Can Details Get Away With Calling Someone a "Douchefag"?

Can a magazine that plays it straight but actively courts a gay readership get away with making tasteless gay jokes? Conde Nast'sDetails sure thought it could when it published "The Rise of the Douchefag," one of the magazine's trademark "Let's identify a trend, or make one up, and then package some witty copy around it." Front and center in the piece, next to Marc Jacobs' ex Jason Preston, are Project Runway designer Christian Siriano and his DJ boyfriend Brad Walsh — who had a major problem with Detailsthrowing the "fag" word around, let alone being identified by a mainstream magazine as a "douchefag."

The article's premise: There are gays, and then there are gay "douchefags." Like douchebags, only with the F-word. A handy charticle helps identify which is which: A guy is only gay if he "bleaches teeth"; he's a gay douchebag if he "bleaches anus." Gay if he "saves up for calfskin briefcase"; gay douchebag if he "saves up for calf implants." Gay if "posts sleeveless pictures on Connexion"; gay douchebag if he "posts pantsless pictures on Manhunt." See how this goes?

(Click for a larger, and readable version)

The backlash started on Twitter, when Walsh tweeted: "so, just to be clear, when a major (albeit dying) magazine for straight men refers to me in part as a 'fag,' that's homophobia. and hate." It was followed up by a few more short bursts, including: "i don't mind someone thinking i'm a douchebag or calling me gay. opinion and fact. but calling me 'fag,' even if OUT did it, is not right."

Details got wind of Walsh's outrage, and opted to change the story's online version. There, the headline now reads, "Meet the Gay Douchebag." But the print version (in the December 2009 issue with John Mayer on the cover) already shipped, with the original "The Rise of the Douchefag" headline — and Siriano and Walsh's photo included.

So Queerty asked Walsh to explain what happened. He tells us:

A friend showed me the article, and in the print version I didn't really understand why the photo of me and Christian was there. It's not really explained. But in the online version of the article, they refer to Christian as a stereotypical gay "always with a pocket square" (though he's not wearing one in the photo, and doesn't ever wear them), and me as the "douchefag" who is "always with a pocket gay." I'm not sure why the fact that my boyfriend is shorter than I am is funny. I think it's a flimsy joke to begin with. But calling me a "gay douchebag" is fine. I am gay, and they are allowed to think I am a douchebag. That's their opinion. It's the use of the word "douchefag" that I have a problem with. I don't appreciate any magazine referring to me as a "fag." I don't like that word. I wouldn't be happy with a primarily gay publication calling me "fag" either. If OUT Magazine called me a fag I would be just as upset. It's not appropriate, and it is offensive, and you'd think on the eve of 2010 that would be clear by now. It's a dumb article, and it really stretches to be funny. But that's their choice. If they have no valuable content and need to fill two pages with an unfunny listicle of stereotypes, that's their problem as a dying magazine. But why call, me "fag" in the process? I know it's a tired point nowadays, but really, imagine if they had done the exact same article about black people, and included a punny interpretation of the "N" word. Would never ever have gone to print. It seems like they were trying for controversy for attention, and unfortunately, some people think that while making fun of race is off limits, making fun of sexuality is acceptable.

And therein lies a critical part of the story: Can any publication — gay or straight — get away with calling someone a fag? If not, then it shouldn't be in print. But if the rules are looser for gay mags, does Details qualify? That's a question even Details doesn't like to answer; it's stocked next to GQ andEsquire, but appeals to Out's readership. It's headed up by a straight married guy (Dan Peres) but hires top-notch gay talent (Augusten Burroughs is a columnist, and Simon Dumenco is a regular contributor). Does that give it enough gayness to qualify? (Worth noting: Queerty uses the word "fag," as both a replacement for "gay person" and as a pejorative, but mainly when discussing bigots, like John Ensign.)

We asked Walsh what, if anything, Details could do as a make good.

Well, they can't go around the country and take back all the issues they sold with my face across from the word "DOUCHEFAG" in big red letters, can they? I don't think they need to do anything, no public apology would mean anything to me. Homophobes who are forced to apologize… what does that do? I think they should be fined or required to print a full page ad for GLAAD or something appropriate, for printing the word "fag" in a way that deliberately makes fun of gay people. There should be legitimate consequences for such use of that word and other slurs.

Novel idea! We're checking with Details right now about that.

In the meantime, you tell us: Is Walsh right to feel slighted by a major magazine for throwing around such an offensive word? Or is Details just having a good laugh — with, not at us — and guilty of nothing more than some off-color humor?

[Source]

I LOVE MY COMFY SWEATER... HOW CUTE ARE THESE BOOTS?

Tyler Perry’s “Why Did I Get Married Too?”(Teaser Trailer)

Durex Commercial

New Things...

To my 3 followers, LOL... I'm in the works of doing some interviews, with close associates (Rapper Deadlee, entrepeneur Calrton Morton & maybe my big brother and author Larry Wilson, Jr.)... really excited! Really trying to get the blog up and running, let me know if u have any suggestions! Love & Blessings

House Votes to Expand Hate Crimes Definition

By CARL HULSE (New York Times)
Published: October 8, 2009

WASHINGTON — The House voted Thursday to expand the definition of violent federal hate crimes to those committed because of a victim’s sexual orientation, a step that would extend new protection to lesbian, gay and transgender people.

Democrats hailed the vote of 281 to 146, which brought the measure to the brink of becoming law, as the culmination of a long push to curb violent expressions of bias like the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming college student.

“Left unchecked, crimes of this kind threaten to ruin the very fabric of America,” said Representative Susan A. Davis, Democrat of California, a leading supporter of the legislation.

Under current federal law, hate crimes that fall under federal jurisdiction are defined as those motivated by the victim’s race, color, religion or national origin.

The new measure would broaden the definition to include those committed because of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It was approved by the House right before a weekend when gay rights will be a focus in Washington, with a march to the Capitol and a speech by President Obama to the Human Rights Campaign.

Republicans criticized the legislation, saying violent attacks were already illegal regardless of motive. They said the measure was an effort to create a class of “thought crimes” whose prosecution would require ascribing motivation to the attacker.

Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, called the legislation radical social policy.

“The idea that we’re going to pass a law that’s going to add further charges to someone based on what they may have been thinking, I think is wrong,” Mr. Boehner said.

Republicans were also furious that the measure was attached to an essential $681 billion military policy bill, and accused Democrats of legislative blackmail.

Even some Republican members of the usually collegial House Armed Services Committee who helped write the broader legislation, which authorizes military pay, weapons programs and other necessities for the armed forces, opposed the bill in the end, solely because of the hate crimes provision.

“We believe this is a poison pill, poisonous enough that we refuse to be blackmailed into voting for a piece of social agenda that has no place in this bill,” said Representative Todd Akin of Missouri, a senior Republican member of the committee.

On the final vote, 237 Democrats were joined by 44 Republicans in support of the bill; 131 Republicans and 15 Democrats opposed it. The Democratic opponents were a mix of conservatives who were against the hate crimes provision and liberals opposed to Pentagon provisions.

The military bill has yet to be approved by the Senate. But the hate crimes provision has solid support there, and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the overall bill outweighed his own objections to including the hate crimes measure.

Mr. Obama supports the hate crimes provision, though the White House has raised objections to elements of the bill related to military acquisitions. If signed into law, the hate crimes legislation would reflect the ability of Democrats to enact difficult measures with their increased majorities in Congress and a Democrat in the White House.

“Elections have consequences,” Mr. McCain said.

Similar hate crime provisions have passed the House and the Senate in previous years but have never been able to clear their final hurdles. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that it was fitting that Congress was acting now, since next Monday is the 11th anniversary of Matthew Shepard’s killing. The hate crimes part of the bill is named for Mr. Shepard and James Byrd Jr., a black man killed in a race-based attack in Texas the same year.

The hate crimes legislation would give the federal government authority to prosecute violent crimes of antigay bias when local authorities failed to act. It would also allocate $5 million a year to the Justice Department to provide assistance to local communities in investigating hate crimes, a process that can sometimes strain police resources. And it would allow the department to assist in the inquiry and local prosecution if requested.

“The problem of crimes motivated by bias,” the measure says, “is sufficiently serious, widespread and interstate in nature as to warrant federal assistance to states, local jurisdictions and Indian tribes.”

Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who heads the Armed Services Committee, said that the Federal Bureau of Investigation recorded reports of more than 77,000 hate crimes from 1998 through 2007 and that crimes based on sexual orientation were on an upward trend.

“The hate crimes act will hopefully deter people from being targeted for violent attacks because of the color of their skin or their religion, their disability, their gender or their sexual orientation, regardless of where the crime takes place,” he said.

But Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the No. 3 House Republican, said the measure could inhibit freedom of speech and deter religious leaders from discussing their views on homosexuality for fear that those publicly expressed views might be linked to later assaults.

“It is just simply wrong,” Mr. Pence said, “to use a bill designed to support our troops to reverse the very freedoms for which they fight.”

Democrats, however, noted that the bill would specifically bar prosecution based on an individual’s expression of “racial, religious, political or other beliefs.” It also states that nothing in the measure should be “construed to diminish any rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution.”