Zac Ephron’s Musty Jock Strap
I find this one amusing because I once wrote a book with a musty jock strap scene in it just for pure humor. Of course there was a story, but I do that sometimes with books that have sex scenes. And you have to remember that I had been writing gay fiction for gay men for a very long time at that time, so I thought I knew what I was doing…because I’m a gay man and I know gay culture. Did I ever learn a lesson when some woman slammed it on All Romance E-books. She thought the jock strap was disgusting. She didn’t get the camp or the point. And maybe it is disgusting to some women. That I honestly don’t know. But not to most gay men I know. I found her comment homophobic because she was essentially attacking gay culture in a passive aggressive way.
In any event, here’s what’s up with Zac Efron’s musty jock strap. If you don’t like things like this, feel free to pass on it.
But then we casually drop the bomb on you: Amid the odds and bobs–that horse mask worn by Jason Mantzoukas (zzz); Robert De Niro’s entire collection of Hawaiian shirts (block user)–practically everything Zac Efron wore in the film is up for sale, including that “stunt hornet” jockstrap.
Gay Sex Won’t Make You Happy
Here’s one about a study that was done to see whether or not a lot of love making makes gay men happier…or not.
“Contrary to what one would expect if the causal story running from sexual frequency to happiness were true,” the team wrote in their paper, “we observed a weak negative impact of inducing people to have more sex on mood.”
In general, the researchers found that the couples who doubled the amount of sex didn’t enjoy the sex as much and were less happy overall. Although the team can only speculate as to why this was, they did answer their question: More sex does not make us happier.
You can read more here. I’m not so sure about this one. It’s a confusing article and if you read the comments you’ll see what I mean. One comment said:
The study actually focused on increasing sex frequency among couples, but the article opened with a scenario in which a guy had sex with multiple different partners and seemed to imply they are essentially the same. I would argue that they aren’t the same.
I thought the very same thing. And I really wonder what’s going to become of gay presses if they keep this sort of thing up.
Peter Thiel and Gawker Spin Story
Before I even start, I’m going to remain objective with this story from now on. I’m not adding my own spin or my thoughts. And I’m going to do my best to balance the opinions and information. The only thing I will say is that I fully support all free speech, however, with free speech there are always consequences.
Please keep in mind that even though I’m trying to be objective, this particular article is far from it.
The operating assumption is that Thiel hates Gawker for calling him out in 2007 for living in a glass closet and that fellow Facebook billionaire Sean Parker talked him into doing something about it. Whatever the reason, vendetta is the only way to describe Thiel’s $10 million investment in Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker.
There really is a lot more to read in between the lines. And again, I want to remain objective. But I think some of the comments provide a good argument for the other side this time, and the people who left these comments sound as if they are passionate about them.
The point about public good makes no sense. Anyone is allowed to pursue the cause of their choice, so long as it is in alignment with the law. I would argue that aiding someone who was wronged (not just in my eyes but in the eyes of the law) to mount a legal challenge they would otherwise not be able to fund, is in the public good.
And there are many more comments.
