In April's Details, Dominick Wimple basically says it's okay to use the word Gay to describe "an object or an action that signifies profound inner uncoolness."
In a weird way, he almost convinced me. When I saw the headline in the magazine I got all fired up thinking it would be bad, but the article was pretty neutral, and it could actually be positive in the future, when society has less of a problem with the gays. Not now though.
The article is supposed to discuss the usage of gay for uncool stuff, but most of what is labeled as uncool in the article is not actually bad or uncool for most people, maybe uncool for the magazine editors. And that's not that much. For instance, 
Seattle Seahawks uniforms are deemed gay. Monograms are gay. A lot of the stuff is indeed really gay, but not uncool or whatever, just gay. The list goes on and on. Emoticons, gay (agree). Colored iPod protectors, gay (agree). The J in Michael J. Fox (agree).
In summary, the article sort of goes with their monthly anthropology section "Gay or (fill in the blank)," the most famous of which was probably that Gay or Asian piece (which I did not think was offensive at all -- being offended by that is the actual homophobia I thought, but whatever).
All right, we know Details is the gayest magazine that ever gayed. It's kind of in the closet but out there at the same time, so it tries to create a little bit of fuss avec uncertainties. The gay article I discuss here fits perfectly with their whole plot.
Others seemed to agree with Dominick's take on the word gay. So it appears nothing too bad may come out of Dominick's article, but still, I would prefer if people didn't use the word gay to describe uncoolness. No matter how young or immature.
My last post on April's Detail. Really. I am not commenting on the article that says Ryan Seacrest is not gay. This is much more believable.
What a great thing to do Mike. I'll use that. Gay for everything that's great!
Posted by: Queer Beacon | Apr 15, 2006 at 04:05 PM
As far back as 1973 we were calling things "gay" when we thought they were great. I still use the word for anything extra good.
Posted by: West Village Mike | Apr 15, 2006 at 04:16 AM
what makes details revolutionary is that it is the first magazine targeted at Closeted Gay Men, like for real. I've read so many articles like, "Why you shouldnt fear HIV" and "I was gay for pay in porn". Now this... oy vey.
PS your banner is blowing my... mind.
Posted by: Pop Muse | Apr 15, 2006 at 12:25 AM
Sure Louis. Go ahead. Thanks for the visit.
Posted by: Queer Beacon | Apr 12, 2006 at 03:28 AM
Totally agree with the sentence: It's kind of in the closet but out there at the same time, so it tries to create a little bit of fuss avec uncertainties. Fuss is the key point in my opinion.
Augusto, do you mind me taking a 'blog clipping' of this article? Blogger can't trackback. Thanks.
Posted by: Louis | Apr 12, 2006 at 02:58 AM