The Ryan Thomas Collection

This past Wednesday, Cyndi Lauper and Lady Gaga hit the morning show circuit through New York City to promote MAC’s VIVA GLAM lipstick. Visiting Good Morning America and The Today Show – 4th Hour, this dynamic duo brought the topic of safe sex,as well as HIV prevention and awareness, to morning television. As spokespeople for VIVA GLAM, these two pop stars are pushing to promote the $14 tube of lipstick that benefits MAC’s AIDS FUND for fighting HIV/AIDS, with all dollars of each sale going to the foundation – specifically towards their women’s initiative.

-

This duo could not be a better fit for the VIVA GLAM initiative, and all those involved in the upstart of this promotion are clever producers in this natural combination. Lady Gaga is like a Cyndi Lauper of the 2000s. Everyone keeps posing the question of whether Lady Gaga is the next Madonna, but I think there may be better odds that she will be more like Cyndi Lauper. The two share similar styles, personalities and talents. Like the interviewers of morning talk, I digress from the topic at hand. Lady Gaga and Cyndi were both very skilled in their ability to pull the conversations away from pop talk and back to the important issue of safe sex and women. The two women were partnered, in part, due to statistics that the rate of new HIV infection rates are jumping for women ages 17-24 and 39-60 at a staggering pace. These two musical artists fit into one of these groups and are asking women to buy this lipstick for themselves and to give it to their sisters, mothers, friends, etc and remind them to protect themselves when having sex.

-

A key issue at hand is the need for women to get the men they engage in sex with to utilize condoms. Lady Gaga and Cyndi want to empower women to not only be prepared, but to force their male partners to “wrap it up.” Men will make a lot of excuses not to use a condom and women need to recognize the power they have in a sexual relationship to enforce a rule of condom protection. The situation is no time to be submissive to the desires of a man. It comes down to sheer safety. These two women make it clear that HIV/AIDS is not a gay disease and women have to protect themselves against HIV. They had candid conversations with their interviewers about this topic. They were pushing for the hard sale of their lipstick and rightfully so. More importantly, they did not skirt around the idea of safe sex and condom use, despite the morning time slot of their discussion.

-

As a young gay man, HIV/AIDS is one of those topics that tend to be  automatically associated with this sexual orientation, a leftover from the 1980s. My gay generation has been less directly effected by the epidemic, and statistics show a rise in new infections amongst gay males in their 20s. Researchers believe this may be due, in part, to the fact that younger generations who not only escaped witnessing the devastation of the epidemic in the 80s, also see HIV positive individuals living productive and healthy lives on medications. Seemingly, HIV appears to be treatable to many. I have heard one to many stories about my gay male friends having too much trust in their partners and risking infection. However, our gay community is constantly bombarded with information on HIV, as well as with free condoms and HIV testing. What I find more scary are the stories I have heard from my straight girlfriends over the years.

-

It seems a benefit of the gay man – straight girl relationship is the liberty girls tend to feel in expressing and discussing their sexual escapades with their gay best friend. The idea here is that gay men are probably less likely to judge promiscuous behavior and cast the girl as immoral, and shall we say, “slut.” With this in mind, I have had the privilege of providing an ear to many of my girlfriends and a safe place for them to divulge their dark and dirty sexual encounters.  After providing this service for years and years now, I am constantly shocked at the lack of safe sex practices these women have employed. It is scary and it is shameful that our patriarchal society has yet to truly attack this dilemma head on. I have found that the core fear of these women is that of getting pregnant (and even this fear is subdued with the availability of Plan B). Consistently, I have heard my girlfriends tell me that they are on birth control, so everything is okay. The thought that they could catch any STD, let alone HIV, does not cross their mind because they are so focused on not creating a baby. Well ladies, birth control only prevents you from getting pregnant and if a male ejaculates inside you, you are putting yourself at risk for a plethora of STDs, including HIV. HIV is not a gay disease and your birth control does nothing to fight it, and while we are at it, “pulling out” does not prevent the spread of HIV, as the disease lives in pre-ejaculatory fluid (to use more scientific terminology).

-

Watching Lady Gaga and Cyndi Lauper talk about this issue made me extremely happy, because I felt like I was the only one telling the girlfriends in my life that they have to be more consistent and diligent in their condom use. Yes, it is also the responsibility of the male, but his chances of catching HIV are far less than a women’s when not using protection. Both parties need to be involved in the safety of their actions, but women need to enforce a condom rule. Safe sex is not just birth control.

-

I have made it a point to ask each girl about their condom use when they divulge their sexual escapades to me, and I encourage all the gay men out there, as well as all the mothers, all the sisters and all the girlfriends to make it part of the storytelling and apart of the conversation before and after the stories are told. As society becomes arguably more and more sexually liberated, it is pivotal that these conversations happen. Buy a tube of MAC VIVA GLAM lipstick for you. Buy one for a woman in your life and like Lady Gaga and Cyndi Lauper say in the clip below, hand it to them and tellthem you care about them, want them to be safe and to use a condom.

-

I am getting off my soap box now, but you should continue scrolling and watch the clip below.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Last week, Pope Benedict fired up the world with irresponsible comments about the use of condoms and the fight against HIV/AIDS. Protests sparked in France and now Facebook users are joining in, utilizing the networking/social site to organize action against the Pope for his continued stance that condoms do not help combat the spread of HIV/AIDS. Facebook users have pledged to send millions of condoms to the Pope to make their point clear. National governments of France, Germany and Belgium, as well as the UN, have spoken out against the Pope’s insistence that the distribution of condoms increases the spread of the virus, rather than fighting it.

 

The Vatican joins in the sex talk all too often. Decades, or rather centuries, of continued reliance on antiquated ideas of sexuality and sexual behavior have led to the spread of multiple STDs and unplanned pregnancies. It is extremely difficult to understand why the Vatican continues to insist on joining discussions on sexually related issues, when their track record proves their ancient ideas are flawed.

The Vatican is comprised of celibate men. Where does the audacity to dictate sexual behavior arise from when they have neither participated in the act, nor employed the opinions and ideas of women into their highest ranks? The patriarchal institution needs to step out of sexual morality and safety, and stick to topics where they can be more trusted. They are in no place to be an authority on decreasing the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa or anywhere else in the world. Statistics actually prove the Pope wrong in his stance against condoms, and reliance on abstinence.

President Bush and the Pope have something in common. The two figureheads rely on the idea of abstinence as means of fighting the transmission of STDs, in addition to preventing unwanted pregnancies. President Bush’s “ABC” program enforced ideas of abstinence first, condoms last in youth sex education. Recent statistics show an increase of teenage pregnancies. Correlation? Most likely. It is time the Pope gets out of the bedrooms of global citizens and stops dictating when we should have sex, who we should have sex with and what we should use when we have it.

The time has come for the Vatican to step into the 21st century and realize that people have sex. They have sex out of wedlock. They have sex with the same sex. They have sex with birth control. The insistence of maintaining 19th century ideals on sex is only making the Church more out of reach for global citizens. If the Pope and his Vatican minions would stick to ideas of peace and love, they could do far more good in the world than their current actions of ostracizing groups of people in the sexual arena.

In conclusion, when we are sick, we get medical advice from doctors. When we have a broken car, we take it to a mechanic. When we need sexuality advice, do we really trust the word of a patriarchal institution of abstinent men? Pope Benedict, and the Vatican alike, stay out of our bedrooms and leave the fight against the spread of HIV/AIDS to those more qualified.

Popularity: 100% [?]

It what sounds like a publicity stunt, the Polarland Zoo in China wed their two gay penguins to honor their superb parenting skills of an abandoned egg. The two gay penguins were reported a few months back because they continued to steal eggs from their heterosexual counterparts to nest. Seeing this, the keepers decided to give the gay penguin couple a serrogate egg that had been rejected by a mother. Watching the couple, keepers found that the two were superb parents, exceeding many of the heterosexual penguins’ skills. To reward their efforts, the keepers decided to wed the gay penguin couple in a traditional Chinese wedding. The keepers decided which penguin would dress like a groom and which would dress more like a bride, so they haven’t quite come to terms to with same-sex marriage. On the other hand, one can only imagine what proponents of Prop 8 may do with a story like this. Envision it now, “If you let same-sex marriages be recognized by the state, what’s next penguin marriage?” Come on… you know they are capable of it!

Popularity: 15% [?]

In his annual end of year address, Pope Benedict XVI stated that the “gay threat” is as large a threat to the world as the destruction of the rainforest. Yes, according to the leader of the Roman Catholic church, saving the environment is just as important as saving humanity from the gays, or as he puts it “self destruction” of the human race. Pope Benedict told head leaders of the church, “If tropical forests deserve our protection, humankind… deserves it no less.” The Pope continued that humanity needs “an ecology of the human being.”

This end of year speech is the Pope’s way of wishing the world a merry Christmas, whilst announcing issues he finds most vital of the time.  Although the Catholic church does not condemn homosexuals, they do condemn homosexual acts and same sex marriage. The gay community breaks from traditional ideas of man and woman, and this is what Pope Benedict fears will break “God’s creation” and destroy mankind.

Pope Benedict seems to be blind to women’s rights and equality, as there has been a strong correlation between women’s equal rights to opportunity in education and the workforce with lower birth rates in the West. Apparently, this is no threat to the life of humanity. However, for the Pope to go after the “gay threat,” as he calls it, at a time when same sex marriage gains popularity, shows that the Catholic Church is deathly afraid of equality amongst all people.

In a time when the Catholic Church is finding less and less support in a more secular Europe, and finding traditionally Catholic nations legalizing same sex marriage (ie Spain), the Pope is trying to appeal to its core members in an effort to get a strong reaction. Okay, Hitler! You’ve got your scapegoat!

Popularity: 18% [?]

The battle for LGBT equality continues its success in California as a rising tide seems to be carrying positive change and crashing upon the status quo. As the nation continues its downward slope economically, politically and socially, a result of the archaic handling at the federal level, Californians continue to fight for progress in a nation that has shyed away from it in the past eight years.

Today’s success for equality comes again from California’s State Supreme Court. As the fight to maintain GLBT marriage continues on the streets, a lesbian couple denied access to a fertility clinic in San Diego County won their anti-discrimination case in an uniamous court decision.

Doctors at the North Coast Women’s Care, in Vista, California, refused to proceed with insemination for Guadalupe Benitez because their Christian beliefs prohibited the action. Benitez and her partner of 18 years were then referred to an alternate facility. The doctors stated they would also refuse to perform the procedure on any unwed couple because of their religious faith. Apparently, these doctors have decided that they are not only medical professionals, but guardians of modern morality. With their M.D. title, the hand of their Christian god granted them permission to pass judgement on who and who should not have a child; particularly basing it on sexual orientation. It sounds quite reminiscent of similar arguments used against equal marriage.

California, with some of the most strict discrimination laws in the nation, already has anti-discrimination laws in place that prevent businesses, including medical facilities, from refusing service to an individual based on sexual orientation. Today’s court ruling further strengthens these laws by ensuring that one’s religious beliefs do not justify discrimination in businesses, including medicine. A very slipperly slope could emerge should medical professionals have been granted the right to place their moral values on a patient’s inherent background when providing care.

Today’s court ruling does allow physicians the right to refuse procedures that are against personal religious beliefs, ie abortions. However, such a decision must be consistent amongst all patients and not based on a patient’s sexual orientation. The ruling also provides an alternative opening for religious protection, allowing one doctor of a practice to refer a patient to another doctor, within the same practice, to perform a procedure, should they feel religious beliefs prevent them from acting. The facility in this court case did not provide such an option.

One of the more amusing arguments to arise, and subsequently be shot down,  consists of the doctors use of freedom of speech to justify their actions and in turn, their inability to refuse service had violated this right. The judges responded simply by stating that these doctors still maintained their right to speak against the anti-discriminatory laws, but still must comply.

2008 continues to be the year of change and forward thinking. As the United States begins to see other nations in the world surpassing it, whether it be economically, politically or militarily, the time for change has been realized. A nation that holds too strongly to tradition, finding itself incapable of progressive growth, is doomed to fall.

As the nation attempts to spread democracy and freedom in the Middle East, it is vital to show those abroad that American democracy, liberty and equality is again thriving and looking towards the future. For how does one country convince another to provide women equal rights, when it casts out portions of its own society? This problem arose during the Cold War and helped fuel equal rights movements in the late 50s/early 60s when America tried to convince nations to choose democracy over communism, and yet segregated and discriminated against African Americans. It should be this same situation today that pushes modern American society to fight harder in its quest for a liberated and equal society. It gained one more step in today’s court case and hopefully, will continue through the November’s elections.

Court Case: North Cost Women’s Care Medical Group vs. Superior Court, S142892

(Photos provided by The Ryan Thomas Collection. All rights reserved.)

Popularity: 10% [?]

Today marks Madonna’s 50th birthday. Like a stereotypical gay male, I am a self proclaimed Madonna fanatic. Therefore, today is a celebratory day for me. Idolizing the pop star for longer than I can remember, the artist has impacted the lives of many whether it be through a great time on the dancefloor or through self realization and acceptance.

I had made the switch from cassette to the Compact Disc when I was ten years old and it just so happened to be a Madonna CD. The year was 1993 and Madonna released “Rain” from her Erotica album. I had seen the video and fell in love. Due to the risque content of the Erotica album, my mother wouldn’t allow me to purchase it, so I went to the Immaculate Collection. This was the beginning of something great! It was at this time that I had started exploring my own sexuality. Puberty had set in and as a result my body started changing and my sexual identity began taking form.

Madonna is unarguably the sexual liberator of the late 20th century. In the 80s, she brought about imagery of a woman who was a serious businessperson, and also a feminine, sexual being. Intermixing these two images, in essence, allowed others in this generation to own their sexuality and also break free from the restrictions placed by it. Intelligence and determination could go hand in hand with blatant feminine sexuality, and with that modern feminity continued to remold into something new. With Madonna’s Erotica album, she further explored and then presented to the public the darker side of sexual fantasy. Following this album, she released “Human Nature” from the Bedtime Stories album, professing an unapologetic attitude for her prior release.

This sexual exploration and presentation lined up with my personal sexual exploration, as I tried to make sense of my deviating sexual ideas and feelings towards the same sex. I had never been a “normal” boy and I had never fulfilled all the gender roles placed onto my sex by society, as I played with Barbies and refused to throw a football. As my sexual feelings aligned with my gender practice, looking to Madonna seems rather normal. A famous, successful and highly talented woman broke gender roles, while playing into them. She explored less than popular ideas about sex and did so unapologetically. She also presented images of gay men in various videos and concert performances. Many of these images were the first images of homosexuality that I experienced. Seeing this combination of imagery became highly influential in my process of self acceptance. As I began to realize I may not be normal, I was shown that I certainly was not the only one exploring and coming to terms with sexual ideas that deviated from mainstream society.

Learning that Madonna had gone to New York City with a mere $35 in her early twenties and then built herself into a world icon provided a sense of empowerment for me. She was a living example of national ideology surrounding the American Dream. I had always known and felt that America was the place where hard work and personal drive would allow anyone to achieve success, despite any hardships that life presented. Madonna was the embodiment of this. As a naive 14 year old, I thought to myself, if she could do that, then no matter what the future held, I would be able to handle it and work hard through it. This is essentially what pushed me to leave the closet and begin the coming out process.

As the internal debate and struggle raged in my mind about coming out as gay, my body filled with fear and anxiety. What would happen? What would my parents say? Where would I go and where may I be forced to go? I created various scenarios and results that may have occurred by coming out to my parents. Scenarios varied from status quo to images I had seen of young teenagers being thrown from their home. I had to be prepared for either end of the spectrum and thus, I schemed and planned.

What would I do as a 14 year old freshman in high school, thrown out of my home and onto the streets? It was a possiblity and one that had to be planned for. Fear encapsulated my body by the thought, but I could not be a liar and knew the inevitability of my coming out. I had to kick that closet door open. I would need some cash and determination. I had money entitled to me through some Federal Savings Bonds I had received from birthdays and Christmas. I told myself that was all I would need. I knew that money would pay for rent somewhere and I would have to find a job, day and night, work my butt off, get a GED, and I would rise above. If Madonna could do it, I knew I could. Again, the naivity of a 14 year old.  

Fortunately, my coming out to my parents did not result in being kicked to the streets, forced to fight my way to the top. However, I was fully prepared for such and Madonna’s story helped give me the confidence I needed in myself to make the decision to begin coming out. She gave me faith in myself. She made me feel that “normal” was boring and unimportant. I didn’t need to be normal to be successful, I only needed to own my abnormal feelings and be unapologetic for them. People idolize various pop celebrities for differing reasons, but my affection for Madonna goes deeper than the sheer enjoyment and fun her musical material provides.

As a young gay male, her ideas about sexuality and gender sincerely helped me come to terms with my own. I knew I was different, and she helped me feel that it was okay. Her American Dream story was a modern tale that made me believe that anything was possible. On her 50th birthday, and my ten year anniversary of coming out of the closet, I respectively wish H.R.M., Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone Ritchie, a happy birthday and the utmost gratitude for inspiring me as young homo to believe in and accept myself.

When or how has Madonna or another pop artist influenced your life? Leave a comment and confess!

To see some great pictures and descriptions of Madonna’s 25 years in the biz, check out http://www.theStreetsofSanFrancisco.blogspot.com.

Popularity: 7% [?]

Sitting comfortably at the top of pop music charts for over four weeks, Katy Perry’s single “I Kissed a Girl” from her debut album “One of the Boys.” Standing in a club, the track comes on and is consumed with ease. The lyrics about a girl freely exploring her sexuality by kissing another girl one drunken night, “just to try it.” Its stance at the top of the charts displays its wide appeal. Its catchy pop-rock beat and uncomplicated lyrics make it the quintessential summer song. More importantly, Perry’s single, in addition to her other released song/video, “Ur So Gay,” perpetuate the patriarchal hegemony that continues to prosper in the modern world, despite continued efforts against it.

On the surface, the song lyrics, accompanied by its rock beat, appear to be liberating and progressive. A woman owning her sexuality and freely exploring, despite having a boyfriend. A woman kissing another and proclaiming, “I don’t even know your name, it doesn’t matter.” The prudish ways of her post-WWII ancestors clouded over by the taste of another woman’s “cherry chap-stick.” The imagery Perry provides through these lyrics plays directly into the continued obsession of heterosexual men with lesbian interaction. Most importantly, based on Perry’s visual appearance, it plays on the unrealistic portrayal of two overly-attractive, hypersexualized and seemingly heterosexual women interacting intimately. This imagery is idealized and in direct contrast to more realistic imagery of actual lesbian communities seen through material produced within the lesbian community.

It is hard to imagine that a song depicting one male exploring his sexuality and kissing another male would get the same approval by leaders of the music industry, and consumers at that. The double standard here is a reminder of the progressive work that needs to be continued. It is also a reminder of the discomfort imagery of two men kissing still creates on a general public level within American.

Katy Perry perpetuates this double standard between the sexes and sexuality within the context of a second track on her freshman album, “UR so Gay.” Perry sings about a former boyfriend whose description sounds like that of an “emo.” The chorus breaks into the repetition of, “Your so gay and you don’t even like boys.” For the record, the ex-boyfriend is described with the following attributes:

* “Jacking off to Mozart”
* “You don’t eat meat”
* “And drive electric cars”
* “You walk around like you’re so debonair.”
* “You’re so skinny you should really Super Size the deal”
* “I can’t believe I fell in love with someone that wears more makeup than [me]”

The title and chorus of this song stereotypes these traits into a “homosexual” category. Furthermore, its tone implies that these are negative attributes to possess should one be a heterosexual male. It may be true that because this song is about an “ex,” this is simple anger about the male figure overall. Nonetheless, it plays into the ideas of heteronormative social constructs. Not only does this song comply with stereotypes for what heterosexual men should be, it pushes homosexual men into its continued stereotypes.

It is appropriate that Katy Perry’s album is titled, “One of the Boys.” She pushes straight patriarchal ideals of what it means to be a “man” onto listeners, whilst also feeding into the fantasy of the hegemonic power of the heterosexual patriarchy. There is nothing progressive or liberating about these two singles. Katy Perry pushes everyone into their required corners of identity and social constructs. Like her album art and music videos, she is simply a doll that the music industry is using to push record sales by playing into the familiar. There is nothing new or exciting about this #1 single. There is nothing tongue in cheek about it, either.

Some may say that it is a catchy pop song, and therefore is nothing to take seriously. It is simply a fun song. It is important to remember that the most popular elements of society, though devalued by their “pop culture” status, are vivid reflections of where society is and where it is going. Yes, these songs are catchy and can be fun on a night out, and typically that is the only purpose they serve. However, it still holds the power to perpetuate ideals that may not be in the best interest of the society in which it is consumed.

(Photo from KatyPerry.com)

Popularity: 6% [?]

Lesbian – homosexual woman or a resident from the Greek island of Lesbos.

This will continue to remain true as an Athens court has ruled against a ban of referring to homosexual women as lesbians, a term also used to refer to residents of the island. The Greek court ruled that there was no substantial evidence that this double use of the word justified their contention; adding that it the word does not define their identity.

Most Greeks refer to the island after its capital, Mytilene. However, the plaintiff stated in court that worldwide use of “lesbian” as a sexual term violated the human rights of the residents within Lesbos and was a disgrace to them. The court disagreed and in turn charged the plaintiff 230 euros for court fees.

The gays win again!

Popularity: 6% [?]

In a few days time, Americans will celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence that instilled the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness on a new nation. These are innate rights that each citizen carries day in and day out. These are the rights at very heart of San Francisco’s LGBT Pride celebration over the weekend past.

 With almost a million people flocking to celebrate diversity, equality and freedom, SF Pride 2008 sported its largest crowd since its onset 38 years ago. The event is an important and vital part in maintaining a strong sense of community. Some may contend that some of the visuals depicted hurt the fight for equal rights, as extravagant costumes and less than mainstream ideas are brought before the public. However, this imagery reminds us that Pride is also a celebration of where the movement has come and where the movement is going.

The festive atmosphere intermixes with the serious issues to be had and reminds us that diversity is a part of life that must be celebrated. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are represented in the rich costumes and less than mainstream depictions of people shown. It is important to celebrate the idea that, like the hegemonic powers in society, the LGBT community consists of a plethora of personalities.

Pride celebrations are a major part of the movement for equality and a yearly reminder of the continued battle the LGBT community has in this country. As the mission statement of the SF Pride Committee states, Pride is to “educate the World, comemorate our heritage, celebrate our culture, and liberate our people.”

Upcoming Pride celebrations around the world:

http://www.gaycityusa.com/pride.htm

 (Photos provided by The Ryan Thomas Collection. All rights reserved.)

Popularity: 6% [?]

Last week, Heinz released a commercial in the UK for their new Heinz Deli Mayonnaise. The commercial features a family, with a New Yorker deli man making sandwiches for kids. The conclusion of commercial has two men kissing. After receiving over 200 complaints, Heinz decided to pull the commercial.

Heinz’s official release stated that the commercial was supposed to be funny and suggest that their new Deli Mayo is so good, “It’s as if you have your own New York deli man in your kitchen.” The kids address the sandwich maker as “mum” and therefore, the audience is supposed to assume that this is actually a woman, and therefore the kiss is not actually gay. It is the idea that the mayo is so good it helps “mom” make a great sandwich.

Complaints received generally suggested that the commercial was inappropriate for children and forced parents to explain homosexuality. Some gay activist groups are calling for a boycott because of Heinz’s reaction to remove the ad from the air.

Overall, the commercial may have a kiss between two men, but it is hardly a “gay” kiss. With the kids referring to the second male adult as “mum,” if this were a gay kiss, it could be offensive to gays. It would essentially suggest that one partner is a “woman.” Additionally, if the commercial is supposed to be funny, it once against subjects gays to being the butt of the joke. Two men kissing is not funny.

Whether one decides to boycott Heinz based on their creation or pulling of this commercial is in the consumer’s hands.  However, this commercial is a lose-lose for Heinz, either way you look at it.

Popularity: 6% [?]