Survival of the Fabulous

Who am I?  Why am I?  All of us gay guys have pondered those questions intently at some time or other.  Canadian filmmaker Bryce Michael Sage queries the scientists for answers in this snappy, entertaining 2013 documentary, which I somehow missed seeing until just now.  It's well worth watching, even though there is still no single answer, only educated guesses.

P. S. - Of course, a lot of the suggested answers in this film we have already heard about long ago.  But I did get to thinking - is there any tree that produces blooms, but not fruit, in its natural state - that is, untinkered-with by botanists and commercial growers?  I consulted M. P., who in addition to being Chef Supreme is also Head Gardener here, and has the green-thumb gene your Head Trucker missed out on.  He informs me that he knows of two such naturally non-fruit-bearing trees:  dogwoods and redbuds.  

Both of them such beautiful things when in bloom!  Fabulous.  I myself think that there doesn't necessarily have to be a concrete reason for beauty in the world - some things just are what they are, you know?  Not everything beautiful is particularly useful, but then - does it have to be?

The evanescent trace of a shooting star - the golden glow of a full moon rising - the susurration of a gentle rain - the smell of new-mown grass - the warmth of a handclasp - the touch of a lover's lips - the scientists may scribble and scratch until doomsday parsing the nature of such things, but what would be gained?  It is enough that Beauty exists, and gladdens the hearts of men wherever they find it.  

For beauty is one of the things that make us human.  The animals cannot conceive it - the plants do not need it.  No, the ineffable joy of the beautiful belongs to mankind alone: the great gift of the Love that moves the stars.  And that beauty is in us, too - if we nurture it.  Beauty, truth, and goodness - if you want a trinity to adore, that is a fine place to begin.

One more thing - the evolutionary theory about the usefulness of the "gay uncle" is very clever - but note that it is not a proven fact, just a happy thought.  Some of us have no nephews or nieces, you know.

-----

Fabergé: Secret Garden Collection

Oh my, how pretty.

It Can Still Be Done

This may be old news to some of you city boys who keep up with all the latest developments, but your Head Trucker is awed by his discovery today that a new building just went up in New York City that is actually - beautiful.  My God, what a concept.  Here's the pics to prove it:

Ralph Lauren had the new digs put up to house his womenswear collection at 72nd Street and Madison, across from his existing store in the old Rhinelander mansion, which is now going to be exclusively for menswear. Actually, I think the new place has a more masculine look, and it sure is handsome. It's faced with Indiana limestone in Beaux Arts style - done by a New York architectural firm that up till now has been known for glass-and-steel postmodern monstrosities.

I don't care anything about Ralph Lauren's brand-name stuff - I've never seen anything he made that I had the least hankering for. But I sure do like his style of building. Who knew that this kind of construction could even be done anymore? But you see it certainly can - if people want to. They just haven't wanted to for the last sixty years or so, and more's the pity.  Architecture on a human scale, with details lovingly crafted, adds a great deal to the enjoyment of life - unlike the slick, faceless, soulless creations of recent decades that have littered the urban wasteland for far too long now.

But this warms my heart, a work of fine craftsmanship - my hat's off to all the guys who worked so hard and so well on this job, especially the stonemasons and iron workers.  I love it, hope more architects will be inspired to do likewise. More pics of this beauty here and here, check it out.

Sex, Lies, and Catholicism

Excerpt from a Sunday essay on the Pope's sexuality by the devoutly Catholic Andrew Sullivan, under the ironic title "The Pope Is Not Gay":

The choice between this kind of affirmation of spirituality and love and a politics of control and fear was what the church faced under John Paul II, as modernity pressed. . . . The pursuit of control is really a fear of scrutiny and transparency which, when added to the unspeakable crimes of the past, ineluctably led to the current meltdown in the West. The homosexual question is not in any way marginal to this; in fact, you could see it as a central challenge for a church caught between truth and power. . . .

It seems pretty obvious to me - as it does to Angelo Quattrochi, whose book is reviewed by Toibin - that the current Pope is a gay man (just as it was blindingly clear that John Paul II was straight). I am not claiming that Benedict is someone who has explored his sexuality, or has violated his own strictures on the matter. There is absolutely no evidence of that, or of hypocrisy of any sort. But that does not mean that he isn't gay. In fact, Ratzinger's command that gay priests should actively lie about their orientation makes any public statement about this on its face lacking in credibility. But when you look at the Pope's mental architecture (I've read a great deal of his writing over the last two decades) you do see that strong internal repression does make sense of his life and beliefs. At times, it seems to me, his gayness is almost wince-inducing. The prissy fastidiousness, the effeminate voice, the fixation on liturgy and ritual, and the over-the-top clothing accessories are one thing. But what resonates with me the most is a theology that seems crafted from solitary introspection into a perfect, abstract unity of belief. It is so perfect it reflects a life of withdrawal from the world of human relationship, rather than an interaction with it. Of course, this kind of work is not inherently homosexual; but I have known so many repressed gay men who can only live without severe pain in the world if they create a perfect abstraction of what it is, and what their role is in it. Toibin brilliantly explains this syndrome, why the church of old was so often such a siren call for gay men who could not handle their own nature. In Benedict, one sees a near-apotheosis of this type, what Quattrocchi describes as "simply the most repressed, imploded gay in the world." . . .

I would like to return to the world where this kind of speculation was disgraceful, unnecessary and blasphemous. But when this Pope has already enabled the rape of children, has covered up the crimes of many priests, when he has responded by blaming gay men for the moral failings of his own church, when he has publicly demanded that gay Catholics remain in the closet, i.e. lie about themselves as a sacred duty ... then such deference becomes much more difficult.

What I Say:  As a gay man, and an Episcopalian-on-hold, I understand the point Sullivan is making about being attracted to a spirituality supported by liturgy, ritual, and finery; in fact, as I've blogged in the past, I do think that the love of beauty - creating, revealing, sharing it in any of a myriad possible ways - is a defining element of the gay personality, which of course also comes in many shapes and sizes from silly twink to gruff leatherman.  But when you get past whatever the exterior may be, I think you find the same motive animating all of us at heart.

In contrast to our straight brothers, some of whom are very creative indeed and might take great delight in crafting pastries or growing roses - as did one very butch and very straight retired Marine captain I once knew.  Yet my hunch is that for them the beauty motive is a sideline, not the animating principle; seems to me that the heart of an unambiguously straight man is driven to build a metaphorical fort, not a house or a garden, as well as finding the means to knock down the other guy's fort.  In other words, aggression and domination, or to put it differently, the defender and the warrior, two sides of the same coin:  that's what makes them tick and sets their life agenda.

Continued after the jump . . .