Dinner Friday?
Jan. 18th, 2007 09:02 amAre there plans for getting together with ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
bitterlawngnome on Friday evening in NYC?
bitterlawngnome on Friday evening in NYC?Jan. 18th, 2007
All this stuff about _A Bear's Life_ is not so much irritating me as it is making me do some serious eye-rolling.
What about taking a more generous view that there are guys who like to read this stuff about health and recipes and places to travel but notice that in all the magazines where they find it there is *no* *one* who looks like them - and all this magazine does is take the same stuff and just puts it in a fat furry package?
It really could be that simple, and not require a lot of analysis about what bears really are and what sorts of lifestyle they have and if it's "masculine" and what "masculine" means and who is trying to force who to fit into a particular mold. As though the mere existence of this particular magazine was going to cause the appearance of a BEAR LIFESTYLE ENFORCEMENT SQUAD that will shave the hair off of non-conforming gay men who want to be in with the in-crowd but then define an in-crowd that doesn't include them so the in-crowd is exclusive and that's not why THEY STARTED THE BEAR MOVEMENT.
Why is the only relevant bear stuff that which relates to sex? Why is the hypocrisy of defining what is legitimate bear lit vs illegitimate bear lit based on a projection that a magazine is defining what is legitimate and what is not NOT gob-stoppingly apparent?
If you don't enjoy reading it, then don't read it. Leave it on the shelf next to _Genre_ and _Bride_ and _Highlights for Children_. Just like the people who complain about the "bear community" (::sound of bogus-concept-induced-retching heard here::) because whatever local "bear" stuff there is doesn't meet their needs or get them laid or instantly welcome them, it's boring boring BO-RING to whine about it.
And anyone who carries around an annotated copy of the magazine trying to force others to conform is already someone no one talks to.
What about taking a more generous view that there are guys who like to read this stuff about health and recipes and places to travel but notice that in all the magazines where they find it there is *no* *one* who looks like them - and all this magazine does is take the same stuff and just puts it in a fat furry package?
It really could be that simple, and not require a lot of analysis about what bears really are and what sorts of lifestyle they have and if it's "masculine" and what "masculine" means and who is trying to force who to fit into a particular mold. As though the mere existence of this particular magazine was going to cause the appearance of a BEAR LIFESTYLE ENFORCEMENT SQUAD that will shave the hair off of non-conforming gay men who want to be in with the in-crowd but then define an in-crowd that doesn't include them so the in-crowd is exclusive and that's not why THEY STARTED THE BEAR MOVEMENT.
Why is the only relevant bear stuff that which relates to sex? Why is the hypocrisy of defining what is legitimate bear lit vs illegitimate bear lit based on a projection that a magazine is defining what is legitimate and what is not NOT gob-stoppingly apparent?
If you don't enjoy reading it, then don't read it. Leave it on the shelf next to _Genre_ and _Bride_ and _Highlights for Children_. Just like the people who complain about the "bear community" (::sound of bogus-concept-induced-retching heard here::) because whatever local "bear" stuff there is doesn't meet their needs or get them laid or instantly welcome them, it's boring boring BO-RING to whine about it.
And anyone who carries around an annotated copy of the magazine trying to force others to conform is already someone no one talks to.
I can't be post-bear
Jan. 18th, 2007 05:33 pmBecause my most recent claim to notoriety was appearing in a "bear" calendar.
If I leave that behind, what do I have left?
Oh, right. My life :)
If I leave that behind, what do I have left?
Oh, right. My life :)