Tuesday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Monday Male Beauty

 

Could Indiana Prove to Be An Inflection Point?

Since the Felon's political rise, the main attributes of Republicans have been cowardice and willing self-prostitution to the Felon. With few exceptions, threats and fears of a primary challenge have been far more important to Republicans than supporting decency and morality and rejecting previously unknown levels of corruption and grifting on shocking levels.  When the Felon has said "jump" these spineless individuals have basically said "how high?"  Thus, the Texas GOP passed a redistricting plan and some other red states are likely to follow suit. That is unless they take inspiration from the Indiana GOP which defied the Felon and voted "no" to a forced redistricting plan aimed at maintaining GOP control of the House of Representatives in order to protect the Felon.  A piece at The Atlantic looks at the Indiana GOP's vote of defiance and whether it may represent an inflection point where Republicans will put the good of their state and/or the country ahead of protecting the Felon from accountability.  Predictably, many of these Republicans who voted "no" have experienced bomb threats and other attacks by elements of the MAGA base - things that only underscore the Mafia-like aspects of the Felon's ugly regime.  Hopefully, other Republicans will be emboldened to regrow a spine. Here are article highlights:

In rejecting yesterday a redistricting plan backed by [the Felon] President Donald Trump, Indiana’s Republican-controlled senate did not merely deny Republicans two new U.S. House seats in next year’s midterm elections. They also engaged in a mass revolt against the [Felon] president. The stakes of their defiance reach far beyond the midterms. This vote was possibly the most significant blow yet against the authoritarian ambitions that have defined Trump’s second term.

The significance of Indiana’s noncompliance lies not in the specifics of what was refused—attempts to gerrymander electoral maps are hardly unprecedented, even though a mid-decade battle violates norms—but in the act of refusal itself. Trump’s authoritarian project relies on the cultlike hold he has over his party. Republicans have come to understand that the cost of defying Trump is the death of their political career. Trump has proved time and again that he will go to any lengths to destroy his intra-party critics, even if doing so harms the party.

That method was on vivid display in Indiana. Trump expected the state to go along with his plans to redraw its map to help his party in the midterms. When the state’s Republicans held back their support, Trump and his allies went on the attack.

Indiana Republican legislators faced bomb threats and intimidation in their homes (such as “swatting,” phone calls, and the like)—a climate of fear, my colleague Russell Berman reports, unlike anything the state has seen.

Heritage Action delivered a Mafia-like threat, as high-minded scholars apparently do these days: “President Trump has made it clear to Indiana leaders: if the Indiana Senate fails to pass the map, all federal funding will be stripped from the state. Roads will not be paved. Guard bases will close. Major projects will stop. These are the stakes and every NO vote will be to blame.”

This kind of pressure typically bends targets to Trump’s will. What politician is willing to sacrifice their career or their family’s safety for a single act of defiance?

Yet the spines of Indiana Republicans stiffened where so many others snapped. One reason for this may be that the state contains an unusually strong concentration of Trump-skeptical former governors. Mitch Daniels and Mike Pence remain influential in the state, despite having given up national ambitions by failing to submit fully to Trump. Daniels praised the vote as an act of “principled courageous leadership.”

Indiana’s Republicans also demonstrated strength in numbers. Trump employs the psychology of a schoolyard bully who isolates and targets victims one by one. By engineering a 31–19 vote, Indiana’s Republicans worked together to ensure that no single legislator could be blamed for defying Trump.

Trump’s power has long relied on his political immortality—his seemingly mystical bond with the party faithful and his phoenix-like return to the White House. Indiana’s Republicans seem emboldened by evidence of the [Felon's] president’s political decline. Trump has done almost nothing to maintain the coalition that elected him last year, and almost all of his major moves have cost him support: a wildly aggressive immigration agenda, inflationary tariffs, flamboyant corruption, and a toxic mega-bill that paired benefits for the rich with cuts to the poor.

Political reality is settling in. Last month’s off-year election drove home that the electoral coalition that showed up in November 2024 is gone. Republicans seem resigned to losing the U.S. House next year, which dulls the appeal of violating norms to protect a doomed majority.

Trump’s control over the future of the party is also now in doubt. . . . Two opposing forces have dominated the first year of Trump’s second presidency. The first is a domestic agenda that has generated an intense backlash. The second is a series of steps designed to blunt the impact of that backlash. Most of Trump’s authoritarian moves—prosecuting his enemies, giving his allies legal carte blanche, pressuring media owners to give him friendlier coverage—are meant to create a kind of wall to hold back the waves of public anger brought forth by his policies. His efforts to voter-proof the House map are a key part of that defense.

The wall and the backlash have risen in tandem, the latter faster than the former. And now, for the first time, it seems the wall itself is beginning to crumble.

Monday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Sunday Male Beauty

 

Why Women Are Thirsting Over "Heated Rivalry"

Today I am taking a break from politics in this post. I love to read and when not reading about history. working on my ancestry and following politics, I enjoy reading gay romance novels.  I have quite a number of such novels -  I am boxing up some of them to give to the local LGBT center library and find them a nice diversion from work and day to day matters. Plus, they offer a glimpse at committed same sex love rarely depicted in the mainstream media or in movies. In reality, many of our gay friends are in long term relationships (now marriages) that have lasted decades.  Much more than mere sex is involved.   Surprisingly, many these novels are written by women and many, many of these authors have large female followers.  What is equally surprising is how these women write so convincingly about the emotions (and physical aspects) of same sex relationships and that, like in any love story, there is much more than merely a physical connection.  Alex in Red, White and Royal Blue states at one point, "I fell in love with a person and that person is a man."  I read "Red, White and Royal Blue" before Amazon turned it into one of its most popular streaming movies (a sequel is in the works).  I also read "Heated Rivalry" when it first came out and well before HBO turned the book into a series (a second season has been announced).  Like the novels themselves, both the movie and series have very large women followers.  A piece in Harper's Bazaar looks to this phenomenon and what might be attracting female viewers and fans.  Here are article highlights:

“Why the fuck did you think it was okay to sext me before the game?!” It’s not exactly Shakespeare, but it’s a line that carries a lot of weight in the world of Heated Rivalry—or, as it has become known on my social feed, the “gay hockey show.”

Heated Rivalry is based on Rachel Reid’s steamy Game Changers novel series, and was adapted for TV by Jacob Tierney for Canadian streamer Crave. (In the US, it’s streaming on HBO Max.) The show follows the story of two closeted hockey players—shy Canadian Shane Hollander (Hudson Williams) and arrogant Russian Ilya Rozanov (Connor Storrie)—who find themselves embroiled in a career-spanning secret situationship. They might be rivals on the ice, but in the bedroom? Oh, they’re playing for the same team.

It doesn’t take a genius to work out why gay viewers like me are drawn to this show. There are handsome jocks with eight-pack abs and supernaturally round asses, plus there’s the enduring fantasy of the locker room hookup. And underneath it all, a relationship where at least one party is closeted is actually a very relatable queer experience. Yet what I find even more fascinating is how many women I’ve seen posting about Heated Rivalry—an intensely homoerotic show that is defined by relationships between men. This was surprising to me at first, but when I started thinking more deeply about the state of (heterosexual) relationship affairs, it made much more sense.

[I]in the 2000s, I grew accustomed to seeing a certain type of gay man on screen. From Sex and the City to The Devil Wears Prada, Ugly Betty to Desperate Housewives, we were usually in a sidekick role. The “gay best friend” tended to be well-dressed, armed with witty asides, and, crucially, desexualised. In the 2010s, LGBTQ+ representation increased rapidly. But even then, the prevailing discourse around Oscar-winning films like Call Me By Your Name and Bohemian Rhapsody was that they were coy and sterile when it came to physical intimacy.

Heated Rivalry is significant because of its explicit, in-your-face sexiness. Toronto-based TV critic Kaiya Shunyata writes that, while there have been notable exceptions, like Fellow Travelers and Interview with the Vampire, the majority of queer shows today still represent “quaint” and “safe” versions of our sexuality, with creators “forcing their protagonists into a sexless box that stifles the impact these shows could have on an industry that grows more conservative each year.” Heated Rivalry flies in the face of that. And the fact that it was released the same week as Pillion—the “sub-dom rom-com” film starring a leather-clad Alexander Skarsgard and Harry Melling—makes me think gay sex is undeniably capturing the zeitgeist.

This shift is obviously thrilling for gay men like me, who have seldom seen our experiences (and fantasies) on screen. But what's interesting is that it's alluring for women, too. In conversations with friends and followers in my DMs, the overwhelming draw of Heated Rivalry is its eroticism. Put simply, every female fan I spoke to thinks the show is really hot. If you’re surprised by this, it might interest you to know that almost half of gay male porn is actually consumed by women. Sexuality is, of course, varied (and I don’t profess to be an expert) but a friend of mine told me that she likes gay porn because it feels escapist—unlike straight porn, which is mostly made by men and is often degrading (or violent) toward women. It might sound diminutive to compare Heated Rivalry to porn, but it’s worth noting that the sex between Shane and Ilya seems to equally satisfy both of them. And this might be particularly appealing to women when depictions of straight sex are so skewed toward one partner’s pleasure.

Still, Heated Rivalry is about more than sex. Outside of the bedroom, Shane and Ilya treat each other almost like brothers, alternating between shit-talking, teasing, and unspoken love. Then, in episode three, we meet another couple: Scott Hunter (François Arnaud) and Kip Grady (Robbie G.K.). Their relationship has a totally different dynamic—economically and culturally. Scott is a closeted hockey player and Kip is an out gay man who works in a smoothie shop.

While Shane and Ilya are able to switch their relationship on and off again with unnerving precision, and text each other as “Jane” and “Lily,” Scott and Kip’s relationship is more frantic and all-consuming.

As a gay man, some of these dynamics feel a little closer to home. But I wonder if, similar to the sex scenes, there is a sense of escapism going on for female viewers. It’s no secret that we’re living in an era of heteropessimism, where many women are feeling frustrated and unfulfilled by the interactions they’re having with men. . . . . . In her now-viral piece for British Vogue, Joseph found that apathy toward men among young women was so intense that “even partnered women will lament men and heterosexuality.” Instead, “it’s become more of a flex to pronounce yourself single.” This, she concludes, is another “nail in the coffin of a centuries-old heterosexual fairytale that never really benefitted women to begin with.”

These unfulfilling gender roles play out in All Her Fault, a Peacock drama starring Sarah Snook and Dakota Fanning. In this show, which just became Peacock’s biggest series launch ever, the mothers are all stressed, over-stretched, and trying to “do it all.” Their millennial husbands pay lip-service to equality while not picking up after themselves and complaining when they have to “babysit” their own kids. And this isn’t to say that heteronormative roles don’t impact queer sex and relationships (they totally do) but maybe Heated Rivalry is so appealing for women because, so far at least, it is happening outside of these frustrating male-female dynamics?

I noticed something similar in the fandom for Red, White & Royal Blue—a 2023 gay romance starring Taylor Zakhar Perez and Nicholas Galitzine, based on the novel by Casey McQuiston. In the film, which resembles a Hallmark movie, the son of the US president and a fictional British prince become embroiled in a secret relationship. . . . . Despite the difference in tone, there are key similarities with Heated Rivalry. Both are based on erotically charged novels by female authors, which follow a high-profile closeted gay relationship between gorgeous, sculpted men. And the fevered female reaction to them suggests that, for some women, having more distance from gay relationships makes them a more appealing fantasy. In the case of Red, White & Royal Blue, I think it’s also about seeing men treat each other with a level of sensitivity and vulnerability—because in the real world, society at large still doesn’t encourage men to communicate like that.

As Heated Rivalry continues, we’re edging closer toward emotional realities that risk breaking the fantasy. In episode three, Scott and Kip’s relationship bears more resemblance to what it’s actually like dating someone who doesn't want to be seen with you in public. . . . . And for the first time when they’re off the ice, we see them becoming jealous, insecure, and competitive with each other.

At the start, Shane and Ilya’s relationship represents a dream-like mixture of casualness and intensity. They have endless hot sex and deep affection, but without the emotional labour, the sense of obligation, or the domesticity that, for a lot of women in particular, can make being with men feel so unequal. But as Heated Rivalry goes on, it feels like the show is guiding us toward the truth that no type of relationship or arrangement—not even “no strings” sex between handsome, ripped hockey players—can completely shield you from getting hurt. It’s the hottest fantasy, but only because it’s a fallacy.

Personally, I hope these types of shows and movies continue. They show more truth about same sex relationships - including that there's more than just sex involved.  No doubt the Christofascists are not pleased since these books, movies and shows destroy the one dimensional bogey men that these religious fanatics  construct to define all gays.

Sunday Morning Male Beauty

 

The Reasonable Majority Is No Longer Silent

I will always believe that in both 2016 and 2024 many voters who cast ballots for the Felon were attracted by his granting a license to be overtly racist and to a lesser extent a desire to "own the libs", if you will. Yes, in both elections concerns a false narrative about economic security were grasp by much of the main stream media as the principal reason for votes cast for the Felon, but one cannot underestimate the racial animus and grievance towards those deemed "other" that motivated many voters to discard morality and decency and cast their vote for the Felon.  Now, that these voters - and those who were too lazy to vote - are seeming the fruits of their ill cast votes/laziness and are not liking what they are seeing.  Inflation and consumer prices are high and increasing while the Felon - someone who has likely never grocery shopped or paid his own utility bills during his lifetime - claims "affordability" is a Democrat hoax. Meanwhile, the brutality and deliberate cruelty by masked ICE thugs on daily display (and the fact that citizens are being threatened and/or abused) has generated revulsion among all but perhaps the most racist of the MAGA base.  Moreover, the obscene grifting and corruption of the Felon and his minions combined with the travesties done by ICE and Felon/GOP jihad against government programs that benefit millions is causing many who have heretofore remained silent to speak out in condemnation of what is happening. Indeed, I have been surprised by friends and acquaintances who I perceived as "conservative" that approvingly read this blog and/or have begun to speak out themselves.  A column in the New York Times looks at the so-called reasonable majority that is signaling that is increasingly unhappy with the Felon and his regime. Here are excerpts:

Believing in democracy does not require faith that majorities are always right. It does mean having confidence that most of your fellow citizens will, over time, approach public questions with a basic reasonableness. Abraham Lincoln, tradition has it, said it more pithily: “You cannot fool all the people all the time.”

A corollary to Lincoln, that you can’t fool all the people who voted for you all the time, explains the sharp decline in President Trump’s approval ratings.

A significant share of the voters who backed Mr. Trump have decided that he has largely ignored the primary issue that pushed them his way, the cost of living. A billionaire regularly mocking concern about affordability only makes matters worse. They see him as distracted by personal obsessions and guilty of overreach . . . . Many of his former supporters see him breaking promises he made, notably on not messing with their access to health care.

Some abuses are too blatant to be ignored. A recent The Economist/You Gov poll found that 56 percent of Americans said Mr. Trump was using his office for personal gain; only 32 percent didn’t. A similar 56 percent saw Mr. Trump as directing the Justice Department to go after people he saw as his political enemies; just 24 percent didn’t. . . . . They may not be glued to every chaotic twist of this presidency, but they do pay attention and have concluded, reasonably, that this is not what they voted for.

How many? Let’s take Mr. Trump’s 49.8 percent of the 2024 popular vote as a base line and compare it with his approval ratings. . . . This suggests that 15 to 25 percent of his voters have changed their minds.

All this is obviously good news for Democrats, who extended their 2025 hot streak by winning the mayoralty in Miami on Tuesday. But it’s more than that. It dispels myths about Mr. Trump’s having magical powers to distract and deceive. It shows that for all the legitimate concerns about the breakdown of our media and information systems, reality can still get through.

The decay of Mr. Trump’s standing is a rebuke to widespread claims a year ago that his victory represented a fundamental realignment in American politics, akin to those led by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s or Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

The case for a Trump realignment was built in large part on Republican wishcasting and Democratic despondency, married to a few facts, including substantial Trump gains among Latinos and young men. True, the Republicans secured majorities in the Senate and the House. But the G.O.P. won two fewer seats in the House in 2024 than it did two years earlier — far from the sweeping gains typically yielded by realigning elections.

But a nationwide trend in a single election is not the same as a realignment, and the president’s mercurial extremism squandered whatever opportunity the G.O.P. might have had to expand its map. My hunch is that Republicans will regret what they allowed him to throw away.

The Times again produced those fine county maps for the 2025 governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia and the recent special House election in Tennessee. But this time, nearly all the arrows were blue, pointing toward the Democrats, and G.O.P. gains among Latinos and young men were largely wiped out. Genuine realignments don’t collapse so quickly.

Another response to 2024 was a backlash against Trump voters. Mr. Trump does better with voters who lack college degrees, and he once declared, “I love the poorly educated.” Some who were aghast at his victory blamed the outcome on the irrationality of low-information voters.

But to view some large share of the electorate as irrational is wrong and ought to be anathema to anyone who claims to hold a democratic worldview. Far more persuasive is the analysis that . . . . voters “actually do reason about parties, candidates and issues.” They draw on “information shortcuts” to “think about who and what political parties stand for” and “what government can and should do.” They engage in “low-information rationality.”

That so many swing voters used a Trump vote to express their dissatisfaction with the 2024 status quo has certainly had calamitous consequences. What should hearten friends of democracy is how many voters have weighed what Mr. Trump has done and found him acting, well, unreasonably.

Especially striking are the findings of a Public Religion Research Institute poll this fall that asked whether Mr. Trump had gone “too far” in a variety of his actions. Among respondents, 54 percent said he had gone too far on tariffs, as did 55 percent on cuts to grants to universities and 60 percent on cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Trump and the G.O.P. are especially vulnerable on cuts to enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies: A KFF survey last month found that 74 percent of Americans said they should be extended, not eliminated.

Even on immigration, Mr. Trump’s signature issue, his radical approach was unpopular: In the Public Religion Research Institute poll, 65 percent of respondents opposed deporting undocumented immigrants to foreign prisons, 63 percent opposed arresting undocumented immigrants who have resided in the United States with no criminal records, and 58 percent said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers should not conceal their identities with masks or use unmarked vehicles.

Poll numbers are fickle. But in 2025, Trumpian flimflam hit its limits — even in the G.O.P. when a majority of Republicans in the Indiana State Senate defied the president’s demand for a midterm congressional redistricting. His power to intimidate is ebbing. A reasonable majority exists. It’s searching for alternatives to a leader and a movement it has found wanting.

Saturday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Friday Male Beauty