that has always bugged us about Dowd is her assumption that strong and masculine is always the better choice in a leader; it seems to us that we could use a little more effete and deliberative these days (of course, there’s also an element of homophobia in Dowd’s analysis in this regard to which she’s always been completely oblivious, and is one of the reasons she has become less relevant over time.)


In which The Gay Recluse looks forward to Beijing 2008.

Today we are pleased to introduce readers to our new women’s beach-volleyball correspondent, Robert Representative, who kicks off his Olympic coverage with the following report:

Any real commentary of this sport will have to wait until the summer,
but I did manage to find some awesome photos that would definitely
interest any 13-year old boy:

13-year old boys…among others (like us, and probably quite a few 13-year old girls)! Seriously. How much better is women’s beach volleyball than the decathlon?

These pictures are all from Athens 2004. (Wait! Is that Lauren and Audrina from The Hills?)


Which we now officially regret not watching.

Let’s be clear: that’s one mistake we won’t be making again!

Robert, thanks for that extremely enlightening report. We look forward to hearing more as developments warrant (and obviously, we’ll want pictures).

Photo Credits:
http://www.volleyball-pictures.com/Detail.tpl?RecordNum=468
http://www.volleyball-pictures.com/Detail.tpl?RecordNum=488
http://www.volleyball-pictures.com/Detail.tpl?RecordNum=473
http://www.volleyball-pictures.com/Detail.tpl?RecordNum=487


In which The Gay Recluse scores selected opinion pieces in The Times.

Bob Herbert/Some Perspective on “Bitter”

The Short Version: Pennsylvania is filled with racists!

In his words: “In his San Francisco comments, Senator Obama fouled up when he linked frustration and bitterness over economic hard times with America’s romance with guns and embrace of religion.”

Score: C- (Cautious)
We don’t think Herbert’s wrong to say that there’s quite a bit of racism in the backwaters of Pennsylvania, but (unlike Herbert) we don’t disagree with Obama’s analysis that economic hardship breeds gun-toting fanaticism.

David Brooks/A Speech About Nothing

The Short Version: Obama should talk about technology, not trade deals.

In his words: “Instead of concerning themselves with the tidal waves washing overhead, they’ve decided to insist on bended-knee submission in the holy war against Colombia.”

The Score: A (Astute)
Brooks is right to criticize Obama for focusing on relatively insignificant trade deals when technology — as anyone who works in front of a computer understands — is in fact the driving force behind the restructuring of the U.S. (and worldwide) job landscape.


In which The Gay Recluse explores the perils of uptown living.

Date of photograph: April 13, 2008

Location: The little park between Ft. Tryon and Inwood Hill between Dyckman and Riverside. (Approximately.)

Now that it’s warm enough to go outside and there’s plenty of wind, especially down by the river, we’ve been gearing up for one of our favorite spring hobbies: flying kites. But even kite-flying is not without potential consequences, as the below pix more than demonstrate:

We love trees as a rule, but this one is kind of scary!

It was terrifying to see the kite get munched down as we stood by helpless!

To all kite flyers considering the move to Wahi, don’t say you haven’t been warned. There’s a lot of open space up here and plenty of wind, but there are also some seriously hungry trees around. Be prepared!


In which The Gay Recluse holds a contest. Sort of.

Today reader Jason sent in the following note along with some pictures:

I don’t know why I never really noticed this before, but the statuary at Columbus Circle and Central Park West is really gay. There’s two seriously built guys who seem to be having a spat, but from where I stand, they’re both extremely hot!

Ok, Jason, let’s see what we’re dealing with here.

Damn, this guy’s hot.

Correct that…from this view he smokin’ hot! (Those eyes!)

This guy’s not too shabby either!

Interesting equation here: quiet + reserved + intellectual = smokin’ hot!

Thanks for the submission, Jason. We agree that whether these guys are fighting or not, they are both seriously gay and smokin’ hot, which is always a good combination! Readers: we find it hard to believe that there aren’t a lot more hot gay statues out there waiting to be discovered. Do you really want your city to be left out when the winner is declared in November? Obviously, there’s plenty of time, so we look forward to seeing some hot pix.

The Hot Gay Statue Contest Roundup:


add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!Add to Blinkslistadd to furladd to ma.gnoliaadd to simpyseed the vineTailRank


In which The Gay Recluse scores selected opinion pieces in The Times.

Paul Krugman/Crisis of Confidence

The Short Version: The United States is in a bad mood!

In his words: “The question is, can the next administration end America’s malaise?”

Score: D (Depressing)
Krugman certainly touches upon a widely held perception that we’re completely fucked as a country, but he doesn’t really get at the reality that not enough people care to do anything about it. In short, because “American” and “Americans” have become practically meaningless terms in this kind of discussion, we need a more nuanced analysis than the nationalistic “We” provides; class is one reasonable place to start.

William Kristol/The Mask Slips

The Short Version: Obama is an elitist communist!

In his words: “He’s disdainful of small-town America — one might say, of bourgeois America?”

The Score: F (Funny!)
Kristol delivers hilarious McCarthyesque insinuations and an almost campy degree of indignation about Obama’s recent “comment-gate,” as if the Republicans of the past forty years have been the true friend of the small-town working class.

Roger Cohen/Obama’s Indonesian Lessons

The Short Version: I love Obama, even if he is a Muslim!

In his words: “Only by uniting disparate threads could he become whole under the name of Barack Obama in a world experienced as defined by divergent truths.”

The Score: D (Dopey)
This column is basically a barf sandwich that has about as much relevance as one of those “up-close-and-personal” spots you see on teevee during the Olympics.


In which The Gay Recluse becomes increasingly obsessed with the George Washington Bridge.

Date of Photographs: April 13, 2008

The clouds over the bridge were riveting today.

It made us remember: once we were in Vermont, on tour with the band.

We were eating dinner at a restaurant overlooking Lake Champlain.

(The sixth great lake.)

There was a beautiful sunset.

Some of the guys at the next table were from Burlington.

They were meatheads.

They made fun of some dorky people from the city taking photographs of the sunset.

(They did look pretty stupid!)

We all laughed.

Even though in our heart we wanted to take a picture, too!

We didn’t want to seem gay. (Even though we totally were!)

It might be possible to get used to the sunsets in Burlington.

But we would rather die than lose faith in the bridge.

Because we see it every day.

I, too, have an obsession with the George Washington Bridge. However, mine involves a nagging compulsion to complete a football pass from the deck of the bridge to a buddy on the ground below.

Ryan Pissed and Petty (March 31, 2008)


In which The Gay Recluse disagrees with one reader and agrees with another.

Recently reader Wil sent in the following comment in response to our April 5th updated analysis of the Modern Love column in the New York Times, in which openly gay writers almost never appear, and even less frequently describe romantic relationships:

[I]t’s written for the ladies, by the ladies. My advice – stop reading it.

Ha! That’s actually pretty funny. And we would probably follow Wil’s advice if we didn’t find it ultimately entertaining to laugh at the Modern Love column (ha ha — look at Modern Love!) and the way it perpetuates so many ridiculous (and bourgeois!) stereotypes, mostly with regard to gender but also sexual orientation in those rare columns that dare to broach the issue. Plus we met Kayla Rachlin Small by way of her unusually awesome column, and that alone has justified the venture from our standpoint.

We also received another letter, this from reader Donna (of Crazed Angels fame), who wrote the following in response to this week’s Modern Love column about a woman who (supposedly) orders a sex chair (but then never uses it — Zzzzzzz):

I couldn’t get through the column. And I don’t think it’s true.

I tried twice.

My big issue with ML lately is that I think they’re accepting writing that’s more fictional than non-fiction – but not non-fictional in a satirical way. The single mother lawyer who came across as a crazy b****, choosing homework with her daughter over time with men she supposedly loved, was clearly lying about how many men were chasing her and how long they were willing to wait it out. But she wasn’t funny.

This week’s couple is SO not funny. At least not as far as I got.

And who orders sex chairs when you’re drunk? Who the f*** can get through an online form when you’re drunk?

As if.

I’m getting really tired of the ML editors. I wish they’d post the concept of ML – what do they think it is? It’s becoming increasingly sloppy and unclear.

Thanks for writing, Donna — like you say, half the shit seems made up, and not in a good way! (You’re also living proof that even lady readers are unhappy with the ML column, so take that, Wil!)

We’d welcome more opinions on Modern Love, and not just from a gay perspective (although that’s obviously our axe to grind.) Ladies? Gents? Is anyone else as annoyed as Donna? Do you also think they’re making the shit up? Let us know!

Finally, a call for submissions! If anyone ever wants to submit a TRUE Modern Love column, we’d love to post it, whether it’s gay or straight or about cats or drugs or whatever; just make it modern — you know what we mean! — and about love in whatever form you believe it exists. (Our only rule: don’t send us a story about a piece of sex furniture unless you use it at least once!)