Postscript

Postscript

My aunt passed away last night. While it wasn't exactly a surprise, we were all taken aback by the suddenness of her death. Only the day before, she'd been talking about going to eat in Chinatown when she got better.

It will be very strange not having her around. She used to call my mother every few days. My mother isn't saying very much, but I can imagine what she's going through right now. Every time the phone rings, she'll be thinking that it's her sister.

I may take a couple of days off from blogging while I see whether I can help my family with the arranging the funeral. It's not really the time to be making jokes, of course, but I would like to point out that I have some expertise in this area. When my other aunt died a few years ago, it was left to me to work out several crucial things, since my remaining aunts and uncles were in no state to do anything. Can I say that there's nothing more surreal than having to peruse funeral parlour brochures ("The white model is flashy, but I think the dark redwood US-8X is more in keeping with her character."). And then there's the matter of talking to morticians. They enjoy their job far too much.

Talking about death with others -- particularly those who've never dealt with the death of loved ones -- can be difficult, because it remains such a taboo. It was unfortunate that the book we were reading in class the week of my aunt's funeral was Evelyn Waugh's The Loved One, a grimly acute satire of the American death industry. The bubbly cosmeticist who was working on my aunt was frighteningly similar to the character in Waugh's novel named Aimee. "I've been working [at this funeral parlour] ever since I left college. I love it," the cosmeticist told me. "I never cop any flack from clients." In a very strange way, talking to her was more cathartic than any of the conversations I had with any of my family or friends.

Family, friends, etc

Family, friends, etc

It's been a weird day. My aunt went into hospital to have some tests done after she woke up feeling giddy and found that all of her speech was slurred. She had a heart attack a few weeks ago, and had only recently returned home. Now in her early 80's, she's not very strong, and I think everyone in the family is quietly wondering whether she'll be able to recover from this latest setback. I'm very attached to this aunt; she's feisty but gentle, has a wicked sense of humour, and has perhaps the healthiest outlook on life of anybody I know. She's not very well off, but she always makes sure that her grandchildren, nieces, and nephews get little red packets (containing $1) on Chinese New Year. What really shocked the family about her recent hospitalization was that it occurred on the 3rd anniversary of another of my aunt's -- which is to say, her sister's -- death.

In other, better news: Keith has finished his exams, and is flying back to Sydney next week for a quick visit. If he's lucky, he may even get nice weather. Sydney's trying its damnedest to look its best at the moment -- blue skies, sunshine, a little warmth. Very un-wintry.

Bend and Snap: the Musical

Bend and Snap: the Musical

Yes, kids, it's true. That quintessential art-form of Hollywood's yesteryear, the MGM musical, is back, but this time, it's taking place on stage, not screen. Legally Blonde is being made into a musical. To paraphrase Reese Witherspoon's character, Elle, it'll be just like the movie, only funner. Interestingly, the movie was originally supposed to contain a musical sequence, taking place during the famous 'bend and snap' scene. No doubt this sequence will be accorded full chorusgirl glamour in the stage production.

Musicals based on movies have a dubious history. Remember the musical adaptation of Big? I thought not. What about Singin' in the Rain, complete with glorious indoor rain flooding the stage during the titular song sequence? And then there's the infamous 80's horror-show, Carrie, based on Stephen King's novel and also the Cissy Spacek movie, in which a repressed adolescent schoolgirl unleashes her telekinetic powers against her bullies. Readers and viewers will remember the moment when schoolboys play a cruel prank on Carrie, dumping loads of dead pig's blood on her. In the musical, which has not been produced since its illfated Broadway premiere, the boys' pigshooting becomes the subject of a ballet.

Gay Karate Dating

Gay Karate Dating

Are you a martial artist? Are you interested in dating? Are you gay? If you said yes to all three questions, then this is the site for you: Gay Karate Dating. And y'all thought we only liked to wrestle.

As a long-time fan of kung fu movies and also a full-time homosexual, I await the day when gay kung fu flicks pass from my imagination into reality. I can picture it now: Enter the Dragon's Boyfriend. The Gay of Death. Big Trouble Up Little China. Crouching Top, Hidden Bottom. The Sodomatrix. It's a veritable cornucopia of kickass-fuckass!

Asian in da House

Asian in da House

A Chinese Rapper? Check this out. Jin is Asian-American, but he entered the Black Entertainment Television's "Freestyle Friday" Hall of Fame for going undefeated seven weeks in a row in the network's "106 & Park:Top Ten Live" rap battles. After graduating from a school in Florida, he moved to New York, not to seek his independence but rather to follow his parents. And now he has an album coming out.

Last night, my friend played for me Christina Aguilera's send-up of Eminem, a riposte to his continual jibes at her overhyped commercialism. Predictably, she poked fun at his overhyped commercialism, but 'Will the Real Slim Shady Please Shut Up?' contained some funny lyrics, including a comparison of 'Slim Shady' to 'Peter Brady'. Putcha bad self, Christina.

Post-Apocalypse

Post-Apocalypse

How did I do with my Buffy predictions? Spike died, the amulet saved the day, Willow performed magic on a major scale ("That was nifty!"), Faith and Principal Wood were being set up for a new series (and actually got more screentime together than, say, Anya and Xander), and Anya died saving Andrew. The original gang didn't end up facing off against the First's legion of ubervamps together, but there was a delightful scene in which the four main characters shared a moment in the corridors of Sunnydale High. If I'm not mistaken, Giles was quoting the series' very first episode. The others got to wisecrack about shopping after the apocalypse. Tee hee! (Don't know if anyone noticed, but during that scene, you can see the shadow of a prop guy moving across the hallway behind Xander.)

All in all, it was a bloody good ending. Joss Whedon can be pretentious at times (especially on his Buffy DVD commentaries), but one thing you have to say for him is that he knows how to write character arcs. His characters don't remain on the series unless they have a purpose to fulfil. And in the finale, he tied up everything that needed to be, while still finding time to peddle his cheesy yet affecting message, that anyone who might be a slayer, will be a slayer. Which is to say, girls rock, man.

Ah, humanity!

Ah, humanity!

Australian Idol: two, maybe three of the performers last night were decent. The pig farmer who's never formally taken singing lessons has the best vocal instrument of the lot, exhibiting a mature control over his vibrato and demonstrating pretty good range. Note how the better-looking performers -- the cutesy twinks, the former football players, and pop princesses -- were the least effective singers, pushing their voices beyond their capabilities. As for the judges: it's sad to see that the trio has now fallen into -- I should say, succumbed to -- the roles given them. Mark Holden either says, "That was good" or "That didn't do anything for me." Marcia says, "Thanks honey. You have a great voice" to everyone. Dicko says, "Loved it" or "You belong in cabaret" and "You're now completely out of your depth". Boring.

Final episode of Buffy tonight. Based on the past few episodes, and having rewatched the penultimate episode a couple of times, I'm now convinced that:

* Angel won't hang around in the episode for long. He was the deus ex machina of the last episode, so he'll scoot out quickly after giving Buffy a quick kiss.
* Spike will die, thus demonstrating his 'platonic love' (yeah, right) for Buffy in a redemptive act of self-sacrifice.
* Faith and Principal Wood are being set up to join together in a Faithcentric spin-off series.
* Anya will die, protecting Andrew from harm's way (we know this because Anya said last week that she's finally begun to love humanity, while Andrew is resigned to likely death).
* Oz probably won't return, since Willow already has (1) a partner she's lossed and misses -- Tara; and (2) has a present snuggle bunny -- Kennedy.
* Willow will perform magic on a big scale.
* Faith and the Principal will be fighting with the Potentials against the ubervamps.
* the original gang, plus Dawn (perhaps -- unless she's fighting with Anya and Andrew, or at home with them, preparing to tend to the wounded when they return) will face off against the First, armed with amulets and other assorted magic instruments.
* did I mention that Joss likes to use lots of magic instruments to help his characters save the day? It's the equivalent of technobabble on Star Trek and nifty gadgets on James Bond.

Ok, no one who's seen the episode already say a word about the finale! Let's say how I do with my predictions.

A Beautiful Mind

A Beautiful Mind

A recent survey in America has found that a consideration of aesthetic appeal is an important influence on how students rate the merits of their university professors' academic and teaching skills. On average, lecturers considered "handsome" or "beautiful" scored a full point higher on course surveys than those lecturers who were described as "homely".

This is not exactly a surprise; I just wish there were more beautiful or handsome academics at my university -- academics like, say, Brad Gooch. Gooch is over 50 years old, but he looks like he's just hit his 30's. He's a former model, having appeared in the ad campaign for Chanel's Allure. He's also a former porn film reviewer for a New York gay magazine. Shortly after he completed his graduate degree in English at Columbia University, he worked for a time as locker room boy in a gym. Now a tenured professor at a university in New Jersey, he's written several books, including two novels and one tell-all biography of New York poet Frank O'Hara. Recently, he's worked on two gaycentric self-help books, provocatively titled Finding the Boyfriend Within ("Oh there you are, Boyfriend! What are you doing in there?") and Dating the Greek Gods.

A few years ago, I was sitting in a seminar, listening to my lecturer talk about Brad Gooch's book on Frank O'Hara. I'm certain I wasn't imagining the lustful gleam in the academic's eyes as he uttered the author's name, with a prolonged emphasis on the 'oo' in Gooch. I didn't know who Brad Gooch was at the time, but having now seen the pictures of him, I completely understand both the gleam and the emphasis.

On the Origins of the Species

On the Origins of the Species

Prime Minister John Howard has argued that marriage's traditional function is to ensure "the survival of the species".

Now it's certainly true that you need couples -- or the sperm and egg of couples -- to procreate, and that, for Christians, marriage is the traditional means by which two people come together in holy matrimony. But, as numerous people have pointed out in the national and state newspapers over the past two days, there are plenty of married couples who can't procreate, or at least, who require artificial means to procreate, including, most controversially, IVF and other medical treatments, but also adoption. And there are many more couples who never intended to have children when they got married, and indeed who never do. As long as the state refrains from revoking the marriage licences of these people, it seems to me that neither the political nor the judicial system has any formal capacity -- by which I mean not only the right but also the grounds -- to restrict marriage to the function of procreation.

But what if, as I think, the PM's claim is underwritten not by a specific concern about civic function at all, but rather by a religious belief? For, despite his pseudo-Darwinian language, I suspect the PM's notion of the species' survival has more to do with the divine charge "to go forth and multiply" than anything else. To avoid accusations that he's yoking the state to his personal religious beliefs, the PM is shrouding those beliefs in quasi-scientific language.

Even here the grounds for his claim are dubious. For the preservation of the species has never been the core 'function' of Christian marriage at all. On the contrary, marriage signals the spiritual consummation of two Christians, who will henceforth grow in their faith together; it's this spiritual consummation that traditionally legitimates the subsequent sexual consummation.

The issue of gay marriage is forcing people to rethink the bases of their religious as well as societal beliefs. And that's why why, for all the attempts for some to dismiss this it as a controversy caused by a fringe group -- the narcissistic warcry of radicals on the periphery, of barbarians at the gate -- the issue raises questions that are central to how we view society as a whole.

Arnie Versus Chad: Hercules Goes to California

Arnie Versus Chad: Hercules Goes to California

Arnold Schwarzenegger announced this evening on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno that he will run in California's gubernatorial recall election. All week, his advisers have suggested that Arnie was leaning against the idea of becoming a candidate. With great skill, they had successfully created the kind of suspense more worthy of a Hollywood movie trailer.

I can't really comment on the merits of Arnie's candidacy. But to his credit, the guy's involved himself in politics for several years now, and was integral to the creation of a recent education bill. For the most part, he's avoided invoking his silver screen celebrity in relation to his political campaign. As the late historian, Michael Rogin, observed, former US president Ronald Reagan shamelessly reworked lines from his own movies, without acknowledging that they were quotations, into what were ostensibly his most spontaneous moments in the political arena. (Asked to respond to Rogin's claim, then-White House speechwriter Anthony Dolan declared, "What he's really saying is that all of us are deeply affected by a uniquely American art form: the movies." Uh-huh.) But Arnie would have little luck trying to exploit his screen image -- which is traditionally characterized by silent heroic violence -- into his political persona. And that's because politics necessarily involves, well, talking. Note Arnie's decidedly un-Terminator-like prolixity in his interview with Jay Leno: ""The politicians are fiddling, fumbling and failing... The man that is failing the people more than anyone is Gray Davis. He is failing them terribly, and this is why he needs to be recalled and this is why I am going to run for governor." Arnie may not be the most articulate person in the world, but he is nonetheless a talker.

So everyone, brace yourself for bad Arnie jokes to saturate the world's newspapers and news segments. Arnie, the Governator? Californian Election 2, Rise of the Publicity Machine? Conan the Politician? Gray Davis and Arnie: are they Twins? Is it the end of Gray, or End of Grays, or Judgement Gray? To be sure, Arnie is the Last Action Hero on matters pertaining to energy. Is this election a Total Recall? (On the environment: "De peepul need dair air!") Moreover, when it comes to imports from foreign countries, he'll be Mr. Freeze. And where education and crime are concerned, he'll always be the Kindergarten Cop. Yes, I think that'll do for now.

Some Initial Thoughts on Religion and Sexuality

Some Initial Thoughts on Religion and Sexuality

What does it mean to be Christian and gay, or to be part of any religion for which one's sexuality is contentious? I can't disavow my sexuality any more than I can reject my faith. To disbelieve my attraction to men would be no more possible than for me to disbelieve in Christ. I partake of my sexuality -- live it, embody it -- as comprehensively as I do my faith. Both are inextricable from my identity, and in many ways also from each other.

We often hear of people converting to a faith. The implication of the word 'conversion' is that a faith is simply something that one turns to, like a new shelf of clothes in a store. To convert is merely to shift one's view from one set of contents to another. But those of you who have faith will know that the concept of conversion as it's commonly described is far removed from the actual experience of possessing a conviction. Faith requires total immersion. To convert to a faith is to accept the central beliefs -- such as belief in Christ -- completely, and to possess them absolutely.

On similar grounds, I strongly object to the way religious and social commentators describe their attempts to make gays and lesbians disavow their sexualities as conversions in which men and women would simply be turning away from something that isn't intrinsically a part of themselves, or as 'cures', as though gays and lesbians would merely be ridding themselves of a malignant excrescence, a disposable surface. That's not the case at all -- like my faith, my sexuality isn't something I can deny or treat in order to make it go away; it's a fundamental part of my being. More on this later.

On Gay Marriage

On Gay Marriage

I've been feeling increasingly depressed over the past few weeks. It's not the kind of depression that's interminable, or which, say, completely incapacitates my sense of humour. But when it sets in, I find it difficult to break out of.

One reason why I've been feeling a little down recently is the conservative backlash against gay rights that has sprung from the US Supreme Court's recent decision in the Lawrence vs Texas case. If the American courts have finally acknowledged both the illogicality and inhumaneness of Texas' and other states' attempts to incarcerate gays on the basis of their sexuality, the American people has shown a far more hypocritical attitude towards the treatment of its own citizens. For the past decade, opinion polls have generally indicated an increased willingness on the part of the American people to tolerate and accept gays. This, it would seem, is the natural progression from the decriminalization of homosexuality in several states and also the recognition that gays and lesbians cannot be justifiably pathologized, as though their sexualities were simply a disease requiring to be cured. But the positivistic assumption that the quest to ratify gay rights in America law, once in motion, can never go backwards, has been proven wrong. For while Americans are prepared to recognize that gays aren't a class of criminals, and that they have every right to conduct consensual sex in the privacy of their own homes, they refuse to recognize that gay, like straight couples, are capable of maintaining loving, monogamous relationships. The refusal to recognize the legality of gay marriages is at its core a refusal to accept that gays are anything but an underclass in society, not privy to the civic status and distinction that the term 'marriage' affords couples.

Conservatives opposed to gay marriage like to cite the putative promiscuity of all gays -- a promiscuity which, apparently, is a congenital by-product of their sexuality -- as reason to deny gay couples formal recognition of their union. Conservative bloggers such as Clayton Cramer argued with overwrought ideological fervour that gays, apparently, are unable to conduct monogamous relationships. There are several problems here. Firstly, the fact that many gay men are promiscuous isn't sufficient reason to deny all gays the right to marriage. Secondly, there's little creditable evidence to suggest that gay men are especially more promiscuous than straight men -- just ask Colin Farrell. Given the high incidence of divorce in Western societies nowadays, it would appear that promiscuity (which admittedly is only one of many factors in the increasing divorce rates in Western countries) is, if anything, a social problem, common to all sexualities and genders. Thirdly and most importantly, monogamous gay unions are already evident all around the world. I think of two couples I know in Sacramento, California -- including one pair to whom I'm very close -- who have been together for over 6 and 12 years, respectively, or of another couple I know in Sydney who've been together for just over a decade. And there's the couple who live a few blocks away from me, and who have been together for over 25 years. These are the sort of people that the loud and brash conservative movement -- we might think of them as radical conservatives -- never acknowledges, for fear that it would topple their campaign to recriminalize, repathologize, and to eradicate homosexuality forever. These couples inspire me, and they set an example of monogamy and fidelity for subsequent generations of straights and gays.

A popular conservative canard is that marriage in our society is typically defined as the union of two individuals for the purpose of reproduction. But there are plenty of couples who don't have children, and they're still allowed to marry. Moreover, there are plenty of de facto and divorced couples who do have children, regardless of the fact that they're not legally married.

The sad truth is that opponents of gay marriage aren't really trying to uphold societal traditions so much as justify their longstanding prejudice against gays. Unfortunately, many of these people would characterize themselves as tolerant and accepting of homosexuality; now they're forced to question to what extent they are truly accepting of it at all.

More on this later, in relation to a special front in what Justice Scalia rather cryptically called "the culture wars" (I thought those wars only concerned Shakespeare and great books!): the relationship between religion and homosexuality.

Sweet Transvestites

Sweet Transvestites

The second episode of Australian Idol aired last night, and already it's clear that only a handful of contestants can sing. Others strut, wail, or gyrate in order to hide the fact that, vocally, they're simply not up to scratch. Bereft of decent performances to focus on, the tv presenters concentrated instead on the personalities of the singers. There was the Somalian refugee who had trouble mastering the words to songs in English; the bitchy loner who refused to play back-up for the other members of the trio she was assigned to; the demure wallflower whose confidence builds with each performance she gives; the large, unemployed guy who wanted to make his generally unsympathetic dad proud of him; the young starlet who dedicated her performance to her dad, who'd died a few years earlier; the young feral who had just become a dad; and the cutesy pie who wanted to make one of the judges her sugardaddy. My favourite contestant is the sweet transvestite who was originally rejected as a boy, only to be accepted in drag the day after. Two of the judges didn't even recognize who she was.

On that point: if the performers have discovered remarkably quickly how to market themselves on camera, the judges are slowly beginning to settle into their proscribed roles, too. Ian Dickson still lacks the requisite callous detachment of a Simon Cowell, and in the outright-wanker stakes he's often upstaged by ex-pop-star Mark Holden, for whom melodramatic outbursts seem par for the course. Maybe Holden's a little bitter that none of the adolescent-to-young adult contestants actually know who he is? Marcia Hines has eased into the role assigned to her the best. There was less tough love on her part last night, and more of the comforting, if slightly condescending mother-figure who eagerly wants her children to be successful. At times she appears to be channelling Susan Sarandon. They both have the same matronizing, New-Age vibe. Now if Mark Holden could just work on his Barry Bostowick, straight-jawed good-guy persona, and Ian Dickson tried to impersonate Tim Curry rather than Simon Cowell, we might just have a show -- a Rocky Horror Show.

Chasing Lesbians

Chasing Lesbians

Oh dear. The Ben Affleck-J.Lo romantic comedy, Gigli, looks set to bomb after generating unanimously awful reviews in the US. Why is Ben attracted to film projects in which his characters become attracted to lesbians? This plot first occurred in his breakout inde movie, Chasing Amy, and now it rears its ugly head again. And speaking of head, the scene in which J.Lo, lying in bed with Ben, declares "It's turkey time...gobble, gobble" has already become infamous.

Presumably, it's the women playing opposite -- or, in this case, on top of -- Affleck that compel him to sign up to these sorts of movies. The storyline itself may also hold some fascination for him. The stunning, yet unattainable woman: this is the irreducible fantasy of many men, and who better to play the lead female character in a film premised on this fantasy than J.Lo, an actress whose moniker, as some wags have pointed out, bears an unfortunate resemblance to both the word 'jello' and the term 'j/o', which is internet shorthand (so to speak) for masturbation.

Long before Gigli, J.Lo had already appeared in movies that riff on the theme of the unpossessable sex object. In Out of Sight, we see George Clooney, a criminal on the run, taking a bath, with J.Lo's police officer going down on him. At first, we're led to assume that Clooney is fantasizing about J.Lo, only to realize moments later that she's the one who's dreaming about this experience.

Unfortunately, there's no such cleverness in Gigli.

What are we meant to make of the film's title, which brings to mind not only 'J.Lo' (ooh, how sophisticatedly -- and marketably -- self-reflexive) but also 'gigalo'? Are we to conclude that Ben is successor to the original American Gigalo, Richard Gere? If that's the case, is J.Lo the Officer to Affleck's Gentleman?). A.O. Scott of The New York Times points out the title's similarity to the words 'jiggly' and 'silly'; we could also add 'jiggy' and 'jelly'. The apparently unlimited semiosis of the film's title is almost certainly more fun than the film itself.

I'm thinking of changing my name, pace J.Lo, to A.Pho, which sounds uncannily like the Vietnamese word for rice noodle, pho. Chasing A.Pho: coming soon to a theatre near you.

Christian Monzon

Christian Monzon

I've mentioned him in passing so many times recently, that I've decided he needs a post of his own. He's done work for H&M, Dolce & Gabbana (for which he appeared in blistering photos of him in tighty whities), Sean John, Fubu, and Nautica; he can also be found in ads for Apple (yep, he's apparently a Mac user). He's a some time actor, having starred in the video clip of Pink's 'There You Go' and an episode earlier this year of Law & Order:SVU. So without further ado, behold, Christian Monzon. Ecce, homo(sexual's delight)!

(Click on the picture of Christian to see the rest of the image. With thanks to Keith for engineering this.)