|
|
Pics from the first ever NewNowNext Awards
Wilson Cruz and Bridget McManus present Tila Tequila with her award Last night Logo (AfterElton's parent company, lest we forget) hosted the first ever NewNowNext Awards in NYC to celebrate LGBT entertainment in television, movies, fashion, music, and more. A slew of queer and queer-friendly celebs turned out for the event ... and somehow I got in as well, and managed to steal some time with the likes of Candis Cayne, Jack Mackenroth, Jensen Atwood, Patrik-Ian Polk, Colton Ford, Wilson Cruz, Ari Gold, Christian Siriano, and more. I'll have some dish and arrival pics for you later this week, but for now here are a few images from the ceremony itself. Enjoy! (All pics courtesy of Getty Images) Co-host Colman Domingo starts things off with a bang
The ever-adorable Cyndi Lauper
More after the jump!
Hosts Candis Cayne and Colman Domingo
Dangerous Muse performs (and how!)
Rising star Leona Lewis
Lady Gaga performs
Submitted by on Tue, 2008-05-20 08:04. |
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
Sex dolls, shirtless men and a guy fellating a mic...
Shirtless men are fine, in
Sorry, guys, I gotta be opinionated here...
...but when did we become such prudes? The whack-job Christian nuts aren't going to embrace us if we censor ourselves. Sexuality--one of the most beautiful and joyous experiences a person can have--should be celebrated, not kept hidden.
Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/
There is a time and a place
There is a time and a place for everything. This is fine for comedy shows or shows that are sexual in nature. This was a music awards show meant to showcase the best in music for the gay community. I don't want to turn on the American Music Awards to see a woman sucking on the end of her microphone either, it is distasteful.
This was just disgusting to me. You need to censor yourself to show that you have respect for yourself.You can be out and proud but there is always a time and place for everything. You wouldn't go in the middle of a busy city street and do this. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. You can show your sexuality in a tasteful way by kissing or just showing affection to eachother. You don't have to take it this far and offend the people around you. As i said I would be offended if I saw a straight couple doing the same.
As for the comment below it is different that he has a half naked avatar online to what they do on public television. especially on a channel that talks about equality so much.
Wow, what hypocrisy!
"You need to censor yourself to show that you have respect for yourself"...are you kidding me? This totally smacks of the Christian right argument, and I simply cannot buy into that, and I find it incomprehensible that another gay man would, too. I respect myself precisely because I hide nothing from people and respect others when they are willing to go to the edge and beyond to specifically make a statement about the incredible joy of sexuality.
Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/
Ack!
Joseph, are you serious? You say you respect yourself because you hide nothing from people to "make a statement about the incredible joy of sexuality". See my post below titled "Stodgy Vs. Classy". If you mean your sentiment literally then, per my example in the post below, you would feel free to have sex with someone in the middle of a bus during rush hour. If you do feel free to do that, then there's no point in me talking to you. If you DON'T feel free to do that, then you acknowledge that there are limits to free expression of sexuality. And the minute you acknowledge that, then you either have to allow others to draw a line in a place different from you, or you have to claim that there is only one line to draw, and it's yours. In which case you're a fascist, and again there's no point in talking to you.
One of the worst things one gay person can do to another is tell him that he has to agree with you to be a "good gay person". And that is what you're doing. I respect your right to draw your lines where you choose, as long as some thought goes into it. Please respect the right of others to draw lines in places different from you.
And isn't that what you're doing, too?
Aren't you and the others here specifying what, precisely, should be permitted on a television program? Don't go throwing around the word "fascist" because it can boomerang on you.
See, I don't find this offensive in the least. To me, offensive is political and religious leaders using some fantastical mythology to not only deny me my rights as a human being, but also to encourage fear and hate that could result in my death. To me, offensive is crashing an airplane into a building killing thousands of people. To me, offensive is fabricating reasons for invading another country, resulting in the deaths of thousands and destablising the world. That, to me, is extraordinarly far more offensive than somebody imitating oral sex with a microphone.
Therefore, when y'all go on about how that is supposedly offensive, it offends me. And it frustrates me, because it leads me to think that y'all still harbor some kind of shame or fear of sexuality. It always shocks and saddens me that in this country sex (gay OR straight) is viewed as this shameful, nasty thing that should be censored, while violence--killings and rapes and exploding buildings--is celebrated as the pinnacle of entertainment. There's something deeply and disturbingly wrong with that. If that image of somebody imitating oral sex with a mic makes another person laugh, or frighten them, then more power to them for doing it, I say.
Yes, my homosexuality is just one part of me--my passions for history, the novels of William Dean Howells, the films of Mark Robson, the city of Istanbul--these are other parts of me. But my sexuality, my insistence on my freedom to express it however I see fit is also a major part of me, it formed my mental growth, my desire to learn more about myself and the world around me. That's nothing to be ashamed of. It really saddens me that y'all think the opposite.
Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/
Please read it again
Joseph - Please re-read the message you're replying to, and then see if you can still make the case that I'm somehow specifying what can be shown on a TV program. Nowhere in ANY of my posts did I say or even imply that. I said in another post that I specifically wasn't making ANY comment on the show because I hadn't seen it. My only point in all my posts is that the concept of what's acceptable varies from person to person, and you should allow others the freedom to make a choice different from yours. How is that "specifying what should be shown"? Here is a direct quote from the post you're replying to: "I respect your right to draw your lines where you choose". I'm not specifying anything.
Awhile back I read about some fascinating studies that showed that human beings interpret reality through a prizm of expectations and ideology. The perceptions they bring to the table literally CHANGE THE CHEMICAL FUNCTIONING OF THE BRAIN, resulting in colored observations. Religious people bring their preconceptions and see something one way. Liberals bring their preconceptions and see things based on that. And it's not just that they apply their opinions, but rather that they literally see different things. That's what you appear to be doing here. Again, there was no comment I made implying anything about what MY standards are. You completely read that into it when it wasn't there.
For what it's worth I completely agree with most of your post, whether it be the immeasurably greater offensiveness of religions fostering fear and hate of gay people, or manurfactured reasons for the Iraq war, or that there's nothing to be ashamed of in sexuality. Again, when you ascribe to me opinions about those things when I have in no way addressed those things, you have to look at how you're reacting to others.
To me the most precious thing in life is freedom of thought, freedom to think one's own thoughts. When you tell someone they're not a good gay person because they have a different opinion than you do, then you're trying to deny that freedom. What's wrong with just saying, "I respect your opinion, but I don't think there was anything wrong with the show. And here's why." And if you and the other person set your boundaries in different places, so be it. It's just another example of the joy and beauty found in freedom of thought and freedom of expression.
I don't even know how to respond...
...to such incredible arrogance and hypocrisy. Consistently in this argument, you have accused me of doing things that you are actually doing as well. Where did I say that you didn't find wars, etc., offensive? No, I didn't say that. I was clarifying what I find offensive.
I didn't say that somebody wasn't a good gay person if they disagreed with me, but I did express disappointment that they could hold such a view, and that is my prerogative, just as it is your prerogative to hold a different view. The problem is that what your vocalizing, that this is offensive, particularly as was put forth by the initial posts in this thread, was that this is something that is inappropriate and reflects badly on gay men. Now, wasn't that a fascist interpretation? Which is why I responded so vigorously.
A few weeks ago another poster accused me of being in left field. Well, I'd rather be on the playing field than in the bleachers of rational thought.
Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/
Give me a break
So how is it arrogant and hypocritical to point out that you have misinterpreted and misrepresented what I said? You persist in saying that I stated that the show in question was "inappropriate and reflects badly on gay men". I NEVER said anything of the sort. I challenge you to quote back ONE comment from my posts that said anything of the sort. Again, for at least the third time, I'm not making any comment on the show since I haven't seen it. I'm simply arguing that vilifying someone for thinking that, rather than actually debating the issue in a mutually respectful manner, is a scary attempt to stifle alternate views.
You ask where you say that I didn't find wars offensive, etc. I NEVER MADE ANY SUCH CLAIM!!! I was agreeing with all your comments on those things. I neither said nor implied that you had said any such thing about me. Once again, you totally read into something sentiments that were in no way there.
Here's what you said about Angelmonster, in a post titled "Wow, what hypocrisy": "This totally smacks of the Christian right argument, and I simply cannot buy into that, and I find it incomprehensible that another gay man would, too." Then you follow up later with this: "it leads me to think that y'all still harbor some kind of shame or fear of sexuality". So it's not enough that you disagree with someone, you have to make loaded, pejorative attacks on THEM, not just on their opinions. It's not illogical to draw a conclusion from that that you don't see disagreement as valid, as acceptable. To you, people disagree because there is something wrong with them.
It makes it difficult to rationally discuss issues if the other person is incapable of reading the opposing points, and seeing what's there, rather than reading into those points things that totally aren't there. You do seem to be an ideal example of the phenomenon that those brain studies that I mentioned described. You bring so much preconception and ideology to the table that it colors your perception of reality. To prove me wrong all you have to do is find a quote from me in this thread where I stated that the awards show in question had crossed my line of acceptability, or that I thought it shouldn't be allowed.
You're being a literalist.
The fact that you jumped on me for stating an opposing opinion, and justifiably extrapolating a thesis from the previous posters' aversion to a portrayal of sexuality, led me to believe that you also expressed disdain for such portrayals. The "you" in my argument is a generic "you," and certainly your vehement attacks upon me indicate something, well, odd.
Again, you state that I'm am doing something when you then turn around and do the same thing--"drawing a conclusion." Again, more hypocrisy. You're making a judgment about me by acusing me of doing the same. It's obvious that you, too, have brought a preconception and ideology to this discourse but aren't willing to admit it. We're going circles.
Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/
Ok Ladies...
Emoticon
Is there an emoticon for throwing up one's hands in utter frustration? If so, picture it here:
(And quit over-using the word hypocrisy, especially when it doesn't apply. Just saying something doesn't make it so.)
One more thing
What does it say about you that you think it's a justifiable conclusion that because I defend another poster's right to disagree with you without being unfairly labeled, I therefore must agree with the poster. Do you only defend freedom of speech that you agree with?
Note also that I did not attack the validity of your opinions on the show in question. I ONLY attacked your attack on and pejorative mislabeling of someone else. That's all I'm doing. I may or may not agree with your basic points. I wouldn't know without seeing the show.
Question for you, asked straight out and unambigously: Do you think that the other poster can disagree with you on the issues of the awards show, and still be a "good gay person"? Do you think he can hold those differing opinions without having internalized hatred and/or shame?
I don't even think it's an issue of time and place...
You beat me to the punch on
You beat me to the punch on that one! I couldn't have said it better. Sexuality is just one part of a mature, well-rounded life. The happiest gay people I've known have always been the ones for whom their sexuality was just another of their many attributes. The unhappy ones have been those who have been so obsessed with "being gay" and being sexual that they don't have time to be anything else.
I think that might to some degree be a generational thing. The younger gay people I know have mostly grown up in a world where being gay was relatively no big thing (at least here in the upper Midwest). They just take it for granted, expect everyone to accept them, and act as though that's exactly what will happen. As a result they're more free to be well rounded people. Sexuality is important, but it's one of several things that are important in their lives.
Hey Jeremymlad
I see you're busily doing karma voting on this thread, giving no stars to anyone who in any way talks about ambiguity of public sexual standards, and five stars to anyone making the case for anything goes. However, you're not actually expressing any opinions, or telling us where you're coming from. In the post above I'm talking about the value of a well-rounded life that is based on more than just sexuality. I guess I should assume that you don't believe in a well-rounded life, but rather that nothing exists apart from being gay and having sex. Also, based on my post below, you don't believe in class, or having standards of any kind, and that you think all gay people should think exactly like you.
BTW, how lame is this whole karma voting thing anyway? Generally, about three people vote on a typical post. Considering that hundreds probably read each one, what possible indication of anything could that be? In fact, I'm not happy if my karma gets too high. It just means I'm not upsetting the applecart of preconceptions that aren't thought through and rigid, reactionary thought patterns.
Karma voting/harassment
I agree completely, and it
I agree completely, and it doesn't bother me at all. It would be interesting to see what would happen if all the thousands of people who visited the site voted on all the posts.
Discussion fuels learning, and understanding of other points of view. That can't happen if people don't occasionally challenge each other. Of course, challenging by name calling doesn't accomplish anything, but an honest exchange of ideas and rationales certainly does.
Holy COW you startled me
Holy COW you startled me with my own name as I was scrolling down!
I often feel quite out of my depth here, more of an observer. Maybe it's due to my age, or living by myself and not having a lot of opportunity to bounce my ideas off people to see if they're valid or how they compare. I was hoping that the karma ratings would be a way I could silently express my opinions about this thread.
But thank you for the invitation to speak out! You actually should assume nothing about me as I believe in classiness as much as anything, but I guess our ideas of classy might be different. The thing that kept going through my head, though, as I read through this thread was what an older gay mentor once said when someone asked the question "Why should GAY be all about sex?" He said, "Of course it is, the sex is really the only thing that makes us different from the straight guys."
I guess I feel that trying to shy away from it, especially in a performer-based event where people be silly, and calling them examples, when I'd imagine they were just trying to be funny and fun for the people who were there is a baby/bathwater situation. Of course there's a time and place, and *I* think the awards show could easily have been one or both of those. I think your example about the bus is really missing the point because no one would do that. But having spent about half my life around theatre/performing people I think I can say that most of them, in an environment of their peers, are just having fun.
Hey, cool! I appreciate
Hey, cool! I appreciate the opinions! Now we can get somewhere.
Two things: 1. If you read my posts with an unbiased mind, you'll see that nowhere did I give an opinion on the awards show itself. I haven't seen it, and therefore don't feel I could offer an opinion. All I was saying is that the concept of standards at some level is valid, and that people's opinions of what those standards should be should be allowed to vary without personal attacks. Especially attacks like that from Joseph, who implied that another poster couldn't differ from him and still be a good gay person. That sort of attitude is scary to me. Monolithic thought requirements make me shudder.
2. You said your mentor was older, which fits with what I said earlier about a generational divide on the subject of where sex fits into life for a gay person. Imagine for a moment a world where being gay was no big deal. In such a world is your mentor's observation still valid? No, of course not. It's only valid in a world of significant oppression, rampant closeting, self-hatred and shame, where you're trying against all odds to fight against those things. But I maintain that today's world, though FAR from ideal, is also FAR from that of 30-40 years ago. I am totally out at work, and have been promoted twice since I came out. I have a 29 year old friend who has been out from the beginning at a major bank, and who was recently promoted to be a vice president. We're both out to family and friends. Guys hold hands in the parks or the malls, with rarely any reaction. It's a far different world, and getting better all the time. Making sex the center of your life and sole identifier is an unhealthy relic of an unhealthy time. The new world allows us to move past that. If you don't, you're essentially allowing the straight world to put you in a self-perpetuating prison. THEY get to have full, multi-faceted lives, but ours have to be centered around sex and nothing else???? How very sad....
Actually, my bus analogy is indeed valid. Not because it's anything anyone would do in the real world (except for a nut case). But because if you grant that obvious scenario, you HAVE to grant the idea that there is SOME line, some standard. And if so, then you have to give others the freedom to set standards different from yours. Again, don't force monolithic thought on people.
Sorry about implying assumptions about you. That was to get your attention and make a point. And it worked!!!
Oh well
Sorry about implying assumptions about you. That was to get your attention and make a point. And it worked!!!
Yeah, don't appreciate being manipulated like that. That's something reserved only for my father.
Well, it got us to exchange
Dad? Is that you?
Darn
Shoot, I guess the fake picture didn't work....
Son, I've always known about you, and really, it's OK with me. Just watch out for guys from Minneapolis.
Um... have you ever seen the MTV Music or Movie Awards?
there is a HUGE difference
That was just an example...
Mic Love?
There's fun and then there's playing to stereotypes...
MTV
MTV award shows...
...most of what I said was based on my own opinion...but it's common knowledge that the MTV Award shows (amd virtually all of their programming) has been blasted by entertainment and industry magazines. Rolling Stones has been ruthless on them for their lack of innovation.
But Real World and Exposed are my guilty pleasures.
Interesting
I'm not representing the community...
Yes, you are.
Every minute of your life your representing your community: your humanity, your sexuality, your nation, etc.
Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/
Uh...
yes you are.
We all are and to say otherwise is irresponsible. Do as I say and not as I do? No wonder this community chases its own tail.
Stodgy Vs. Classy
I've been sitting here for a few minutes trying to figure out how to address this controversy. But the more I think about it the more complex the issues become. So I'd better just quit thinking and throw out a few thoughts.
Josh asks "isn't the whole point of equality that we get to be ourselves?". I would say that's not quite accurate. Equality means we have as much freedom as everyone else, that we are appreciated like everyone else and judged like everyone else. It doesn't mean we can all be ourselves in a limitless way. For example, if two guys want to have sex on a bus during rush hour, and they feel that publicly expressing themselves that way is "being themselves", should they be free to do so? I'm sure we would all (or mostly all!) say no. So if we agree on that, then the question becomes where to draw that line. And I don't mean just in the legal sense, but in the "socially acceptable" sense.
That's where the difficulty comes in, deciding where to draw that line. Different people obviously have different opinions. I thought the Madonna kiss on MTV was awesome, but others were shocked and/or outraged. I thought the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" was much ado about nothing, while lawmakers wanted to create new laws to punish networks for such things. A gay person in New York will have MUCH different standards of acceptability than will a Baptist in Mississippi.
So where am I ultimately going with this? I guess I'm just trying to say that those who would prefer to dial back the overtly sexual in the public media should not be vilified as "prudes" or have it implied that their opinions are somehow not worthy of gay people. There's a whiff of psychological fascism there that is rather unappealing. I'd prefer to embrace differences of opinion and discuss them, without vilification.
Here's another way to look at the issue. Most people place value on the idea of having style or being classy, however they define those terms. There is value placed on a fine wine, or coming to the aid of someone in need, or having a civilized conversation with someone. If we're going to identify ourselves as a group, is it not proper to discuss where the fine line is between edgy and provocative on the one hand, and classy and considerate of others on the other? I am not presuming to provide any answers, I'm just saying that it's dropping the ball to not consider the issue, and to just say that anything goes.
There needs to be a place
There needs to be a place where we can draw the line. We want equality so we want to be equal to heterosexual people, that is what equality is. Thus you want to be judged by the same standards heterosexual people are. There is a fine line between being prude and going over the top and I am somewhere in between. I love seeing people make fun of sexuality and givent he proper media this would be tasteful.
This is not tasteful. It was done for shock factor and it gives into every stereotype most gay men and women fight to get rid of. Honestly I am not awake at night thinking about this all of the time, in fact usually I don't really care if stuff liek this goes on. I just think it is funny that this blog gets angry when a gay man on a random tv show is too effeminant or gives into a single stereotype but the minute somehting like this comes along all of you put on your leather and tight clothes and join in.
My view on it is that it was distasteful because it was a show about music, not about representing homosexual sex. I don't want to watch it to see people mocking their own culture in a distasteful way that ultimately makes us look like a bunch of fools. I am entitled to my opinion. I am not saying your opinion is wrong so grow get, mature a little and stop trying to treat me and the people who think this way like we are 'bad gays' or whatever. You are the ones being the hypocrites :-/