Well, I haven't read it because I predict it will infuriate me, but these things are usually exercises in inventing a demographic that might correspond to some people the author knew in college.
What b-wo said. I read the article and it struck me as nothing so much as an attempt to invent a new word. Gay-vague! I can say it's different from metrosexual! I can interview people and say that I've found a new trend!
Maybe I should call my new style of journalism 'trend-envisioning'! And then I can, like, totally be relevant, instead of an incompetent bored journalist!
It reminded me of that article where the author breathlessly explained the sudden fear that straight men have of being seen in public, now that gay couples are everywhere!!!!111!!!!
At least it wasn't written by Jennifer 8. Lee.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-21-05 3:48 PM
It's things like this that make me want to punch the NYT.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-21-05 3:51 PM
I don't get it. What's wrong with the article?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-21-05 3:52 PM
Well, I haven't read it because I predict it will infuriate me, but these things are usually exercises in inventing a demographic that might correspond to some people the author knew in college.
Even Phoebe Maltz knows better.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-21-05 3:55 PM
And now I'm going off to the MCA just to foil any attempt of yours to hold me accountable.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 06-21-05 3:56 PM
exercises in inventing a demographic that might correspond to some people the author knew in college
Ok, but I'm cool with that.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-21-05 3:57 PM
geez, it sounds like Robin's got something us his ass.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-21-05 4:09 PM
So gay-vague people are like metrosexuals, but they talk in a high lispy voice?
Posted by Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 06-21-05 6:18 PM
let's just admit that gay-vague is the new term for metrosexual, because someone at the Times got tired of the term metrosexual, and be done with it.
Actually, first let's swear never to use the words "gay-vague" or "metrosexual" again. Then let's go get drunk. Then we can be done with it.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-21-05 6:27 PM
What b-wo said. I read the article and it struck me as nothing so much as an attempt to invent a new word. Gay-vague! I can say it's different from metrosexual! I can interview people and say that I've found a new trend!
Maybe I should call my new style of journalism 'trend-envisioning'! And then I can, like, totally be relevant, instead of an incompetent bored journalist!
It reminded me of that article where the author breathlessly explained the sudden fear that straight men have of being seen in public, now that gay couples are everywhere!!!!111!!!!
That grid is teh funny, though.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-21-05 6:58 PM
the second grid is teh funny.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-21-05 7:06 PM
That's what I meant.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-21-05 7:19 PM
so when are we getting drunk then?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 06-21-05 7:23 PM
what, you're not already?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-21-05 7:25 PM
http://www.two-twenty.net/archives/000392.html
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 06-25-05 11:05 AM