OMG... you're dating a vampire too??

[As seen on the Wild West Coconut Show.]

I think we've all been a little horrified and fascinated by the spike in vampire media over the last decade. Twilight aside, the vampire theme is nothing new and has been haunting the Romance section of your local B&N for a good twenty years (at least). Vampire sex is hot, bloody, and apparently common, especially in the state of Louisiana, which is where Anne Rice's Interview with a Vampire and the HBO series True Blood take place. But why vampires? And why so much gender bending, fetish-defying sex?

Vampires as a Sexual Symbol

Obviously something is lacking in our everyday relationships if we need to fantasize about the undead. Why else would women all across the US be devouring gory romance novels like chocolate? This could very well be due to the drastic change in gender roles that has encapsulated the last fifty years. Today's family life is a dim reflection of the nuclear family of the 50's. Women work full time and usually raise their children as divorced, single mothers. Whereas the role of women in the workplace has changed drastically, the role of women as homemakers has not, giving women a double-role in most households. The role of men, on the other hand, has hardly changed at all. Women are looking for something from men, and they're not finding it. What is this elusive trait that women hunger for, which men seem unable to supply? Is it emotional stability? Comfort? Longevity? Sexual prowess? Perhaps all of the above.

So what's the solution? Write lots and lots of books about immortal, stable, and dependable men who will love you unconditionally, and who also happen to be inhuman, which implies that they are capable of going over and beyond the limitations of what is "expected" of men. Strange that the responsibilities of most single young mothers also demand the "superhuman," the "impossible," the complete sacrifice of a young woman's personal life in order to create a family. Women still want men -- they just want stronger, smarter, sexier, and more emotionally secure men, also known as vampires.

But vampires aren't just a symbol in literature for men's failing role in the family; it's also a symbol for those lonely, conflicted individuals who long to enact their suppressed sexual urges, yet have not the courage to come out of the closet (or the basement.) Since vampires are so old, it's easy to imagine that they've slept with just about everything in every possible way. They've killed, plundered, and raped in every society throughout history. However, because they're undead "monsters" that "don't really exist" (unless you live in Louisiana), it's okay to fantasize about two gay vampires drinking each others blood as they kill innocent bystanders, and then having incredible sex, the likes of which you can never have with a "living" (or straight) person.

The Social Implications

So what is with the rise of fantasy and forbidden sex? What's with our fascination with a race of human-like creatures that have, literally, no boundaries? I am going to make a bold statement and say that American society is trying to reinvent itself. We are playing with the idea of being gay and trying to embrace a higher level of sexual tolerance, but it's too much to think about in real life, so we project it into fantasy novels, especially very sexy and bloody fantasy novels. Gender roles are unbalanced, and women are crying out to men for something more; bisexuals run rampant, and are afraid to admit it, even to themselves. As society upheaves itself and searches for a new norm, we have vampire novels to give us some sense of pleasure and freedom, and an arena in which to consider the hypothetical "release of boundaries" that the 21st century is demanding. Fantasy is not only socially engaged, but reinventing societal ideals as we speak, and the entire Harry Potter generation is here to testify. We like fantasy because we want something more than what we've been given: more opportunity, more idealism, more sexual self expression. Will we get it? Who knows -- but until then, I have a hot date with Eric Northman tonight, and I'm hoping to get a little bloody in his backseat, if you know what I mean.

GAY BUDDHISM: Maybe, but we're not sure yet....

So, as it turns out, the Buddha left out an important message from his teachings. Strange, considering how preoccupied the Bible is with sex. With 350,000,000 Buddhists worldwide, you'd think someone would have laid down a few ground rules, but the Buddha is surprisingly vague about any sort of laws concerning gender and marital life. The Buddha taught his followers the path to Enlightenment, and it appears that he didn't think homosexuality was worth mentioning.

So can a gay person reach Enlightenment?

Enlightenment in and of itself is a vague topic, something that us Western Coconuts tend to scoff at, despite our love of tofu and exotic tea. We think of Buddhism as a vague, wishy-washy sort of religion, that has something to do with yoga and sitting in a funny cross-legged position. Let's not forget that in a good portion of the world, Buddhism is a very serious practice. Buddhism is the fourth major religion in the world and predates Christianity and Islam by several centuries. However, the fact remains that most Westerners don't exactly know what Buddhism is.

Buddhism predates the coming of Christ, but tends to promote the same teachings. The main difference is that most Christians consider themselves “saved” by faith alone, while Buddhists live by a strict behavioral regiment. Instead of seeking to be “saved,” Buddhists seek Enlightenment. The Buddha prescribed specific meditation and fasting methods to purify the body as well as the mind. Buddhists rigorously practice mental control and humility, and cultivate specific traits such as compassion, generosity, and wisdom. One continues on this path until the force of one's “good karma” brings about Enlightenment, a moment of divine insight. After Enlightenment, one is said to know the truth in all things.

So can a gay person experience Enlightenment? This seems like a pretty important question. I don't want to hear twenty years from now that I've been meditating for nothing, because only straight people have the privilege of experiencing divine truth. Thankfully, the Buddha has left the answer delightfully ambiguous. The Buddha teaches against “sexual misconduct,” which is usually classified as rape, sexual harassment, molestation of one's children, and unfaithfulness, but all of these can apply to both homo and heterosexual couples.

This still hasn't stopped the Dalai Lama from inserting his personal opinion into the conversation: "From a Buddhist point of view, [gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct." Yet the Dalai Lama seems to be as ambiguous as the Buddha on this topic, and has also stated that gay sex can be "of mutual benefit, enjoyable, and harmless." In the end, not even the Dalai Lama knows if gays can reach Enlightenment. The religious and political worlds demand an answer, and Buddhists appear to be replying with a strong, self-assured “Maybe.”

Forgetfulness, or Divine Perspective?

So did the Buddha just forget about gay people? Maybe people weren't “gay enough” back in 563 BCE, or they weren't demanding any sort of recognition. But let's not forget that the Buddha was an Enlightened being who knew the Truth In All Things. Could it be that, in the face of ultimate truth, sexual orientation just didn't matter?

This may also come down to a fundamental difference between Judeo-Christian religions and Buddhism. Judeo-Christian religions focus a lot on politics, kings, divine favor and law. Buddhism, though based very heavily on morality and self restraint, is less concerned with the structure of government and the power struggles within society, and more concerned with attaining the Ultimate Perspective. Buddhism is not the religion of an invasive Empire bent on ruling the world, but of a man who spent his life dedicated to inward contemplation. Buddhism, therefore, strives to make no judgments, and rather supplies a practitioner with the tools needed for self liberation from suffering. To be quite honest, Buddhism appears to give us the tools to act more readily Christ-like.

Could it be that Judeo-Christian religions are preoccupied with sexuality because of an outdated kinship structure in Old Testament tribes? Life in the desert was a lot harder than in the luscious homeland of the Buddha; resources were scarce and birth rates were low. Having a tight family structure helped everyone's survival. Or could it be that the Buddha was a little gender confused himself? He did teach the path to Enlightenment as a Middle Way, to avoid any extremes, and to embrace “love and compassion for all sentient beings.” I can only imagine that an Enlightened being who practices flawless compassion would have trouble not loving everyone. Kinda like Christ. Right?
At least I can tell you one thing that Christ and the Buddha would agree on: that we should all be practicing unconditional love.

GAY WARS (18): Adam Lambert VS Clay Aiken!!

 [As seen on the Wild West Coconut Show.]

So does anybody here remember Clay Aiken? Anyone? Anyone at all?

Certainly not Adam Lambert, the new American Idol star and everyone's favorite glamtastic glitter boy, who also happens to be gay, by the way, in case you didn't know. Gay. Like Clay Aiken, right? Wait, Clay-who?

Besides being gay, Lambert and Aiken actually have several things in common. Both were 2nd place American Idol winners, and both have had drastically more post-Idol success than the 1st place winners of their respective seasons (I suppose "gay" is more acceptable to the entertainment world than "fat" or "lame.") Both also happen to have red hair, though Lambert did the prudent thing and dyed it. We all know you can't be famous if you're a redhead, unless you're a hot chick or Conan O'Brien, which I consider one and the same.

However, Lambert appears to have had even more success than Aiken could have ever hoped for. While Lambert is rolling in glitter and media attention, Aiken just released his latest Tried and True album, a collection of classic 50's and 60's songs which signals the collapse of any singer's career. Lambert is definitely on his way up, while Aiken is on his way out. Which brings us to our current Gay War #18: Adam vs. Aiken, The Idol Strikes Back.




The Place: an Island Paradise, where Adam has gone on vacation after gaywaring Edward Cullen, surviving a rather sexy brush with death.

The Time: Early evening, just as the sun touches the rim of the ocean, filling the sky with a blood red glow.

The Attire: Lambert dressed in a snazzy silver jacket with matching eye shadow, a snake for a belt, and leather gloves. Aiken in a striped polo shirt, white scarf, popped collar and loafers.

The Weapons: Pure unadulterated talent. One Idol must steal the other's talent before the sun goes down.

The Prize: A long and happy career as the most Prominent Gay Man of the early 21st century, a lifetime supply of sunblock, a vial of very-berry lip gloss, $100 gift card to Hot Topic, a haunted mansion in rural England, and a signed copy of Eat, Pray, Love.

The Fight: Tensions come to a head when Adam Lambert enters his hotel room to find Aiken rummaging desperately through his underwear drawer. Aiken, driven mad by Christmas music and his own poor self help advice (as outlined in his book, Learning to Sing: Hearing the Music in Your Life), assumed that the Glitter King's talent must lie in his wardrobe, and has been rummaging through drawers and drawers of silken hose and leather chaps. Outraged, Lambert throws himself upon the hapless redhead and takes a cane to him.

A vicious struggle ensues. Chaps fly, and hair-pulling abounds. "Poser!" Aiken screams. "I was the first Gay Idol! Glory is mine!"

Adam sits on Aiken and bends his arm back. "Surrender your talent, or I'll snap you in half!"

"Never!"

The fight continues for another twenty minutes. A lamp goes through the window. The bed covers are yanked to the ground. Dull moaning leaks under the door, witnessed only by a passing maid. Finally Aiken throws Adam off of him and shouts, "You can't fight me if you can't see me!" Aiken then throws his hands over his eyes and pretends to be Invisible. In fact, in his own troubled mind, he has absolutely vanished.

Adam watches Aiken stand with his eyes closed, and takes the time to look over the Idol, searching for his hidden talent. Is it in Aiken's cheeky smile, his coy boy-toy looks, or his baby chicken hair cut? What about his snappy polyester polo or his fluffy white scarf, now mangled on the bedroom floor? A light dawns in Adam's eyes, and he is hit by a sudden revelation. Stealing Aiken's talent is impossible -- because he doesn't have any.

So who wins?

Kelly Clarkson: A minute after Adam's Great Revelation, Kelly Clarkson bursts into the room in full Southern Cowgirl gear and breaks out a cattle prod. It'll be a cold day in hell when a Texas girl can't take on two androgynous men. Swinging wildly, she clips Adam on the jaw and sends him crashing backwards out the window, where he plummets to a tropical doom. Aiken, who is terrified of women, finally manifests his magical powers and disappears into thin air, never to be seen or heard from again. Afterwards, Kelly puts on a heart-stopping performance in an outdoor theater, where her powerful voice carries miles around with nary a microphone (or gay man) in sight.

GAY WARS (11): Adam Lambert VS David Bowie!

[As seen previously on the Wild West Coconut Show.]

Adam Lambert, the American idol winner adorned in peacock feathers and top hats, is our newest addition to the gay-pop crew. Resurrecting the “Glam” movement from the late seventies, Lambert has managed to scoop out a niche for himself in the ever cramped-for-space entertainment industry, strutting his big gay stuff with a wardrobe to match. With such allies as Madonna and Lady Gaga on his side, I predict it's only a matter of time before Lambert becomes a household name.

And who can forget David Bowie, the Glam Master, Goblin King, and Lord of the Labyrinth?

THE FIGHT

The place: The Labyrinth, or more specifically, that weird room at the end where all the staircases defy gravity and end up passing through dimension-Z (which appears startlingly like the inside of an Egyptian pyramid.)

The time: This Saturday, just before midnight.

The attire: Twin top-hats and sequined long coats with identical gold walking sticks. Lambert will be wearing shoulder spikes and a giant feather boa, and Bowie in a ruffled tunic with a magical medallion. Eye-liner in large quantities.

The weapon: Stiletto heels. The man to walk the most staircases in stilettos wins. In the case of a tie, there will be a duel with gold canes.

The prize: Tommy Joe Ratliff, a straight man who likes making out with Adam Lambert on stage. Will Tommy embrace true love, or be exiled to the Labyrinth for all eternity?

THE OUTCOME

Who wins?

David Bowie: but why? How? Adam is obviously younger, stronger, cuter, and gayer, right? Right???

But Adam forgot – David Bowie is the Goblin King, and that means he has minions, and we all know what happens with a bisexual Glam rocker calls in his minions.

At the summit of the final staircase, Bowie knew he couldn't lose in his own Kingdom (and he's not quite so skilled at cane-dueling), so he sent a flurry of minions down upon Adam Lambert's head. Lambert, overcome by tiny goblins and distracted by his skewed top hat, accidentally stepped on his boa and tripped into negative space. Goodbye Adam... until you re-emerge from the Zed-Dimension in a Lady Gaga concert, naked and strapped to a burning piano.

Tommy moves in with Mr. Bowie and begins a new life as a shy, mysterious, “you'll-never-quite-know-my-sexual-orientation” servant boy.

I've got a hot date tonight.... ONLINE

As seen on the Wild West Coconut Show.

I'll confess. I am guilty of a long, meaningful, recently-terminated relationship with a foreign man, a good majority of which happened online. Yes, I am That Person, shamelessly cruising international chat rooms in search of exciting, exotic man morsels. Razul was short, athletic, and conflicted with his Muslim heritage, and we dated for, well, several years....

But you know what? I'm not really sure how long we dated. If the first half of a relationship is online, does it really count?

A friend of mine told me the other day about a "real" problem he is having. He is cheating on his online boyfriend in Canada with an equally online boyfriend in Arizona. Whereas Arizona lives closer and has a more rugged appeal, Canada is stable and dependable, and a better choice for a relationship. You know what I think is a better choice for a relationship? A real one.

Today's emerging cyber generation is doing everything the other generations did -- they're just doing it online. It's not unusual at all for someone to be in a serious, invested relationship with a man/woman/dandelion/squirrel halfway around the world. I have a friend in New Zealand who is dating someone in China. Another friend of mine lives in Australia and just married someone from India. Online relationships are happening right now in your neighborhood, maybe even under your own roof, and you can do nothing to stop them. But where is the appeal? Why fall in love with a computer screen? And how can you really love a person without experiencing them, you know, in person?

Why the Online Appeal?

I'm going to start with the obvious. People who actually spend their time "dating" online are either a) under the age of 18, b) huge gamers, or c) have cripplingly low self-esteem. Possibly all three. So by dating online, the awkward internet nerd is able to enjoy all of the benefits of dating without any of the reality. No need to hide your crooked smile or lose those extra ten (twenty, thirty, fifty) pounds. Instead, just send a flattering picture and expect your personality to do the rest. That's what "real" love is, right?

Here's the problem: if you're misrepresenting yourself and your partner is doing the same, then what are you really falling in love with?

Having a Conversation is Not a Relationship

Having a conversation with a person and living your life with them are two completely different things. There was a time when I talked for 14 hours straight with the gorgeous, chocolate-skinned Razul, via the ever reliable MSN messenger. I was in love. I thought for sure if I could talk to someone for 14 hours straight and not get bored, I was set. Then Razul and I met in person. Okay, cool, so he wasn't quite as tall as I'd pretended, or quite as funny, or as smart. Come to think of it, he wasn't a lot of things. But dammit, he had been so perfect online! And now he was here, living in my country, eating my food, sleeping in a room with me. Why did reality have to be so... real?

Let's face it: chemistry matters, and without the safe veil of the internet hiding all of Razul's flaws, we eventually went our separate ways.

Was it wonderful having a 14 hour conversation with someone who, in my head, was the perfect man? Yes. Can it lead to marriage? Sure, why not. But do I consider that year spent online a relationship, on equal par with someone who I can see every day, who will cook and clean and cuddle with me?  No, of course not. Because a conversation with a sexy picture is not the same as sharing popcorn in a movie theater.


The Social Implications

So what happens when an entire world starts online dating? Boundaries disappear. Borders are crossed. People mix and match and before you know it, everything is shared: religions, values, cultures, and awareness. The 21st century has ushered in a newfound freedom: people around the world can know each other, speak to one another, and share each other's trials. Perhaps a united world is not such a far away thing. Perhaps the more we love and marry people from other countries, the more we will come to accept each other, until eventually cultural tensions will be a thing of the past.

So am I for online dating? Do I support falling in love with a suntanned desert dweller from a far away land? Yes, I do. But it's still not a relationship unless you can hold hands.