"Boy Meets Boy" (Aug. 26)

[Guest DickHo]

RE:

 

Oh, come on. This is not TV's cruelest show by far and they are not all bastards. Let's not forget Judge Judy and all other court room dramas where people embarras themselves for pennies.

 

What I really like to see, is the footage of the "mates" playing musical beds? All those men in one house and no one is getting laid? That's very hard for me to believe.

[Guest Yog-Sothoth]

RE:

 

>Oh, come on. This is not TV's cruelest show by far...

 

 

I would say it was a toss-up between BOY MEETS BOY and the Sci-Fi Channel's SCARE TATICS. Both, at their core, are sadistic.

 

 

>What I really like to see, is the footage of the "mates"

>playing musical beds?

 

 

Which you will never see as there would be no such footage. Have you considered watching a porno movie instead?

[Guest Yog-Sothoth]

RE:

 

>Oh, come on. This is not TV's cruelest show by far...

 

 

I would say it was a toss-up between BOY MEETS BOY and the Sci-Fi Channel's SCARE TATICS. Both, at their core, are sadistic.

 

 

>What I really like to see, is the footage of the "mates"

>playing musical beds?

 

 

Which you will never see as there would be no such footage. Have you considered watching a porno movie instead?

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Straight For Pay

 

What, me, naive?

 

You boys need to make up your minds about me, all this confusion is giving me a headache. . . .

 

Men who look the biggest West Hollywood queens appear in gay porn, where they get their assholes shaved, have a drag queen groom them and dress them, and use magazines like Hustler so they can get a hard on so they can appear on video tape getting fucked by another putatively straight man for the enjoyment and edification of the homosexual viewing public worldwide.

 

A perfect and classic example is Aaron Austin. http://www.gaypornstars.com/stars/a/aaron_austin/images/aaron_austin_cover.jpg In his prime, he looked the part of a classic, typical "gay boy." He is now living with a woman, has at least one kid, I believe they are married, and he is a personal trainer in Palm Springs where most of his clients are gay men. He also is very much straight. Was he gay friendly? Certainly. Was he bi-curious? Possibly? Did he primarily do gay adult films for the money? Yes, he has said so himself as have others, that there he could make more money in gay hard core films than in straight ones (where women tend to be the stars and men are just accessories).

 

My point, and it remains valid, especially after reading this entire thread, is that most of the men in the group of fifteen mates who were straight were likely in the show for both the exposure and fame, no matter how fleeting, and for the money.

[woodlawn]

RE:

 

>>Oh, come on. This is not TV's cruelest show by far...

>

>

>I would say it was a toss-up between BOY MEETS BOY and the

>Sci-Fi Channel's SCARE TATICS. Both, at their core, are

>sadistic.

 

That is quite absurd. How is any of the participants being harmed by this show? What is the worst that can happen to any of them -- that after a few days of free food and accommodations likely far better than he can afford to pay for, he WON'T be selected for a free trip to New Zealand? If that's your idea of sadism you need to re-read some of de Sade's material.

[axebahia]

RE: Straight For Pay

 

> In his prime, he looked the part of a classic, typical "gay

>boy." He is now living with a woman, has at least one kid, I

>believe they are married, and he is a personal trainer in Palm

>Springs where most of his clients are gay men. He also is very

>much straight. Was he gay friendly? Certainly. Was he

>bi-curious? Possibly? Did he primarily do gay adult films for

>the money?

 

How do you know that he "is very much straight"? I am not sure how many "straight" men would consider a guy who does gay porn to be straight. Put a camera on a guy like this 24/7 over the course of his life and I think I would see his ass in the air like he just don't care. BTW, I bet a mumber of guys on this Board live or have lived with a woman, are or have been married and have children but still call you and your competitors from time to time. Does that make us "straight"?

[Guest alanm]

Franklin's ex roomate

 

On another site, Franklin's ex female roommate at Marquette University posted several strange comments. "I am unfortunately, but intimately aware of our favorite sommelier." "There was always a question of which team he played for." "He had a few girl friends which many of us believed were really marriages of convenence to mask his real orientation."

 

A week later she was more uncertain. "I have confirmed some of his

heterosexual exploits." "Whatever his orientation, people believe he was one of the strangest people around."

 

All pure gossip by somone who may not have ever know Franklin, but she did also post her own picture. You judge, but this is the only posting that I could find by someone who claims to know Franklin (or Shady John as she calls him).

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

How?

 

He stated as much when he was doing films, he stated as much when he "retired" and he lives very openly in Palm Springs, working with, for and among a number of gay men in a profession and city where he would have no reason to either hide or claim a heterosexual identity. At some point, you DO have to take people at their word, or do you simply believe everyone is a liar about everything?

 

By the way, for the record, I do not think of any other escort as a competitor....

[axebahia]

RE: How?

 

>At some point, you DO

>have to take people at their word, or do you simply believe

>everyone is a liar about everything?

 

My position does not require me to believe that everyone is a liar. I also can believe, inter alia, that: (a) he is a liar; (b) people like him are liars; © he is in denial or lying to himself; or (d) people like him are in denial and lie to themselves. I think these labels are very silly. It all comes down to what kind of sex do you have or want to have. I think the post below noting comments of Franklyn's female university room-mate bear out my position.

[Guest]

RE: Straight For Pay

 

I hired Aaron Austin a number of years ago. He was in SF at the time, but was living in Orange County. The sex was incredibly hot and affectionate, and he came quite a lot. I was quite shocked when he told me he had a girlfriend and was considering getting married. He also gave me his private phone number and said that if I was in the area we could get together again at a discount. I guess that if bisexuality exists, he may be bi, but there is absolutely, positively no way he's heterosexual. I've had probably fewer than two dozen instances of "perfect sex" in my life, which will forever be burned in my memory, and that was one of them. I don't know him well enough to know why he married, but I would stake my life on the fact that he really enjoys gay sex, and I would find it difficult to believe he's not having gay sex now.

Oh, all right. Maybe three dozen. But, oh, just thinking about it brings tears to my eyes...:9

[Guest]

RE: Straight For Pay

 

I hired Aaron Austin a number of years ago. He was in SF at the time, but was living in Orange County. The sex was incredibly hot and affectionate, and he came quite a lot. I was quite shocked when he told me he had a girlfriend and was considering getting married. He also gave me his private phone number and said that if I was in the area we could get together again at a discount. I guess that if bisexuality exists, he may be bi, but there is absolutely, positively no way he's heterosexual. I've had probably fewer than two dozen instances of "perfect sex" in my life, which will forever be burned in my memory, and that was one of them. I don't know him well enough to know why he married, but I would stake my life on the fact that he really enjoys gay sex, and I would find it difficult to believe he's not having gay sex now.

Oh, all right. Maybe three dozen. But, oh, just thinking about it brings tears to my eyes...:9

[Guest Yog-Sothoth]

RE: BOY MEETS BOY: a nasty practial joke

 

Hey, Moderators, this might show-up twice.

 

>>>Oh, come on. This is not TV's cruelest show by far...

>>

>>I would say it was a toss-up between BOY MEETS BOY and the

>>Sci-Fi Channel's SCARE TATICS. Both, at their core, are

>>sadistic.

>

>That is quite absurd. How is any of the participants being

>harmed by this show? What is the worst that can happen to any

>of them -- that after a few days of free food and

>accommodations likely far better than he can afford to pay

>for, he WON'T be selected for a free trip to New Zealand?

 

 

Here are two reference for you which showed how some folks were hurt by BOY MEETS BOY:

 

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/938179.asp?0cv=cb20&cp1=1#BODY

 

http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&th=c2a6d350054f624b&seekm=-l-dnXMTy7mpbtOiXTWJjQ%40comcast.com&scoring=d#link107

 

I find the lack of empathy among many gay men who are enjoying watching BOY MEETS BOY to be appalling. Equally troubling to me are those gay men who think the series is somehow a step forward for gay-related television, instead of it's being what it is: a nasty insult to us.

 

On JOE MILLIONAIRE or any of the other heterosexual match-making "reality" series, did they have gay males or lesbians mixed in with the choice of possible partners? "Hey, you picked the lesbian, Joe! Ha ha ha ha!"

 

BOY MEETS BOY like SCARE TACTICS are based on the principle of *lying* to their "contestants"--who are better-termed as victims. The producers do not play fair with those involved. These shows are based on falsehoods from the beginning and then make a big production out of telling the people after having tricked them, "Hey, guess what? We lied to you! Ha ha ha ha!"

 

SCARE TACTICS has already had one of its victims bring a lawsuit against the series. Of course, the Sci-Fi Channel has already renewed it for another season. I can only wonder if there are gay men out there so desperate or so stupid they would be part of a BOY MEETS BOY 2.

 

I don't enjoy watching people, real people, suffer from deliberate cruelty by the dishonesty of others, especially as a form of "entertainment". Maybe you think somehow that makes me self-righteous. I think of it as part of my humanity.

 

I suspect you might not understand that however.

[Guest Yog-Sothoth]

RE: BOY MEETS BOY: a nasty practial joke

 

Hey, Moderators, this might show-up twice.

 

>>>Oh, come on. This is not TV's cruelest show by far...

>>

>>I would say it was a toss-up between BOY MEETS BOY and the

>>Sci-Fi Channel's SCARE TATICS. Both, at their core, are

>>sadistic.

>

>That is quite absurd. How is any of the participants being

>harmed by this show? What is the worst that can happen to any

>of them -- that after a few days of free food and

>accommodations likely far better than he can afford to pay

>for, he WON'T be selected for a free trip to New Zealand?

 

 

Here are two reference for you which showed how some folks were hurt by BOY MEETS BOY:

 

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/938179.asp?0cv=cb20&cp1=1#BODY

 

http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&th=c2a6d350054f624b&seekm=-l-dnXMTy7mpbtOiXTWJjQ%40comcast.com&scoring=d#link107

 

I find the lack of empathy among many gay men who are enjoying watching BOY MEETS BOY to be appalling. Equally troubling to me are those gay men who think the series is somehow a step forward for gay-related television, instead of it's being what it is: a nasty insult to us.

 

On JOE MILLIONAIRE or any of the other heterosexual match-making "reality" series, did they have gay males or lesbians mixed in with the choice of possible partners? "Hey, you picked the lesbian, Joe! Ha ha ha ha!"

 

BOY MEETS BOY like SCARE TACTICS are based on the principle of *lying* to their "contestants"--who are better-termed as victims. The producers do not play fair with those involved. These shows are based on falsehoods from the beginning and then make a big production out of telling the people after having tricked them, "Hey, guess what? We lied to you! Ha ha ha ha!"

 

SCARE TACTICS has already had one of its victims bring a lawsuit against the series. Of course, the Sci-Fi Channel has already renewed it for another season. I can only wonder if there are gay men out there so desperate or so stupid they would be part of a BOY MEETS BOY 2.

 

I don't enjoy watching people, real people, suffer from deliberate cruelty by the dishonesty of others, especially as a form of "entertainment". Maybe you think somehow that makes me self-righteous. I think of it as part of my humanity.

 

I suspect you might not understand that however.

[Guest gentle guy]

Bravo

 

Meaning I agree with you--but I couldn't resist the pun. :+

 

When this show was first mentioned on another thread in July, I expressed reservations about watching it for the same criticisms you make. I have refused to watch it, and having read and heard others' reactions, I think I made the right choice.

[woodlawn]

RE: BOY MEETS BOY: a nasty practial joke

 

>>>I would say it was a toss-up between BOY MEETS BOY and the

>>>Sci-Fi Channel's SCARE TATICS. Both, at their core, are

>>>sadistic.

 

>>That is quite absurd. How is any of the participants being

>>harmed by this show? What is the worst that can happen to

>any

>>of them -- that after a few days of free food and

>>accommodations likely far better than he can afford to pay

>>for, he WON'T be selected for a free trip to New Zealand?

 

>Here are two reference for you which showed how some folks

>were hurt by BOY MEETS BOY:

 

 

I looked at both of those links. In the first a news story recounted that one of the 'mates' had developed a crush on another and had 'cried' when he found out the crushee was straight. The story also said that James felt 'betrayed' when he found out about the straight 'mates.' THIS is your idea of 'sadistic'? All I can say is that you must have led a sheltered life.

 

The other link is to a message board. I did not see there any reference to anyone who had been harmed by the show.

 

>I find the lack of empathy among many gay men who are enjoying

>watching BOY MEETS BOY to be appalling.

 

Do you? I'm appalled by the lack of personal dignity in anyone of any gender who would agree to let his or her personal life be used as part of a television game show in return for the chance to win a prize. There is no way I could feel any empathy for anyone who would voluntarily put himself in such a position. If he puts himself in such an embarrassing position he shouldn't complain if he ends up feeling embarrassed.

 

>Equally troubling to

>me are those gay men who think the series is somehow a step

>forward for gay-related television, instead of it's being what

>it is: a nasty insult to us.

 

Nonsense. Nothing has been done to any of the contestants that is any worse than on other elaborate dating-game shows like "Bachelorette" and "Meet the Parents" and so on. On that ridiculous "Joe Millionaire" show the producers (and the star) deceived the contestants into believing they were dating someone quite different from the actual person. I don't know if BMB is a step forward for gay people in any sense -- other than that network executives have not previously been willing to risk offending audiences by showcasing openly gay men participating in the same silly games as straight people and now they are willing. I suppose that does represent a step toward equality of a kind.

 

Speaking of "nasty insults," I won't reprint the insult toward me with which you ended this post. I'll only note that it is awfully hypocritical of you to proclaim your outrage at the way others are mistreated when you are perfectly willing to engage in nasty behavior yourself whenever it suits you. Stop being such a fucking hypocrite.

[Guest Julian Kaye]

BRIANS DAY JOB

 

http://www.herelounge.com/images/brian.jpg

 

http://www.herelounge.com/

[+ Charlie]

RE: BRIANS DAY JOB

 

Oh dear! This does not look like the kind of homebody that James says he is searching for.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

RE: BOY MEETS BOY: a nasty practial joke

 

Don't you think James is being a little hypocritical? After all, he agreed to be the star of a show which required him to reject a bunch of men on national television. The premise of the show as he understood it was that people should be tuning in to watch his suitors "cry and wallow on television," right? And he must have had a hunch, given the genre, that some kind of twist would be involved, but he seems to have assumed that somebody else would be the victim.

 

Whatever people think of reality shows -- my main beef with them as that they are too contrived and overly structured -- one thing I'll say for them is that they represent a step in the democratization of access to the media, and certainly the democratization of celebrity (Andy Warhol was right). It's all well and good to shake one's head and tsk about "what people will do to be on television," but is it really so strange? Didn't more people learn to read and write after the invention of the printing press? And in this day and age of blogs, aren't more people now writers than ever before -- yes, sometimes for worse, but also sometimes for better? While we'll all acknowledge that there are a lot of bad web sites out there, isn't it still generally a GOOD thing that anyone can put one up? People WANT access to the various media that are out there. They want to participate and not just observe from the sidelines. In the case of television, reality shows, along with other types of game shows, and talk shows -- represent ways of bringing more people into "the process" of television. In a way it would be a sign of something much creepier if they WEREN'T there.

 

My point is that reality shows are popular and draw plenty of willing participants (and voyeurs) precisely because they make it easy for someone to get on television, and this is not as shallow as it sounds. There's no reason why the experience of celebrity should be confined to a closed circle of overpaid "professionals" (and I am not saying that professional actors don't have their place. But there are more channels out there needing content than ever, and there are plenty of people who are willing to take a few risks to satisfy their curiosity about "what it's like." Far from being unhealthy, I'd suggest reality shows represent an ongoing process of democratization in all its messiness. Could many of them be better? Yes, but I could say the same thing about plenty of sitcoms that cost a lot more money to make.

 

Now the thing about what I'm calling access to celebrity is that it also comes with access to the pitfalls of celebrity -- surrender of your privacy, having to deal with oily, lying Hollywood producers, feeling like you're losing control of your own persona -- this is all part of what comes with fame, and we've seen many a Hollywood celebrity get crushed by it. It's only natural that reality celebs are going to experience some of that, only in a more compressed (and therefore possibly intensified) period of time. It's also true that plot-driven shows need tension -- they need something to go wrong. Given the contrived situations most of these shows are built around (and again, I could say the same about many more expensive sitcoms), the twists themselves are going to have to be contrived. It's either naive or disingenuous -- or both -- to enter the reality genre and expect it all to be roses for you and that somebody else's life will have to pick up the slack when it comes to providing the tension. In this interview James sounds to me like he wants all the perks of reality celebrity and none of the pitfalls.

[phage]

RE: BOY MEETS BOY: a nasty practial joke

 

>On JOE MILLIONAIRE or any of the other heterosexual

>match-making "reality" series, did they have gay males or

>lesbians mixed in with the choice of possible partners? "Hey,

>you picked the lesbian, Joe! Ha ha ha ha!"

>

>BOY MEETS BOY like SCARE TACTICS are based on the principle of

> *lying* to their "contestants"--who are better-termed as

>victims. The producers do not play fair with those involved.

>These shows are based on falsehoods from the beginning and

>then make a big production out of telling the people after

>having tricked them, "Hey, guess what? We lied to you! Ha ha

>ha ha!"

 

Don’t you think you should actually WATCH the show before making such sweeping (and erroneous) judgements? The entire premise of ‘Joe Millionaire’ was based on a lie. The joke wasn’t on Joe -- it was on every single one of the women.

 

Yes, James was deceived, but like Woodie, I have very little sympathy for anyone willing to parade his or her personal life on TV. It’s like someone appearing on the Springer show and being outraged that his spouse chose national TV to tell him that she has been having an affair with his sister and is moving her into their doublewide.

 

Deceit aside, I think they have done a very good job with the show. I have been impressed with the way that they neither shy away from, nor pander to the sexuality of the mates. I think they’ve also done a great job of having fun with gay behavior. There were no complete flamers, but they aren’t trying to pretend that all gay men are just like all straight men. Many of us are different and that’s fine and nothing to be ashamed of.

[Guest Bitchboy]

RE: BOY MEETS BOY: a nasty practial joke

 

Only a bunch of queens could turn something so unimportant and harmless into a worldwide crisis. It's stupid; some of the men are cute; some I wouldn't touch with the proverbial 10-foot pole; in a month no one will remember the name of the show or any of the men.

[Guest sniper]

RE: BOY MEETS BOY: a nasty practial joke

 

I vote for naive. James seems very sweet, but frankly not all that sharp. How much do you want to bet that Andra heard about this show and put him up to this? I think he sincerely thought that this was going to be a show about a search for love, and had hopes about maybe making some straight people see we're not all that different.

 

Look, pretty much every gay guy has gone through being attracted to someone only to find out he's straight. It's our definitive adolescent "trauma." One of the most discouraging parts of discovering you're gay is the realization that 90%+ of the people you are drawn to cannot possibly reciprocate your affection. Who needs to be DELIBERATELY put through that crap?

 

As for the show being about rejecting other people, he's been incredibly gracious with all the guys(at least in person, he did mention starting to dislike Dan at one point), and has only said postive things about people he accepted, without bashing the rejectees, which is more than I can say about most rejections I've witnessed in real life, and by people a lot lower on the food chain than James. The rejectees know going in that the odds are against them. But it wasn't zero with any of them, like could happen to James if he picks the straight guy.