RSS Feed

‘Films’ Category

  1. Where are the Gays in Hogwarts?

    July 20, 2011 by admin

    Voldemort rocks the androgynous post-apocalyptic look with shaved head, long fingernails and floor-length boiled wool cape. Signature detail: lack of nose.

    Tilda Swinton comes from the same planet.

    Where I live in the Middle East, Friday brunch is an institution, especially among the ex-pat community.  Most of the luxury hotels offer a gluttonous buffet with unlimited sparkling wine.  The price tag is high, but then you get to over-eat and over-drink yourself silly, so no one complains.                  

    Over the weekend, I ended up at the 40th birthday brunch of a man I’d never met before.  This man, of course, was gay.  In fact, the attendees of this brunch were: 7 gay men, 3 straight couples (one with twin kids), 1 lesbian, and me.  It’s like without even trying, my social life in London has magically replicated itself here in the Middle East!

    Someone asked if I was the lesbian’s girlfriend.  I repeat, my social life in London seems to have magically replicated itself… 


    Homosexuality Litmus Test No. 526: The Harry Potter franchise

    Q: Dear Fag Hag,

    My friend is a grown man who has exhibited no previous interest in fantasy/sci-fi stuff. He is not a father, a father-to-be, a schoolteacher, and does not interact with kids on regular basis. Yet he is somewhat obsessed with the Harry Potter series, has read all the books, and insists on seeing the films on opening weekend.  Is he gay?

    A: YES.

    This is not to say that all gay men like Harry Potter.  I know some who loathe the pop cultural phenomenon  as much as your average pagan-fearing, evangelical Christian.   But chances are, if a grown man is rushing out of his own accord to see the final Harry Potter installment, he’s a fag.  I have yet to meet a grown straight man, disassociated from kids, who will publicly profess his love of the Harry Potter franchise. That’s just too gay.  

    My gay Australian flatmate in London, “Will,” would often engage in unannounced Harry Potter marathons. I would come home to find him watching another adolescent tiff between Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley while some shriveled, elf-like creature whined by their feet.

                    “Which one is this?” I would ask.  “Number Four?”

                    “Number Two,” ‘Will’ would answer.  “Obviously.”

    I myself am not a massive Harry Potter fan, although I appreciate the solid entertainment value of the films.  (I haven’t read the books.)  Over the weekend, I of course, did see the latest and final installment of the films.  Accompanied by two other girls and a gay man.  

                    But this abundant gay love for the Harry Potter franchise got me thinking.  With such a gay fanbase, isn’t ironic that the series offers such little representation of LGBT characters?  In fact, where are the gays in Hogwarts? 

                    The final scene of the film is a particularly hetero-normative portrait of “happily ever after.”  Nineteen years later, we see the main characters have all married their wizard school sweethearts and are sending their own kids off to start their Hogwarts education.  Needless to say, they’re all straight.  And they all look identical to their teenage selves… except now they’re wearing more adult clothes and Ron has learned to shave.   But is this progress?  Wouldn’t it have been nice to see at least one lesbian couple sending off their kid to his/her first day at Hogwarts?   

    J.K. Rowling and Co. obviously make a significant effort to show Hogwarts as a racially diverse place.  Yeah, ok, the lead characters are still white.  But hey, I see some color there in the background – we have black kids, Indian kids, Eastern Europeans, and dude, Harry Potter even had a crush on a Chinese girl.   (Asian fetish, Harry… tsk tsk.)    But aside from ethnic diversity, where’s that other kind of diversity in the wizard world? 

                    Fine, you can argue that the Hogwarts kids are still only teenagers, so no one’s out of the closet yet.  In which case…. Hogwarts should start a glee club, and that would be sure to attract at least one stereotypically flaming student, along with a disturbingly perfect cross-section of the school’s racial diversity.  Including one kid in a wheelchair.   If Severus Snape led the glee club, they’d be sure to win sectionals.

                    Ah. Now.  If you’re a diehard Harry Potter fan or particularly up on your LGBT-portrayals-in-pop-culture, you may be squirming in your seat now, tempted to shout out: “BUT DUMBLEDORE IS GAY!!!!”  It’s true.  Google it.  Ms. Rowling herself confirmed it at a public reading in Carnegie Hall, New York, in October 2007. Albus Dumbledore, Headmaster of Hogwarts, founder of the Order of the Phoenix, greatest wizard of the Order of Merlin, etc etc is a fag.

    That explains the long, lingering looks at Hagrid.  The avuncular grooming of Harry… 

    Dreams of glee club glory....

    Now, that’s all very well and good, but Dumbledore’s sexual orientation was never hinted at in the books or the films, and the fact remains: DUMBLEDORE DIED in a rather spectacular fashion.  The sole gay character in the whole franchise GOT KILLED OFF.  So a nice concession to the LGBT community, to make the most powerful wizard a homosexual, but it’s not a very encouraging message to kids, eh?  

    And as J.K. Rowling has explained, Dumbledore’s back story is a very sad one of unrequited gay love.  He might have been gay, but as Headmaster of the greatest wizard school in the UK, was he ever allowed to act on it?  Heck, he might as well have become a bishop for the Church of England.

                    Anyway, I have to say none of this particularly bothered me while I was watching the film. Instead, I spent most the film preoccupied by Voldemort’s missing nose.  I kept on leaning over to my friend and asking: “What happened to his nose?”  And then “But didn’t he ever have one to start with?” And then “You know, there might be some new procedures which can bring his nose back.”

                    As my friend later informed me, Voldemort lost his nose during a series of experiments to increase his wizardly powers.  Maybe the saga of Voldemort’s missing nose could be seen as a Faustian cautionary tale to yummy mummys looking to invest in the latest plastic surgery.  Or like Michael Jackson, that other androgynous master of magic who kept on reinventing himself.  And eventually died in spectacular fashion.

    Whatever.  It’s a good thing Voldemort never came out here to the Middle East.  Because without a nose, he’d have a lot of trouble wearing sunglasses.  And you know what?  It’s frickin’ bright out here in the desert.

  2. Royal Wedding Fever! Part 2: Why the World Needs a Gay and Out Royal

    May 20, 2011 by admin


    Three weeks after the royal wedding, and the media here in the UK is still desperately trying to keep our attention with updates on Wills & Kate’s honeymoon destination, and more importantly — Pippa Middleton’s bum.  Forget the violent repression of an uprising in Syria, the IMF chief being accused of rape, or the death of Osama bin Laden – Pippa Middleton’s bum trumps all.   Come on, this is important stuff!  We need to know if she wore Spanx or practiced a regimen of daily pilates to achieve that kind of headline-grabbing rear.   Because all women care about, really, is how their ass looks.   And clearly, all straight men care about is how a woman’s ass looks.

    Anyway, gay men naturally have no interest in Pippa Middleton’s bum, which I find refreshing.   They’re more interested in the actual royals, not the in-laws.  When he had more hair, Prince William was a gay icon, Prince Harry likely still is, and of course, their mom Diana commanded a legion of homosexual admirers around the world.  These days, however, gay activists have an interest in Wills and Kate for other reasons.   The day before the royal wedding, the Equal Love Campaign arrived in front of Buckingham Palace with a giant greeting card for William and Kate.  It read:

    Congratulations William & Kate on your Wedding Day. We wish you a happy life together. You can get married, gay people can’t. We are banned by law. We ask you to support marriage equality.

    Not quite Hallmark, and thus far, there has been no response from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.  But I’m not surprised.   After all, I doubt few straight newlyweds have a to-do list that reads like this:

    • Get married
    • Go on honeymoon
    • Legalize gay marriage

    However, we do know William & Kate have gay friends, so wouldn’t it be cool if somewhere in their glittering future as photogenic charitable-cause idols, they decided to adopt the cause of gay marriage?  After all, once the Future King of Britain decides to champion something, who can say no?  Whether we like it or not, the monarchy adds legitimacy — to a country, to a society, or to a humanitarian cause.

    But if we wanted to take things one step further, you know what would really hammer home the rainbow flag in our sociopolitical landscape?  If a gay royal ever decided to come out of the closet.  

     Now, history is full of royals who, according to rumor or verifiable fact, were gay. Prince George, Duke of Kent (reference point:  younger brother of Colin Firth’s character in The King’s Speech) was notoriously bisexual, and reputedly had affairs with Noel Coward and his own cousin Louis Ferdinand, Prince of Prussia.  The Crusader Richard the Lionhearted (reference point:  Anthony Hopkins in The Lion in Winter) apparently got it on with Philip II of France (Timothy Dalton in The Lion in Winter).  Then of course, there’s Edward II King of England (the effeminate lispy prince in Braveheart) whose numerous homosexual affairs so angered his French wife, that she eventually took a lover, left the country, invaded it with an army, and deposed her own husband.  Edward II died in prison, and according to popular legend, was executed for his misdeeds by having a red-hot poker shoved up his anus.   (Let’s face it: Gay Englishman + French wife.  It was never going to end well.)


    Well, times have changed.   These days , if a gay royal were ever treated like that, human rights watch groups would be on top of you like Elton John on David Furnish.  (Or maybe it’s the other way around.)   Prince William’s just married a commoner, and the monarchy has gone from being an antiquated bloodline of rulers by divine right to a PR-polished troupe of patriotically beloved philanthropists.  They’re living symbols, as evidenced by the Queen’s recent visit to Ireland.

    So I think it’s high time a gay royal came out of the closet.   That’d definitely be symbolic.  Not convinced?   Well, I’ve even compiled a list to help you along:

    Top Ten Reasons To Come of Out of the Closet If You’re a Gay Royal

    1)      Guaranteed Status as a Fashion Icon  

    Princess Di was one, Princess Kate is becoming one…. If you’re a gay prince, with your own army of stylists and beauticians at hand, just think of the influence you could wield in the fashion world…

    2)      No Longer Possible to Execute You

    As discussed above in relation to Edward II’s unfortunate death.  In fact, violent homophobes would have their work cut out for them, because you’d have your own security detail

    3)      Opportunity to Meet All Your Gay Icons

    Madonna, Kylie, and Bette Midler would all be thrilled to meet you

    4)      Think of the Groupies

    …Need I say more?

    5)      Embraced by the LGBT Community Around the World

    Be a legend for your fellow gays

    6)      All the Normal Reasons Why You Would Want to Come out of the Closet Anyway

    None of the lies, the deceit, the pretending to be something you’re not, the “yes mum, I just haven’t found the right girl,” etc.  Match your public image with your real identity!

    7)      Really Screw Up the Political Spectrum

    In their fervent support of you, jingoist monarchists would be cheering alongside gay rights activists, and right-wing homophobes would be in the same camp as liberal anti-monarchists.   Heh heh, that’ll really fuck things up….

    8)      Best Gay Wedding. Ever.

    Wills and Kate had at least £20 million to blow.   With that kind of budget, you could probably hire Kylie.

    9)      One Massive Leap Forward for Gay Rights

    Needless to say, if you came out as a royal and campaigned for LGBT rights, it would be very difficult for the public to ignore the issue anymore. 

    10)   Imminent Oscar-winning Biopic About You

    Oh my god, your story has ‘Hollywood treatment’ written all over it.   As explained in my February 27th blog, you will surely be portrayed by some hot straight A-lister who will later be teary-eyed, accepting an Oscar for their performance of you.

    Basically, I don’t see where you can go wrong. If the United States can elect a black president, surely at least Europe is ready for a publicly gay royal.

    In the meantime, Britain seems happy enough with a commoner-turned-princess.   Although the feminist in me is disappointed with Kate Middleton’s lack of career.   Check this: despite graduating from one of Britain’s top universities, the only job she has ever held outside her family’s party supply business was at the high street clothing chain, Jigsaw.  And that was for less than a year.  Dude, whatever happened to Cinderella?  At least she had a good work ethic.  And sang to melodiously to household critters .   Come on, she deserved happily ever after.     Then again, I suppose it looks good enough to put Future Queen of Britain on your CV…. 

    But Kate, you know what would really bulk up your CV?  I’m talking the kind of accomplishment that would override those snide comments about any lack of professional or real-world experience?  If you could manage to write on it: “Helped legalize gay marriage in the UK.”

    Try topping that with your shapely bum, younger sister.

  3. And the Oscar goes to… The Person Playing the Homo: Are Gays the New Retards in the Oscar Acting Stakes?

    February 28, 2011 by admin

    It’s Oscar night, and Hollywood likes few things better than straight A-list actors portraying gay characters. It’s just shows off such versatility, such — such open-mindedness on the part of the acting community! Big ol’ self-congratulatory pat on the back, everyone!
    So this year, the race for Best Actress is all about lesbian roles. Will the Academy give the Best Actress award to Natalie Portman, for playing a beautiful, neurotic, fragile 20-something perfectionist ballerina with repressed lesbian fantasies, or Annette Bening, for her role as a grizzled, perfectionist, possibly alcoholic 40-something lesbian mom and surgeon with control issues? In Black Swan, we got to see Natalie and Mila Kunis make out in a frenzied passionate sex scene between two gorgeous ballerinas. In The Kids are All Right, we got to see Annette Bening and Julianne Moore try to get it on while watching gay male porn, and then fail, and then argue a lot, driving one to have an extramarital affair with a man.
    I’m guessing it’ll go to Natalie Portman. Hollywood will likely choose the lipstick lesbian fantasy over the grizzled reality. Is it shocking that the lipstick lesbian fantasy role was written and directed by a straight male, and the bitter reality lesbian role written and directed by a lesbian woman? Um, not really….

    Still, let’s call that progress of a sort. Twenty-seven years ago, Cher was nominated for her role as Meryl Streep’s lesbian roommate in Silkwood. She didn’t win, but since then, there has been a growing trend for straight actors and actresses to actually WIN the Oscar for portrayals of gay characters. This year, Colin Firth will likely win the Best Actor award for his performance as the stuttering British monarch, King George VI, in The King‘s Speech. George was straight, but the Academy also hasn’t forgotten Colin’s devastating Oscar-nominated performance last year as a gay suicidal English professor (also named George) in A Single Man. The year before THAT, many people thought Mickey Rourke should win the Best Actor award for his performance as a washed-up former wrestling champ in The Wrestler… but instead the award was nabbed by Sean Penn for portraying Harvey Milk, the openly gay and eventually assassinated San Francisco politician.

    And before that, let’s not forget previous Oscar-winning gay roles: Phillip Seymour Hoffman in 2005 for Capote, Hillary Swank in 1999 for Boys Don’t Cry, Tom Hanks in 1993 for Philadelphia….going all the way back to William Hurt in 1985 for Kiss of the Spider Woman. Not to mention the many other gay roles which have earned nominations and other critical acclaim, but not the actual Oscar (Felicity Huffman in Transamerica, anyone?) The 21st century has seen an explosion of Oscar-nominated homosexual roles in mainstream film… all of them played by straight actors, of course.

    So I think we can say: Gay roles are the new retards in the Oscar acting stakes. Dustin Hoffman playing an idiot savant in Rain Man? That’s so old school – you’re better off playing a homosexual if you want an Academy Award these days. Wanna up the stakes?  Try a combo.  As we all know, your chances of winning an Oscar increase if you portray:

    a) An ugly person

    b) A retard

    c) A Nazi, a Nazi sympathizer, a Holocaust survivor, or anyone who had anything to do with the Nazis

    d) A redneck or otherwise poor person with a Southern or Western accent

    e) A member of the British royalty

    f) A gay person!

    I’m not quite sure what it says about Hollywood that homosexuals, British royalty, rednecks, Nazis, ugly people, and retards are all in the same boat in terms of Oscar -worthiness. But try combining any of these categories and the Academy will sit up and notice you. It’s like applying for tax exemptions – the more boxes you can tick, the better.

    For example, Nicole Kidman hit A and F as Virginia Woolf (ugly-ish, bisexual) in The Hours in 2002. She won an Oscar . A year later, Charlize Theron ticked off A, D, and F when she portrayed Aileen Wuornos (ugly, redneck, and lesbian) in Monster. She also won an Oscar. And it almost worked for Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain. (He was D and F – a gay, poor cowboy.) But that year, the Oscar went to Phillip Seymour Hoffman anyway, for Capote.

    Unfortunately, Categories C,D, and E appear to be mutually exclusive — unless someone can dream up a character who is simultaneously a Southern redneck, a Holocaust survivor, and a member of the British royalty. (I‘m sure someone in Hollywood is currently working on it.)

    But how about… an ugly, retarded, lesbian Nazi? Wait a sec, Kate Winslet already won an Oscar for portraying an ugly-ish, illiterate, sexually deviant Nazi sympathizer in The Reader. Close enough, right? After all, you don’t want to run the risk of going full retard. Illiterate Nazi is good enough. Then how about…. An ugly, retarded, secretly gay member of the British royalty? Oscar GOLD written all over it! And screenwriters probably won’t have to look very far to find inspiration in real life…

    Of course, the good thing is that out of all these categories, Annette Bening this year only ticks off E, and Natalie Portman just barely qualifies as E. So maybe Hollywood is learning to appreciate a more subtle approach to gay characters. Or not. You never know with Hollywood.

    Some people might point out that the larger issue is not that these gay roles are being written, but that they are still being played by straight actors. After all, won’t there be a day when the gay roles can be played by (openly) gay actors? Mmm… well, yes, that‘s a nice thought. But unfortunately Hollywood’s A-list actors tend not to be openly gay. And you can blame that on a whole variety of factors, one of which might beg the question: Can an actor make it to the Hollywood A-list if he or she is openly gay? (Jodie Foster came out long after she won her two Oscars.)

    Then there’s the argument that acting is about convincingly portraying something which you are not. So if you’re actually gay and playing a gay character, then you’re not really acting. This is a rather dumb argument. You might as well say that if you’re black and playing a black character, then you’re not really acting. Ah, but if you’re straight and playing a gay character, that’s gotta be more of a challenge than if you’re a gay playing a gay, right? Um….

    My secret, rather silly theory is that the Hollywood establishment is making it difficult for openly gay actors to succeed because otherwise, what kind of juicy roles would be available for straight actors to play and win Oscars for? It’s not politically correct any more to black yourself up and play a different race (although did anyone else notice that the Indian character in The Social Network was played by a white actor?), but thankfully, it is still politically correct to play a different sexual orientation. And therein lies a treasure trove of possible acting Oscars.

    But once we draw the line at sexual orientation, IS NOTHING SACRED?! Then you might as well say that only real rednecks can play rednecks, only real retards can play retards, and only real ugly people can play ugly characters. And Hollywood doesn’t allow real ugly people on screen. If you go further and say that only real members of the British royalty can play members of the British royalty, then you might as well pull up a few chairs in front of a wall and ask the public to watch this lovely white paint dry. There’s a reason people pay to see Colin Firth and Helen Mirren portray British royals – because they’re infinitely more interesting to watch than any real-life members of the House of Windsor.

    It’s the movies, after all. It’s artifice, but it’s meant to be entertaining and touching and hopefully thought-provoking. So at the moment, let’s just say whomever can deliver the best performance, regardless of sexual orientation, is the right actor for the role (and also has the cache to pull in the rest of the finance and get the project green-lit, but never mind that for the time being…) So I’m not sure where this rant got me. You might say it’s a delicate balance. On one hand, yes, I wish the commercial film industry was more encouraging for actors to be openly gay. On the other hand, I really want to see a movie about an ugly gay retarded Nazi who goes into hiding in the Louisiana swamps only to find out he’s an illegitimate relative of British royalty. And somehow, I don’t think we’ll be able to cast an actual gay, retarded, ugly, Nazi, etc actor for that role. We’ll have to settle for a straight, liberal-minded, A-list actor with Oscar aspirations. Damn.




  4. San Francisco: Cat Allergies and Black Swans

    January 17, 2011 by admin


    Over New Years, I was in San Francisco for a week.  I had the choice of staying with a straight couple with cats or a gay couple with a dog.  I opted for the straight cat-owners, who live in the hip-but-affordable area of the city known as “the Mission.”   By the end of trip, I had moved in with the homosexual dog-owners. 

    The truth is, I am horribly allergic to cats.  This in NO WAY MEANS that I, a fag hag, am also allergic to the straight coupled lifestyle.  Although, well, maybe — ahem…. Sorry, what was I saying? 

    But yes, I am genetically pre-dispositioned to sneeze when I am near cats, just as I am genetically predispositioned to HATE CILANTRO because it is EVIL.  (For you Brits, cilantro = coriander.)  And so after three days and nights of watery eyes and non-stop sneezing, I had to move in with a lovely gay couple and their fabulous rescue dog.

    Now on the last day of 2010, I accompanied my cat-owning friend and her boyfriend to one of those fashionable San Francisco boutique bike shops in the Mission, where can you mix and match the various colored parts of your very own made-to-order designer bike.  While they spent the better part of an hour designing a mock-up of a $1300 bike, I wandered into the curious store next door, which prides itself in selling a “nostalgic assortment of Toys and Games inspired by the Natural World and the Pre-digital era.” 

    This strikes me as an odd niche to specialize in.  As honorable as its intentions, I doubt how much a nine-year-old will appreciate his very own nostalgic Victorian wind-up monkey when all his friends are virtual-jetskiing on their Wii systems.  But maybe in San Francisco.

    Curiouser yet was the “vegan taxidermy” on display at the front of the store.  The creator of said vegan taxidermy had somehow used plant materials to build very lifelike models of extinct birds, such as the dodo, the passenger pigeon, etc. Placards explained the sad demise of each species of bird, no doubt providing a poignant commentary on the role we wicked humans play in sealing the fate of other animal species through our wasteful consumption and pollution.

    However, there was one bird species on display which had not yet become extinct.  This was the black swan.   Here I found a rather bizarre placard:

    “An estimated one-quarter of all pairings are homosexual, mostly between males.  They steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs.”

    What?!   When I first saw this, I had to make sure I wasn’t tripping.  (It was San Francisco, after all.)  Initially, I wondered if there was a homophobic subtext to this placard, as if to say: “Watch out for gay couples.  They will try to steal your kids.”   But wait — it was San Francisco, after all.  So more likely the store owner, vegan taxidermist, and clientele would be gay or gay-friendly.

    In which case, these foregrounded details on the black swan lifestyle had a different purpose.   As if to say: “See, look, homosexual behavior occurs in nature too!  And if they could, gay black swan couples would also try to hire a surrogate mother… only they can’t, so they just have threesomes and scare the woman away afterwards.”

    Some scientists believe that the off-spring of homosexual black swan couples survive better than those of heterosexual pairings.  And black swans are only one in hundreds of animal species which demonstrate homosexual behavior.  Others include sheep (easily impressionable), dolphins (see, look, intelligent!), lions (virile!), and of course, our highly-sexed fellow primates, the bonobos (will sleep with anything!).  There are a number of scientific books on homosexual behavior in animals, and one such book was even cited in a legal brief submitted to the US Supreme Court in the Lawrence v. Texas case in 2003, as evidence that homosexuality is not, in fact, “a sin against nature.”  As a result of that case, sodomy laws were eventually struck down in Texas and 13 other states.  So score one for the homosexuals!

    However, anti-gay rights groups often easily turn that argument around and claim that because homosexual behavior occurs in the animal world, this is proof that homosexuality is animalistic, and therefore un-befitting of humans. Score one for the homophobes! 

    Now to take things further, I’ll also mention the current film Black Swan by the indie wunderkind Darren Aronofsky. I’ve seen it, and since this is not a movie column, I’m not going to review it right here.  But there is of course a homosexual undercurrent running throughout the film, culminating in a notorious lesbian make-out scene between rival ballerinas Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis.  (Steady now, straight male readers.)

    Maybe this scene was only there for titillation, a sort of arthouse “Girls Gone Wild” masquerading under Freudian psychodrama.  But in the context of the film, this scene is  Natalie Portman’s repressed fantasy, so deeply has she hidden her (homo)sexual desires in her strict, disciplined lifestyle as a perfectionist ballerina.  According to pervy-but-French ballet master Vincent Cassel, it is these desires which she needs to embrace if she wants to successfully dance the role of the evil seductive Black Swan on stage.

    Black Swan lays on the dualities very thick.  It’s full of doppelgangers, evil twins, mirrors, all that stuff.  White Swan is virginal, timid, innocent Natalie Portman.  Black Swan is sexy, confident, tattooed Mila Kunis (whose character comes from crazy, experimental San Francisco).  By the end of the movie, Natalie Portman’s increasingly psychotic character has sprouted black swan wings and taken metaphorical flight.

    Has she become evil?  Has she become sexual?  Has she become homosexual?  Will she try to steal an egg from a straight couple and raise it as her own perfect little anorexic ballerina?

    I don’t think the film is so reductionist as to claim that Black Swan = evil = homosexual.  This is Aronofsky, not Palin, after all.  But the concept of his Black Swan is about embracing sexuality, and perhaps accepting those instinctive drives which were so drummed out by hours of sadistic ballet training or any kind of disciplined, repressive socialization.  

    In which case we can conclude….homosexual behavior is naturally occurring among classical ballerinas!  And Navy recruits!  But it is, too, among prison inmates!  And dog-owners!

    In fact, it’s everywhere!  Whether you repress it or not!  So the homophobes will just have to learn to live with that. 

    Most San Franciscans these days have learned to live with that.  And realized that homosexuality is perfectly natural.  In fact, as natural as being allergic to cats.   Is it a sin against nature to be allergic to cats, to be genetically pre-dispositioned to sneeze around cats, the way some boys are genetically pre-dispositioned to get hard around other boys?  Of course not. 

    Now, I’ll tell you what’s a sin against nature.  CILANTRO.  That shit is evil.