Last time we saw Dave Salmoni, I’d asked him to keep y’all company while I flipped from Blogger to WordPress. (Best move ever, BTW.) He’s also been spotted showering with lions, which is no bad thing.
Now video footage of Dave’s Flaunt photoshoot has arisen, in which the avid conservationist and part-time model talks about sexiness and passion and…um, something about elephants, I think.
Sorry, where was I?
[via Towleroad]
Bobby motherfuckin’ Trendy. YES.
I know 13 is not an auspicious number, but sometimes, there’s no getting around it. You have to plow through 13 to get to, say, 21 or 42 or 69 or any of the other numbers that people love to love.
And so, we’ve arrived at number 13. Here’s to another year together, and hoping that number 14 comes quickly.
xo Richard
P.S. I am not getting you lacey underthings, despite the suggestions of etiquette people. Nor am I getting you a barometer, which seems to be a popular gift for Brits. (Ahem: W? T? F?) I suppose I could get you a fur, but we’re in New Orleans, and you’re already fairly furry, so how about a cordless Dremel instead?
Yes, that’s a condom ad.
I mean, I kind of get it, but holy crap WHY GODDESS WHY?
Worst art direction EVER. Or maybe the best, if you’re a priest.
Credits
Advertising Agency: Young & Rubicam, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Executive Creative Director: Martin Mercado
Creative Director: Hernan Damilano
Art Director: Carolina Aguilar
Copywriter: Federico Aubone
Photographer: Matias Posti
Published: April 2010
The Funeral of Atala. Painted by Anne-Louis Girodet de Roucy-Trioson. From the Musée du Louvre, Paris, France. Oil on canvas (1808) 207 x 267 cm
This very popular, very schmaltzy work was inspired by the very strange, very long-winded novella Atala by François-René de Chateaubriand (whom the artist also painted, though he is less beddable than the model who posed for this work). Set in the American South, the plot of Atala involves a runaway priest, savage Indians, mistaken identity, and, of course, a romantic deathbed confession. Today, we have soap operas.
As of today at 1:00pm:
Published over the weekend on a certain conservative gay blog:
Okay. So have you heard of this story where the high school girl who wanted to attend the prom with her “lesbian girlfriend” (I use the quotes because, really. Call me an old stick-in-the-mud*, but are high-schoolers self-aware enough to realize they’re lesbians already? And even if so, are we encouraging kids that young to identify themselves sexually? What ever happened to the innocence and beauty of youth? Ugh, but anyway.) was duped into arriving at some sham event while the actual prom was being held somewhere else? [GayPatriot]
Show of hands from the LGBT folks in the room: how many of you went through puberty without thinking sexy thoughts about someone of your own gender, or “experimenting” with someone of your own gender, or wondering, “Holy crap, am I gay?”, or maybe even thinking “Holy crap, I’m gay!”
I can’t actually see you, but as someone who became sexually active long before Algebra II, I’m guessing there aren’t many hands in the air.
Also: even if Constance McMillen does some soul-searching down the line and realizes that she’s actually bisexual or whatever, the fact of the matter is that she clearly has affection and feelings for another woman right now. So the author’s argument that McMillen may not be a “real” lesbian (whatever that is) is basically moot.
Also: this story broke back in, like, February or something, and dude is just getting around to it? Not that I’m all about the tick-tock, but, you know, way to blog, bitches.
And: the author goes on to claim that Constance was milking the story for attention and that the subsequent tales of her being duped by a fake prom were bogus. But honey, as a guy who also grew up gay in Mississippi, I can tell you: drawing loads of attention is not on any young, queer Mississippian’s to-do list. Especially in goddamned Tupelo, which is maybe the most conservative corner of the state. (Home of the AFA!)
And no, I’m not posting a link to the blog. First, those incendiary idiots don’t deserve the traffic. And second, given the nearly 100 comments on the post, I don’t want to encourage more fanning of the flames. Dude already has plenty of persecution complex to go around; let’s not fertilize it.
As a gay man and someone who was adopted, it’s annoying/frustrating/thoroughly enraging to hear people like Mike Huckabee compare adoption by LGBT couples to a science experiment. (“Children are not puppies”, said the ex-governor, has-been presidential candidate, and…well, nothing in particular at the moment.)
I’m not even remotely interested in adopting children, but for the many, many LGBT couples who are, the process is frustrating, and the rules vary from state to state. Here in Louisiana, we’ve followed Paula Abdul’s example, taking a few steps forward and quite a few back. But now, state representative Juan LaFonta is pushing things back in the direction of the 21st century:
Rep. Juan LaFonta, D-New Orleans, is proposing to expand Louisiana adoption laws with language to recognize as parents both persons in a gay couple.
But LaFonta is not going directly after the provision of Louisiana law that restricts adoption to married couples or single individuals but not unmarried couples. Instead, House Bill 738 would expand the list of eligible persons to petition for “intrafamily” adoptions, those that involve a second adult becoming a legal parent to a child who already has a legal parent in the same family or household….
As with the rest of Louisiana adoption law, the bill does not mention sexual orientation. Gay residents in Louisiana already adopt, but a gay couple — or an unmarried heterosexual couple — must choose just one of the pair to become the legal parent, with the second adult having no legal relationship with the child.
LaFonta added, though, that he does not want the debate to be solely about gay adoption, but instead about expanding opportunities for more children to have a chance at a stable, two-parent home. LaFonta said, “There are too many children who need homes. We’ve got to stop this narrow regulating of what is a family and what’s not.”
[NOLA.com]
So far, the comments on that article aren’t especially bad. But I suppose we should wait for everyone to have a second cup of coffee.
1. That pic above? Click it. It’s a condom ad. I can’t decide if it’s terrible because of its hard-to-read [ha!] storyline, or brilliant because of its suggestive storyline. Which probably means it’s brilliant, and definitely means it caught my attention, and also makes me wonder why the art director didn’t bother to find a more conventionally handsome cop. I mean, different strokes and all, but some bigass forearms would help sell it.
FYI: I believe the ad was made for the Swiss market. Crazy Swiss.
[via Copyranter]
* * * * *
2. Speaking of ads: this spot for the Fowin “sexual efficiency ring” is not only a little vague, but also maybe offensive. In so far as raping your wife/girlfriend/mistress with fresh cucumbers is considered offensive in Thailand.
* * * * *
3. I have a new post at Lurid Digs, which is definitely, absolutely, positively not safe for work. But then, if you don’t know that, you probably shouldn’t click through, anyway.
* * * * *
4. A Canadian woman by the name of Lisa Murphy has written/sculpted a new book of pornography for the blind. I say “a new book”, but in fact, it may be “the first book of its kind”, so far as I know. It’s called Tactile Minds, and it looks like this:
Hmm. All that, and I’d still like to touch it. Which says less about the book than it says about me, perhaps.
[via Tyler]
sturtle [dot] com 
