Category Archives: Posts

Who watches TV Azteca’s Venga la Alegría?

What is appealing about Azteca’s Venga la Alegría? Venga la Alegría (VLA) is mostly about breeders: “him and her.” It’s never about “him and him” or “her and her.” Is anyone else tired of the discrimination of Queers on VLA and TV Azteca in general?

Hola a todos. I’m not sure how Venga la Alegría stays on the air. Venga la Alegría which translates en inglés/in English as “Here comes the joy” (meaning the heterosexual joy) is a heteronormative variety-type show produced in CDMX (La Ciudad de México/México City) where adults behave like children for most of the show by playing mostly children’s games as they attempt to entertain the presumably childish viewing audience who enjoy stupid and dumbed-down programming. Mi amigo says: “It’s like watching Romper Room.”

Neither of us sit and watch VLA — who has the time to do that ? — but I’ve seen enough of it over the last year or so to write about it.

Are los mexicanos really into watching adults act like children for two hours a day? In the San Francisco Bay Area, VLA is on from noon to 2.00pm. on the TV Azteca affiliate.

VLA’s producer is a guy, Adrian Patiño. I assume he’s responsible for the content of the show, no? I sense he has a strong interest in looking at what could best be described as “soft porn,” meaning nearly naked las mujeres/women celebrities, since that’s a regular major feature on the show.

I have often wondered: What are the audience demographics for this show? Who is in the audience watching this show at nine o’clock in the morning en México? I wouldn’t think it would be los muchachos. I would think it would be las muchachas or retirees, no? So assuming that’s the case, why is this show frequently doing segments showing nearly-naked female model-type celebrities? Do the producers, Adrian Patiño y Sergio Sepúlveda, think that the audience is full of las lesbianas? If so, they certainly don’t make it obvious that anyone on the show is a lesbian. But if the audience is mostly las muchachas, don’t females want to see pictures of nearly-naked male celebrities rather than nearly-naked female celebrities as are shown every day? If females are the dominant group of their viewers, it’s as if VLA does not understand their audience or know its demographics. So again, why show images of nearly-naked female celebrities to a female audience unless that audience is lesbiana? Because breeder/heterosexual females want to look at images of muchachos, not muchachas.

Also, on the odd occasion that a male celebrity is shown, he’s never shown in the same way that a nearly-naked female celebrity is shown. There is such a glaring double standard on the Latino/Hispano networks. With the male celebrity, he is never nearly naked and his “basket” is never shown. That studio camera doesn’t go below his waist. But these corporate Hispano/Latino networks have no trouble showing a female’s vagina area all the way up to her cervix! Or all the way up in her butt, un-censored usually. In fact, they love showing that. One example of that; TV Azteca’s sports programme (Los Protagonistas) ends every show by showing practically naked white Latinas in sexual poses during the last 30-60 seconds of the show. Of course they never show nearly naked guys in the same context. And I have yet to figure out what nearly-naked females have to do with a sports show. Loco. This “soft porn” just comes out of nowhere. It has no relation or context with the show whatsoever. What are they thinking? I guess they’re just using this “soft porn” for “click bait.” But again, there’s such a double standard/hypocrisy involved here. It’s as if the thinking in these corporate networks is that the model-type (almost anorexic-looking) female body — especially the vagina and butt area — is beautiful but the male body is repulsive, other than a model-type guy’s bare chest. On the rare occasion they show a guy, the camera generally stays up on his naked chest area and does not move beyond that. The camera may fleetingly show his butt if he’s wearing lose swimming trunks. But they never show a guy’s butt — even a model-type guy — in the same way they show exploit the female body.

So how heteronormative is VLA? It’s completely heteronormative, and for me and mis amigos/my friends that why it’s such a turn-off, other than the immaturity. I’ve never seen the male dancers dancing with each other face to face or hand and hand. I’ve only seen them “line dance” together or paired off with the female dancers in a heteronorative couples’ situation as if they are “boyfriend and girlfriend” where at the end of their dance he predictably dips her back and they hold their position — with her lying back close to the floor with him smiling at her — until the camera is off of them. Ugh. And I don’t recall seeing the female dancers dancing with each other either as lesbian couples. They too only dance together in “line dance” formations.

Are there no openly-Queer people on this show? This is 2017, not the 1950s. Although in many ways it’s feeling more and more like the 1950s. People paying attention will understand that comment. Do any Queer people on VLA still remain closeted and heteronormative/married to females to hide their true Queer sexuality (as in the 1950s)? If so, it’s sad that people feel the need to live a lie here in this day and time. Unless I’ve missed it, I’ve never seen a Queer-related segment on VLA. In their chisme/gossip segments on VLA, I’ve seen one (or maybe two) brief stories about Ricky Martín and his partner. They’re the Queer Latino posterboys. It’s as if they and Christian Chávez are the only three Queer Latinos en el mundo because all the other celebrity actors, musicians and models are closet cases presumably believing that coming out will harm their career. On the odd occasion they’re asked asked about their sexuality, they lie and say, “I’m into girls.” Many viewers are not fooled — including myself — by their lies because our reliable Queerdar tells us they are a Queer boy and we know that institutionally.

From my research, one of the people on the show — who shall remain nameless because I’m not into outing people — is indeed a closet case. Most unfortunate. And of course he’s married to a female. So tiresome, typical and predictable of closeted Queer men as they try to hide their true Queer sexuality from the public being ashamed of who they really are. It’s sad when people’s lives are a lie. Also from my research, el hombre and his esposa have two children. But according to what I read — and assuming it’s true — it is well-known among the cast of VLA that he likes to have sexual encounters with young guys. That’s a story that has repeated itself countless times throughout time. Having sexual encounters with guys while married to a female is also quite common of closet cases. I also read information about a sexual escándalo/scandal involving this person awhile back, but the pictures associated with this escándalo had been deleted from online. I’ve lost any respect that I had for this guy because I’m so sick of closet cases who think they need to pretend to be a breeder in the public eye. This is 2017, and sexually-messed up people are still playing this closeted game with their lives. So sad. If only they would get some quality psychotherapy for their very messed up head and get themselves out of that unhealthy closet and be true to themselves and their sexuality, and stop living a lie. But I’m a realist and I realise that’s not likely to happen. These closet cases will continue to live a lie about themselves and likely screw around with young guys on the side behind her back (or does she/esposa know about this?)

One complaint I’ve read online about VLA is the show’s alleged discrimination in its lack of hiring of hosts from México. According to commenters, it seems that the show prefers to hire hosts from other Latin countries, such as Argentina where they hire white Latinos, for example.

The hiring of white Latinos is a system-wide occurrence on every español-language network I’ve seen. These corporate networks are the most discriminatory networks of any on television in that context. I read from a reliable media-watch source that monitors this type of thing that Univisión is the whitest network on television. I can believe that, even though I rarely watch Uni because it’s so corporate, dumbed-down and it’s so often all about their “celebrity” hosts (ugh) who are nearly all young and white Latinos/as. Univisión is quite an ageist and anti-ethnic network also.

I get the sense that everyone on VLA is a very nice person if you were to meet them and talk with them in person. I also think there’s a lot of acting involved with the cast/the on-camera personalities. Each one of the show hosts is really seen as an entertainer and each entertainer/host supports the other, as opposed to being competitors. I’ve read that they all get along real well, which is good.

Nearly everyone on camera is required to present this fake, nearly-constant smiling personae and to be very jacked-up/hyped which to me and mis amigos looks fake/phony and is a turnoff — from the six or seven show hosts who sit on the three couches on their set — as well as the show’s constantly-fake-smiling well-choreographed dancers. “Keep smiling” must be what they’re told to do in their ear pieces by la producción since that’s mostly what they do. I was thinking about this while writing this: When I dance, I’m not constantly smiling. And I’ve watched people I know dance and they’re not constantly smiling while dancing either. So what’s up with the dancers on VLA? They’re doing as they’re told: “Keep smiling, so the viewers will love you and keep watching.”

Everyone on the show is obviously told the following: “Work the cameras, and make the audience think that you love them so they’ll keep watching.” That’s what’s they all do as some of las chicas throw fake-besos/kisses to the cameras or form a heart shape by putting their hands together and working the cameras that way, which has become such a predictable and tacky (to the point of obnoxious) technique used by all the español-language networks that I monitor. It looks so fake and forced/desperate.

And does anyone else besides me get tired of seeing Sergio put his index finger to his mouth and then point to the camera? Or is it just me that finds that annoying at this point? Is he sending the audience a beso? Is that what he’s doing? He does that silly little finger gesture multiple times each show that it too has become predictable. The camera pans the hosts and there’s Sergio doing that finger to his mouth gesture and then he does the pointing to the camera routine and smiles. Can’t he come up with some other “work the camera” gesture like all the others do?

For most segments of the show, the image portrayed is that there’s not a problem in the world which does take a lot of acting from the hosts especially when/if a show host is dealing with something difficult in their personal life. For the show, s/he has to be “up” and fake-smiling and happy (Venga la Alegría/”Here Comes the Joy”). I’ve seen Los Destrampados interviewed “out-of-character” so to speak on one occasion (even though they still looked like they usually do), and they are very serious and mature muchachos, so I know they’re having to do a lot of acting in their roles which they do well. They seem like very nice and friendly muchachos.

I should mention Carlos Pérez ‘El Capi’ who’s very talented with his many characters. He seems like a very nice, informal, laid-back muchacho.

But my main problems with TV Azteca is that it is such a heteronormative network. There are no Queer people in el mundo/the world is the impression one gets from watching VLA. The reader might be wondering: Do they ever have two guys dancing together to make it obvious they are a Queer couple on VLA? No! Never. What about two lesbians? Again, no. Don’t you understand? There are no Queer people in their world. (Well there’s that one guy on Ventaneando who I understand is “out”). But on VLA, they always make sure that people are paired off (when they’re paired off) male-female and I’m so tired of that because it does not reflect the real world. Queer people live all over el mundo/the mundo but TV Azteca likes to pretend that’s not the case. That’s why I often say to mi amigo: There are no Queer people in their world to speak of. Even TV Azteca’s 2-hour dating show they started awhile back is entirely breeder/heterosexual-based even though many of the guys to me and mis amigos look like Queer boys trying to date a female. Once again, that generations-old problem known as Queer closet cases pretending to be breeders/heterosexual. Or do Queer boys apply to be on this dating show — and they’re willing to go along with the charade of dating/making out with a female — just so they can be on television? Is that what is going on?

One of the newer hosts, Ricardo, came over to VLA awhile back from Ventaneando, another show on TV Azteca. He seems to be enjoying himself on VLA. The first thing I noticed about him was how conservatively dressed he is. He even buttons the top button on his shirt when he’s not wearing a conformist tie. And he’s heavily into that monochrome black and gray (and white) clothing rut that so many conformists are wearing these days as they walk around looking like conformist black and gray zombies, or as if they’re going to or returning from a traditional funeral. I guess the intent of having every button buttoned is so that no “skin shows.” Which is quite a contrast from the days where one would see a hot Latino/Hispano muchacho showing some chest (with the three top buttons unbuttoned), just like some muchachas enjoy showing some cleavage. But these days, at least with most muchachos it seems to be all about “covering everything up” (very conservative) and being ashamed of the male human body. Ugh. Whereas with muchachas, it’s the opposite; show as much as you can get away with.

Venga El Domingo

The Domingo/Sunday version of VLA (known as Venga El Domingo) is especially silly/stupid and embarrassingly so. Such as on a recent Domingo, for example. Apparently the producers thought it was interesting to the audience to watch each host take turns jumping rope. (roll eyes). Also on VED, lots of time is given to on looking at images of (once again) nearly-naked celebrity white Latinas. The “soft porn” again that I mentioned earlier. Maybe their audience on Domingo/Sunday afternoon is mostly heterosexual chicos? With these “soft porn” images, they stop just short of having the camera up in the female’s cervix. It’s all about over-inflated nearly-naked boobs and a barely covered vagina — and again, of course they never show a guy in an equivalent image as the practically naked females they show — and they’re nearly always white Latinas, just like nearly all the people on VLA have a fair-skin complexion. There’s one exception to that: The “street audiences” they show from time-to-time with Los Destrampados or with Carlos when he goes out of the studio to interview people on occasion are not white-complected. Speaking of Carlos Quirarte, I sense that he’s quite mature and has to do a lot of acting to come off as silly/stupid and more immature, which is what the show seems to require/prefer.

To be clear, I have no problem looking at the nude or nearly-nude human body. But what I see VLA and TV Azteca doing is constantly exploiting the celebrity-model-female body for ratings purposes, which they don’t do with celebrity-model-male bodies in the same context. And my point is the double-standard, the hypocritical mindset of the corporate producers which discriminate against men and their bodies. Again, VLA have no problem showing a female’s butt uncensored but they don’t dare show a guy’s exposed uncensored butt or him in a jock strap to the audience. Why not? Because there’s a very clear double-standard on male and female images shown on this and other corporate networks and what’s allowed. The hosts of VLA make comments about these females and their bodies, including some possible Queer boys who have to pretend to be into females even though they’re not, when in reality the Queer boy couldn’t care less about females. But it’s part of their job for the show to pretend otherwise. In TV Azteca’s world regardless of the show, the guy is always pared off with a female. It’s always him and her together. It’s never him and him together or her and her together. Again, for the thick people: There are no Queer boy couples or lesbian couples in TV Azteca’s mundo?

VLA does have some more mature segments on the show. They bring in a guest to talk about inmigración/immigration from time-to-time. Carlos (one of the newer arrivals to VLA) and another host have gone out into CDMX (La Ciudad de México/México City) and interviewed various people in some of the comida/food, art, arts and crafts, fitness and other businesses. Rather varied subjects and topics. And the producers are adding some more mature segments to the show but at the same time they’re also continuing to add more of the childish/stupid material too (so one cancels-out the other, so to speak), such as their more recent “pin the face on the person’s body” or “pin the clothes on the person’s body” type thing. Or like their recent “tug of war” with the show’s hosts divided into two teams pulling a rope in a competition. They do have this new segment with a new reporter, Olga. She seems like a lovely person, it’s just that she’s too much for me with her constantly-smiling, “up” and overly-hyped personae. She gushes over whatever business she’s visiting and promoting — lots of expen$$$ive food in CDMX — as if she’s doing an advertisement for them, which is really what she is doing. The other day I thought: What does she take before she records her segments for the show, lots of caffeine? Whatever it is it’s making her come off as a bit unnatural and too hyped-up, such as the most hyped and almost annoying/fake sales person you’ve ever encountered.

I think most of my problem with the show is not necessarily with the on-camera crew. I think my problem is really with the producers and la producción. Mi amiga says she thinks the main producer has been “womanised” and probably has a child at home and that’s partly why the show has become so silly, juvenile and stupid in its content. With adults playing childish games. That’s the mainstay of the show. And la producción seem to try to come up with as many variations of games for the show’s adult hosts to act like children as possible. I guess that VLA’s audience likes watching adults playing games in two competitive groups.

I keep thinking VLA is going to be cancelled but then it keeps going. Although in a sense, I wouldn’t want to see it cancelled because there would be a lot of people out of work, just like when Univisión cancelled Sábado Gigante. Nearly all of SG’s on-camera people completely disappeared from television, and the entire staff (I think) lost their jobs with the network. That was a lot of people — I think around 200, if I’m not mistaken — to become unemployed. And I don’t like to encourage unemployment.

There’s also VLA’s obsession with the monotonous and conformist clothing fad that’s been going on for some time of wearing all-black, gray and/or white clothing that the hosts and dancers seem required to wear Lunes a Viernes — there’s nothing “Latin” about those drab, boring and conservative colours — which seem to be a requirement on some shows.

They did have three drab gray couches on the show’s set until recently when they replaced them with tan couches. By doing so, it told me that perhaps the show wasn’t about to be cancelled.

I just wonder: Who sits for 2 hours and watches this show? Or do most people just observe it/monitor it the way I do? I guess enough people “see it” or parts of it to keep it on the air since shows do get cancelled on TV Azteca.

Finally, on their Domingo/23 abril 2017 show, they reached the lowest of lows. It was embarrassing. Do these people have no standards at all? They resorted to the lowest common denominator on this show. I take it their Domingo show is struggling for ratings? The hosts were playing a game near the beginning of the show (at around 20 after the hour when I looked at the clock) using their butts as a bat. And of course the guys were fully clothed and in jeans. But the female’s skirts were so short that “all was deliberately showing” so to speak for ratings, although the cameras were at the side and not directly up under the females to try to bait the audience (of guys at 4.00pm on Domingo?) and give the impression that “all was showing” to keep the viewers watching. I did see that una muchacha in the red skirt had a black g-string on or something. Nothing was blurred. One of the male dancers was taking part in this over at the right side from the camera(s) and he was smiling broadly as la muchacha in the red mini skirt with a black g-string was in a full-squatting position willing and able to expose her vagina and anything else, and she looked absolutely eager to do so. Mi amigo saw this segment of the show and asked: Why don’t they just make a “pussy porn” film and be done with it? Yeah, why don’t they? That’s really what they want to do rather than try to disguise their real intent with this stuff? Overall, this heteronormative show is all about pussy, female’s butt, stupid childish games, adults acting like children, “celebrity” chisme/gossip, immaturity and stupidity. How does it stay on the air? On the same show, over-hyped Olga (their reporter) in her usual monochrome black and gray “uniform” went several places. She promoted a restaurant and gushed over their expensive food. Then she went to a heteronormative dance class where we saw (can you guess?) males dancing with females. No Queer couples in sight. Imagine that. Chau.—el barrio rosa

The shopping network

The background wall was drab gray with white trim. The host was sitting there in a cold-shoulders-style solid black dress. After a few moments, I realised a studio guest was sitting there next to her wearing white pants and a drab gray sweater with a gray scarf around his neck. But at first I asked my myself: Is someone sitting next to her? I think so. Although it was hard to tell because he blended beautifully into the background since he was wearing the same coloured clothing as the background wall and trim. Their continuing obsession with black, gray and white.

Hola a todos. Do you occasionally watch the shopping network? I have the shopping network on — the one that begins with a “Q” — when there’s nothing to watch monitor on the español language networks. I find “Q” to be among the least obnoxious and annoying of all programming on television.

Colour Lifts The Spirits

The first thing I noticed about “Q” is their sets. They have some very nice sets and some very elaborately built sets, but they could look so much nicer. Unfortunately, whoever came up with their colour scheme is very afraid of colour and likes living in a very cold-looking, drab, sterile-looking, depressing-dreary gray world. That’s because most of their sets are painted in various shades of industrial gray and white. Boring. Even their flooring, carpet and furniture are in shades of gray. The tables they use are white or drab gray. There’s nothing “warm” or “homey” about their sets at all. They’re very spacious, and some of them look oversized/way too big for their needs. I wouldn’t describe them as an inviting place to live and I don’t know who would find them attractive really other than the sheeple who are into this long-going shallow fad of conservative black, gray and white. Their sets remind me of some of the Luxury Designer Condos (Dahling) purchased by the young breeder Millennial basura with absolutely no taste in anything who have moved to San Francisco in recent years. The wealthy and bougi Millenials’ condos resemble the interior of a sterile corporate office rather than a home. Who raised these people with no taste? Well, the same goes for “Q” and their sets, unfortunately: a sea of shades of light/pastel gray and white. One of their large sets resembles a mortuary design with its columns and windows, although I doubt they’ve ever thought of it like that. That set is designed in a mesh-mash of various styles. Overall, various shades of casket-gray and boring white colours grace their sets. The only colour is usually with the items they’re selling. Even the clothing worn by the show hosts and most guests is usually/often all-black or monochrome black and gray as if everyone is in a depressed state of mourning. One might turn on “Q” and ask: Who died? Did someone at the network die and you’re in mourning? Is that why most people there are in all-black? Other clothing combinations I see on “Q” are black and gray or black and white. It’s as if they have a general “dress code” where they urge that most people (hosts and guests) before their cameras be in all-black, black and gray or black and white. Rather silly and it’s become so predictable looking. Either that, or there’s lot of “copy-cat” stuff going on there among show hosts and guests. Although some of the show hosts wear the clothes that they’re selling which can be of various pretty colours. They do have one set I see on occasion that is of a naranja/orange hue and that set looks much better and more full of life and they have something on the wall of a lime-yellow hue which looks very nice.

They and other corporate networks have gone so overboard to the extreme with this monochrome black/gray and white conformist obsession. There was the show host in her cold-shoulders-style black dress. The table in front of her and her guest was white. The items being sold were in three displayed colours: (Can you guess what colours they were?) Yes, they were in black, gray and white. Imagine that! The back wall was a dingy gray. The only colour on the set was the green plant in the background and the pale blue shirt (buttoned all the way up to the top very conservatively) worn by the guest. That’s another thing I’ve noticed with these corporate networks. The female host can show all the “skin” she wants or can get away with, but the male host or guest has to be (or feels the need to be) covered up like a nun. There’s definitely a double-standard.

I talked with mi amigo/my friend who is retired. In his career, he was a very successful interior designer/contractor here in San Francisco for many years. He said that the moldings on “Q’s” sets are designed for multi-colour patterns more in a Victorian-Edwardian style. But instead, they have painted everything in a drab, dreary, Navy-Gray colour. For a colour reference, navy-gray is the colour of the ocean when you’re out on a boat.

Mi amigo said that whoever designed their sets did a nice job, but the painting contractor they employed sucks. And s/he doesn’t seem capable of doing a 3-4 colour pattern that would lift the spirits. I would think that the more colour used on the set would also encourage more people to buy when they see such a beautiful, colourful set. Instead of a drab, mortuary-casket-gray and bland white-trim set. I suspect the set designers would say: “You have to have a consistent colour in the background for the clothing to show up on camera.” Well, as it is now and in case they haven’t noticed, often their gray clothing (and they have tons of that) fades beautifully into the background rather than standing-out and sometimes their cameras appear to be having trouble with their striped clothing and repetitive dark patterns. Another thing: white and off-white are the best colours for a background for most colours to be seen well. And they do have some sets with white walls, white baseboards, white window trim (white, white, white!) and of course gray floors. The tables they use for displays are usually white or gray from what I’ve seen.

But we want colour! So that’s what we’re dealing with here.

I don’t really enjoy being critical of “Q” and if they had shades of beautiful Latin colours on their sets — which that orange set I mentioned earlier is closer to — I would be writing, “they at Q have the most beautiful sets I’ve seen anywhere; what an absolute pleasure to look at.” Well maybe when they choose to repaint and buy new furniture I’ll update this and say that. Mi amigo says that he thinks colour may be “coming back in.” On some of their shows they are showing lots of colourful clothing. Yet on other shows, it’s back to conservative funeral-black or boring monochrome black and gray. It really depends upon the show and hosts/guests. Last night, both the host and the guest were wearing solid black dresses. So imaginative! [sarcasm intended].

I’ve noticed that “Q” doesn’t require their show hosts to look like models and I think that’s very good and they do have some diversity among their show hosts.

They do seem to require most of their models to look more like stereotypical models, but not in the “perfect model” sense. One doesn’t have to look anorexic to work as a model on “Q.” And their models smile — although sometimes they look like fake or forced smiles — unlike models one sees on a runway where they look like their face would break if they had to crack a smile. At least from the models I’ve seen on runways, most models look like real snots. The exception to that was the lovely runway models of Ecomoda on Yo Soy Betty, La Fea. Most of Ecomoda’s models smiled. I’ve seen some more average-build models on “Q” and they have some ethnic diversity among the models. It’s also very good to see the hosts being friendly with the models and vice versa, as opposed to, well, a host could think that s/he is superior to a model (which of course is nonsense) but that could be the attitude of some hosts, but I haven’t sensed that from anyone. And the models are really there to assist/help the host in promoting/selling their items so it’s good to see everyone working together on “Q.”

As I usually do, I was wondering if they have any out-Queer hosts? I haven’t noticed any, per se. I did notice a comment from one host which struck me as heteronormative, which annoyed me. The host was talking with two guys (they were the guests selling their items) and the host said that one of the guys was about to get married and the other guy hadn’t found “Ms Right.” Really? Now unless I missed part of their conversation before tuning in, how would this host know that this guy was looking for a “Ms Right” as opposed to a “Mr Right?” It is not wise to assume the sexuality of someone is heterosexual/a breeder especially here in 2017. It made me ask the television: Are there no Queer people in this host’s world? Although recently, Queer boy Barry Manilow as on the network for an hour. He was promoting his most recent music CD and he and the show host talked about his partner, Garry, and a little bit about their life in Palm Springs. Barry likes Palm Springs because he said it’s quiet there. Barry is a very informal, humble/modest, friendly guy. It was good to see him. During my disco days I danced to some of his music and enjoyed it.

I heard one male host make some reference to “tell them that mom and dad are going out to dinner tonight.” Why is it “mom and dad?” That’s another heteronormative statement. Are there no dad and dad or mom and mom families in this host’s world? And I would think that the same-gender parents in the audience would not appreciate that heteronormative comment.

Speaking of out-Queer personalities, they do have one Queer designer (who shall remain nameless) who 99% of the time wears conformist and conservative solid-black (head to toe), including his shoes. I have seen him on one occasion recently in black and white. I don’t know that he’s out of the closet on the network — considering a comment he recently made about one of their models — but a little bit of research online shows that he’s out of the closet. There are pictures of him and his male partner after they were married. Which is why I found it odd on one of his recent visits to “Q” that he was going on about one of the model’s “fabulous legs.” I’ve never known Queer boys to be into female’s legs whether they were “fabulous” or ordinary and his comment was very heteronormative as if he were trying to pretend to be a breeder/straight guy (when he’s not). I’m so sick and tired of Queers being heteronormative and making heteronormative comments. It was a turn-off. Or, did they tell him to make that comment about the model’s legs? Also, he designs pretty colourful clothing items for females, yet he never wears any colour himself. But should someone die during the day, he’s already to go to their funeral/memorial on a moment’s notice in his all-black clothing “uniform.”

Who eats all that food?

Mi amigo/My friend and I were wondering who eats all of the pounds and pounds of comida/food that comes through those sets at “Q” through their food demonstrations/presentations? I know “Q” has a very large staff so I suspect the employees may eat the comida from the various shows of the network.

I’ve complained a lot about the black tights and lingerie shirts that the Millennial techie basura in San Francisco and elsewhere have been/are wearing — where los muchachas look like they’re ready for a night out on the town and/or they look like a sex worker — and they wear that get-up to their job. Well, “Q” also sells that clothing. I’ve learned that they’re called “leggings” although I’ve heard some hosts and testimonial callers refer to them as “tights.”

“Chic” and “modern” seem to be two of the dominant marketing buzzwords I’ve heard show hosts use to describe the clothing they sell. And I’ve heard many hosts says, “You know I really love this. I just love it!!! It is just so chic.” Translation: You, the viewer, should love it too and order it.

They have quite a variety of things they sell on “Q.” I think it’s quite a job to be a show host because they usually have to go from one item to another and they have to know something about each item — they do have cards to glance at to help them with that — but you can’t have any “dead air” so they have to keep busy as they promote their items. At times, I sense that some show hosts are “glazing over.” By that I mean that their brain is fried and they sorta lose it and sometimes start laughing (understandably so) because there’s only so much that can be said about certain items they’re selling and they’ve said it all yet they have to keep talking about the items. It’s a lot of work. They do have the help of the studio guest there with them, so that takes some of the load off. But still, I think it’s quite a job to e a show host and I think their shifts are about 4 hours maximum, from what I can tell. And maybe I’m wrong about this, but from what I’ve noticed most of their show hosts don’t have a regularly-scheduled shift which must be hard on one’s sleep schedule.

As I was concluding this article, they were doing this demonstration for a heated hair brush. The host was dressed in all-black. The guest hair stylist was wearing — can you guess? — a black suit with a gray shirt and (of course) a black tie. And he was wearing a thick black ring on his left hand in keeping with the black, gray and white obsession on “Q” and other corporate networks. Then later, for selling a skin cream there were three women on the set: the show host in a black dress, the guest in a white dress and the woman whose face they were using for the demonstration: She was wearing black and white: black pants and a white shirt.

As I was completing this article, they were selling mattresses on “Q.” They were marketing their mattresses to breeders because all the images they showed when two people were in bed was that of young him and her. The size chart for the mattresses also showed graphics of him and her. I told mi amigo about this. He said: I completely understand your point, but this mattress company is there to make dinero/money and if they showed two guys or two females in bed whether they were touching or not they probably wouldn’t sell any mattresses. I said: But we’ve been told repeatedly by the heteronormative idiots of corporatist Brand LGBT that “gay is now mainstream and gay people can live anywhere.” Ha! He said: Oh I know all that, but you and I both know that’s not true. It’s not the reality. Also, as I was completing this article, there was lots of beautiful colour with some t-shirts they were selling the evening of el 23 de abril 2017/23 April 2017. Very pretty colours to help liven up their dull gray set. Chau.—el barrio rosa

Gay guys self-induced conversion therapy

Queers (GLBTQs) worked for decades for gay rights/equal rights. After achieving some rights — with gay marriage apparently being the ultimate goal ?? Who knew that was the ultimate goal ?? — some gay guys not comfortable being gay because of self-hate have decided to return to the closet and are pretending to have gone straight. Some completely flipped-out gay guys are engaging in (what I call) self-induced conversion therapy by getting themselves the GF (girlfriend), marrying a female (so they too can “fit in” and talk about “the wife” and pretend to be a breeder and be “normal”) and “smother themselves in pussy” thinking that will make them straight/a breeder, with some gay guys pumping out babies with their new GF or wife. Loco. So what exactly was the point of these gay guys working for equal rights/Queer rights during the decades of the now-dead Gay Rights’ Movement when they were going to ultimately conform years later to satisfy their deep-down desire to not be gay but rather be straight/a breeder and “settle down with a female and have babies?”

Hola a todos. The above paragraph is a summary of the topic that came up at our most recent meeting of local Queers here in San Francisco during abril/April 2017.

This topic came up because I told our little group that earlier in the day mi amigo/my friend went to his gym in San Francisco’s Castro. As seems to be happening more frequently, mi amigo came back telling me about yet another gay guy he’s known from the past from his former gym who he saw on Market Street holding hands with a female in clearly a romantic/relationship type way. I thought: Oh that again. A rather frequent occurrence. Because on his walks around the neighbourhood and trips to the gym he’s seen other gay guys from his past who are now clearly in a relationship with a female. Some of them are with their GF or wife pushing a baby stroller, seemingly trying to “fit in”/conform with the continually invading breeders/straights taking over The Castro.

One person in our group asked if this is a case of self-induced conversion therapy? As he explained: where these gay guys are now forcing themselves to be with a female to finally be considered “normal” and “smothering themselves with pussy” thinking it will make them straight — while their real sex organ (their brain) is thinking about having sex with a guy as they did all during the decades of the now-dead Gay Rights’ Movement — but now he’s fucking pussy to be a “real man?” (roll eyes) And finally feels proud to be able to walk down Market Street showing off his trophy GF or wife and holding her hand in his former Queer area now as a straight guy, or rather pretending to be straight.

Another person in our group said: The vagina is just another hole. Sadly, it would appear that these gay guys that your amigo keeps seeing in The Castro holding hands or making out with a female have succumbed to the societal brainwashing that all guys are taught which is: “you as a male are supposed to love pussy, and love the smell of pussy and love eating pussy.” I pointed out that: Some guys even brag about eating pussy when she’s having her period and how macho that is in their mind.

At this point in our discussion, everyone in our group sat silently and looked absolutely disgusted contemplating the sad state of things that we had just discussed. Understandably so.

A few minutes later: One person pointed out something I’ve said before: It seems like the Queer community has flipped out since gay marriage was made legal in the US. As if it’s backfired.

Mi amiga (obviously frustrated) said: I just cannot understand this. From their gay meccas, Queers worked for decades for equal rights. After we achieved some rights and have mostly abandoned our gay meccas because they’ve been taken over by breeders, now we see gay guys going to the extreme of dating and marrying females so they too can be a breeder or be seen as straight. WTF? Was being straight the goal of these gay guys all along during the decades they were fighting for Queer rights? Who knew that deep down some gay guys wished they were straight to begin with?…while they were fighting for Queer rights? This is really crazy.

I strongly agree with this:

Another amigo at our table sees a lot of insecure Queers caving to peer pressure to “fit in” with the breeders. To be just like them. As more and more breeders move into San Francisco’s Castro, the more Queers feel pressured to be just like them to conform/”fit in” and to be in a heterosexual relationship just like these breeders so they can finally think of themselves as “normal” for the first time in their life, even though they are Queer but going back in the closet. We’ve seen this with the obnoxious “bro” jock obsession in San Francisco and other cities. From what I could tell, it was around the same time that gay marriage became legal that the obnoxious jock fad began in The Castro with gay guys trying to be just like the obnoxious breeder jocks — and cheer-leading over corporate sports teams at that new supposedly gay sports bar — as breeders moved into the area with their “chicks” and “bitches.” We saw one breeder couple after the other making out at Harvey Milk Plaza under the big Rainbow Flag as if that somehow turned them on with their message being: “We breeders are taking over The Castro. You Queers (they are probably thinking “faggots”) get out of here.” What we’ve seen from the local Queer community was: Conform, conform, conform with the breeders and be the exact opposite of who and what you were during the decades of the proudly radical and alternative Gay Rights’ Movement.

There seems to be something in the agua/water. Loco.

I saw my straight friend the other day while writing this article and was telling him about our meeting. I’ll add something he said. He asked:

Have these gay guys never thought about what kind of emotional baggage comes with that pussy as well as the entrance rights to that pussy? Guys by comparison are pretty emotionally stable and rarely have emotional meltdowns. But with females, I know from years of experience that there can be hourly emotional meltdowns with them. They can be emotionally stable one minute and an emotional wreck the next minute, and you have no idea what you did or said to cause it, if you did anything. If you point this out to them they have no idea what you’re talking about. Gay guys are not used to this, so when they say they want to try pussy as conversion therapy to see if they too can be a breeder, to conform, and no longer be gay (they think), they need to realise there’s a lot of emotional baggage that comes along with that pussy that they are not ready for or aware of. Watch out gay guys!, and if pussy were so great you wouldn’t see all these sex ads from straight guys looking for sex with other guys and you wouldn’t hear macho straight guys at the gym talking with each other about “their bitch” and her smelly pussy and how he told her to go in there and wash the thing out before he’d fuck her. Maybe after these gay guys with their internalised homophobia try pussy, if they’re for real, they’ll conclude that the grass is not greener on the other side.

Good points made, mi amigo. Muchas gracias.

Our meeting ended with someone bringing up something I had written here before: Why didn’t these gay closet cases — in dire need of psychotherapy with a highly-qualified Queer (sex) therapist — move to a traditionally straight area years ago? They could have moved to San Francisco’s Marina district or North Beach or Cow Hollow or Pacific Heights, the Avenues or you-name-it if they wanted to be a breeder and live a lie in the closet and call themselves “normal” and “straight” and brag about having “the wife” and being Mr Heteronormative? Chau.—el barrio rosa

“Is the District of Columbia in the US ?”

The District of Columbia is the official, formal name for the capital of the United States. As you can see from this highway sign, when one is crossing la frontera/the border from Maryland or Virginia and going into the District the sign reads: “ENTER DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. LEAVING MONTGOMERY COUNTY” as seen on this sign in the state of Maryland.

Hola a todos. The District of Columbia now has to cater to our failing education system here in The Cesspool/the US. As a former resident of the District, I was sorry to hear about this. The DC DMV (District of Columbia Department of Motor Vehicles) recently made the decision to change the name on District driver’s licences from the City’s formal-official name, District of Columbia, to the name that the stupid-is-in sheeple are more familiar with: “Washington DC.” Ugh. Sigh.

The reason the DC DMV is making this change is because “stupid is in” and too many people in The Cesspool don’t know much or any US geography these days or anything else for that matter! Many District residents have had problems when travelling around the US due to ignorant TSA agents, ignorant airline personnel, ignorant personnel in car rental companies and ignorant personnel in bars in some US states (such as Florida) not knowing what the District of Columbia is or even where it is! (No, I’m not making this up. I’m serious).

Stupid people in the US have been asking DC residents after looking at their driver’s licence:

“Is the District of Columbia in the United States?”

(Oh good lord. What is wrong with people? Is there something in the agua/water?)

Other stupid people confuse the District of Columbia with British Columbia.

Other stupid people confuse the District of Columbia with the country of Colombia (note the difference in spelling) in América del Sur/South América.

WTF has happened to our education system in the US?

Most people seem to have heard of “Washington DC.” They’ve got that far, maybe only because that’s what they read and hear from the corporate media. But apparently our education system here in The Cesspool has never explained to these stupid-is-in people what DC means.

What do they think the “DC” part stands for? Apparently these ignoramuses were never taught that the Federal District known as the District of Columbia (DC) is not a state and the District is an independent territory and independent of all the states and it is the seat of the US government? There are stupid people in the US who do not know that DC is the capital of the US.

The DC DMV is also changing their licence plates from District of Columbia to “Washington DC” to, once again, help the stupid people among us who don’t know where the District of Columbia is.

I was sorry to hear about all this because as a former District resident I and the people I know cringe when reading or hearing “Washington DC.” Ugh. In part, because it sounds so touristy and it’s what the sheeple call it, not knowing the official/formal name. “Washington DC” is redundant because there is no Washington in DC. Washington and DC are synonymous; they mean the same thing. It’s like saying San Francisco, San Francisco. And most District residents don’t call it “Washington DC.” They call it the District or DC, and sometime Washington, or at least they did when I lived there.

I think that the national corporate media talking heads based in the District are told to call it “Washington DC” because the idiots in their audience won’t know what they’re talking about if they don’t. But I have heard on occasion some DC corporate media news commentators when speaking “live” to a national audience say, “there’s a plane flying over the District so I’ll have to wait a moment for that to pass.”

Here are some experiences from District residents with their current District of Columbia driver’s licence:

One District resident said she had trouble getting her marriage licence because the clerk in one of the southern US states (you might know it would be a southern state!) didn’t know what District of Columbia was. So the DC resident said she patiently told the clerk, “put Washington in the city name on your form and put DC in the state name.” The clerk asked her: Is that in the US? The DC resident responded: Yes, Ms. It’s in the US, in fact it’s the capital. (So in that instance, this clerk didn’t even know what Washington DC is or where it is so changing the driver’s licence and the licence plates to “Washington DC” wouldn’t help her at all!)

(roll eyes) Duh.

Another DC resident wrote (edited slightly for copyright purposes):

A few years ago, I took a trip to South Florida. While there:

-Bars would not accept my DC licence as valid;
-A car rental company refused to accept my DC licence, causing me to rent a car with another company;
-On the return trip, the TSA screener thought I was some sort of legalized national. It took four TSA agents before one of them knew I was from DC. That’s to say, it took 4 TSA agents before one of them knew what “Washington DC” was. I don’t blame the DC licence: I blame our rapidly declining education system in the US.

Another commenter wrote (edited slightly for copyright purposes):

“At a DMV in California, the guy didn’t know what the District of Columbia meant. I told him it was the capital of the U.S. He didn’t believe me. A supervisor had to confirm this for him. I fear for our country.


Another commenter said he had similar problems with TSA agents at Boston’s Logan Airport. They also didn’t know where the District of Columbia was either.

But this stupid-is-in fad is not limited to DC. A resident of New México wrote (edited slightly for copyright purposes):

This problem is not limited to DC. I’m from New México. I can’t tell you how many times people don’t realize that New México is a state in the US. Before the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, resident of New México were trying to buy tickets for the Olympics and they were told to call their embassy. So in an effort to try and educate stupid people, the New México licence plates now read: “New México USA.”

Oh lord. And unfortunately The Cesspool/the US is getting more and more stupid by the day as people are standing in people’s way buried in and laughing at their adult pacifier (their phone addiction). I wonder how long it will be before the stupid people among us won’t know what “the United States of America” is?

Stupid is in and sounding stupid is in: Has Everyone Overdosed on “Like” Pills?

As regular readers know, I’m rarely surprised by anything having “seen it all.” Not much phases me. So I’m not at all surprised by the deep level of stupidity here in The Cesspool. I’ve experienced it myself too often. I hear it in San Francisco on a daily basis when in and around The Castro. It’s as if everyone in The Castro has overdosed on “Like” pills. Sounding intelligent is out. Conforming and sounding stupid (saying the word “like” as often as possible) is in to be part of the herd and part of this sad and shallow US Pop Culture. In The Castro, the dominant word in people’s extremely limited vocabulary is “like.” Like, like, like, like, like is what one hears. And some people say the word “like” so quickly that it comes out as “lick.” It takes people around here forever to say anything because of the repetitive use of “like” in their speech. They sound tongue-tied and illiterate and “up talk” where they make their statements sound like questions. For example, “Hi, I’m Sarah?” Are you? I don’t know. And there’s not a chance you’ll hear a complete intelligent sentence from the basura around here. Complete idiots best describe how most of the people in The Castro sound today based on how they speak. Mi amigo wanted me to add: The people around The Castro can’t have a standard/typical conversation anymore because their brain is so focused and obsessed on where to put the word “like” throughout their sentences, so they stall and say “like” a few times in a row, before getting to the next word of importance having to do with the subject matter they’re trying to express. Quite pathetic really. Chau.—el barrio rosa

Him eating her out in San Francisco’s Castro

Hola. Considering the state of things and how San Francisco’s Castro is now the Breeder Mecca, I guess I should have expected to see a business in The Castro — the former Gay Mecca — promoting breeder sex, with him eating her out in a store front window.

I walked through The Castro on the afternoon of jueves/Thursday, el 13 de abril de 2017/13 April 2017. It was a rather uneventful walk really. On my walks, I usually stop to see what the sex stores are doing with their windows. My favourite sex store, Rock Hard, rarely promotes breeder sex. They are vigilant on promoting Queer sex as they have for years. Gracias, Rock Hard. They’ve had a lot of harassment over the years from the conservative Queer and breeder prudes who have moved into the area — with the determination to change the area to the way they want it (think: Walnut Creek, California) and those who have become conservatives after becoming a homeowner. Mark, the manager of Rock Hard, has been vigilant in keeping the store true to itself in catering to Queers. (Is RH under new management? Or did they just change things around recently? Something’s going on there.)

Another sex store in The Castro which shall remain nameless is one store that annoys me. I’ve always considered it a tacky-looking sex store. Their window display is now currently nearly all-breeder based (meaning heterosexual) in its content. But the thing that got me was this: They have two small naked dolls in the front of the window as you go into the store. One doll is a female with oversized boobs. She’s standing reared back appearing to be in ecstasy because the naked guy doll facing her is down on his knees eating her vagina. Is this what one would expect to see in The Castro, the former Queer Mecca? It’s what one should expect to see in the new Breeder Mecca (The Castro) today. When I moved here at the height of the Gay Mecca I wouldn’t have dreamed of ever seeing this doll scene in the Castro. Well it’s there now. And because of that I would not promote that store even if I liked the store.

Also, don’t the conservative prudes (Queers and breeders) in The Castro have a problem with this doll display? In the past, the conservative prudes in The Castro have moaned, whined and complained about Rock Hard’s video covers showing sexually-explicit scenes. These busy-bodied prudes called the cops on Rock Hard and other sex stores and the stores were forced to put white stickers over sexually-explicit scenes on their video covers displayed in their window. You might think I’m making this up, or that I’m talking about a sex store in Topeka Kansas or some backwards place. But no, I’m talking about sex stores in so-called “Liberal San Francisco.” Ha! Yeah right. Those days are in the distant past. Well, there’s no more “sexually-explicit” scene than a male doll down on his knees with his mouth at the female doll’s vagina.



“What about the children” is what the sexually-repressed prudes in The Castro have screamed for years in their rabid desire to sanitise The Castro and turn it into another Walnut Creek, California.

To begin with, I never see children near the sex stores or their windows but you can’t tell that to the conservative prudes because they have all of these imagery, outrageous stories dreamed up in their sexually-repressed/fucked-up heads about children staring in sex store windows. I’ve never seen that.

Well, this vagina-eating doll scene in the window is right at the eye level of a small child. In reality, a child probably wouldn’t even notice this display (or any of the displays in the sex stores as I’ve pointed out before), but that’s not the point. My point here is about the prudes and their (scream:) “WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN ?” fake concerns. What about it, you scum of the Earth prudes? Aren’t you going to march into this sex store and complain about this breeder scene in the window, and call the cops on this store and demand that it be removed? If not, why not, hypocrites? If it were two male dolls engaged in a similar sex scene in Rock Hard’s window, you pendejos would be at Rock Hard’s door immediately screaming at them. Or is this breeder sex scene perfectly acceptable in your twisted minds because it’s promoting heteronormative breeder sex and not Queer sex? I suspect that’s what it has to do with and your hypocrisy is noted, you prudish conservative basura. I can’t stand the conservative basura who have ruined The Castro. You’re the scum of the Earth. If you want(ed) to live in Walnut Creek, then fucking move there, pendejos.

The fact of the matter is that children wouldn’t even notice the windows of the sex stores just as they don’t really notice any other store windows. And the children that I see in The Castro are always with some adult. Historically, it’s the children in adult bodies who have the problem with the sex store windows: those prudish conservative adults who have helped to ruin The Castro.

While on my walk, I saw a total of maybe 4 small children. They were each holding the hand of a guy they were walking with. It caused me to think: During the Gay Mecca days, I can’t remember ever seeing children in The Castro. One mostly saw Queer guys in The Castro and occasionally Lesbians. Seeing the children on my walk reminded me of how very sanitised The Castro has become, and deliberately so. The conservative residents and merchants have gone out of their way to make el barrio/the neighbourhood so-called “Family Friendly.” (gag/roll eyes) This was partly done so that Queers could be more heteronormative and try to be just like the breeders that many Queers have tried so hard to emulate. During the Gay Mecca days, we Queers had no interest in being like the breeders. Personally, I still don’t, which is why I have difficulty in relating to today’s conservative, heteronormative (discreet, down-low, closeted) and phone-addicted Queer zombies. The conservative prudes (which includes most of the Castro merchants) and the prudish and now-conservative Queer “community” fully supported sanitising the area. Today, The Castro looks like any other area of The City, minus the Rainbow Flags which are there to give a false impression to gullible and uninformed tourists who might still think that The Castro is a Gay Mecca. Ha! But seeing the children on my walk reminded me that the area is nothing like it was, which was sad to think about.

What else did I see on my Castro walk? Not much really. I saw lots of guys with beards wearing zombie and conformist all-black. Are these people depressed? The younger crowd was engaged in their adult pacifiers (phones). The older crowd had better things to do such as looking at where they were going and looking at the sights of The City, something the younger crowd never see because they never look up. They only see that screen in their hand.

I did see what looked like a young Queer guy (according to my Queerdar) holding the hand of a female on Market Street. I guess he was pretending to be a breeder, until he comes out of the closet. The wobbling 2-story tall, blackened-window luxury (Dahling) tech shuttles hauling the lobotomised techie basura back to The City from Mountain View/Silicon Valley started rolling in. Then as I was about to leave The Castro, a younger breeder couple (that’s how they wanted to appear) holding hands went into the Queer bar there on the corner at Castro/Market. That bar is historically a bar for older Queer guys. While I was waiting to cross Castro at Market Street, I thought to myself: I guess they (the breeder couple) went into the Queer bar to put on a make-out scene and show the Queer guys who are still frequenting there how to make out with a female. (roll eyes) I also wondered: Are all the breeder bars in The City closed today? Is that why this breeder couple felt the need to go into a Queer bar? That’s something I’ll never understand. I’ve never had any interest in going into a breeder bar so that’s why I don’t understand why breeders enjoy going into Queer bars. WTF is that about? Or was one of these breeders really Queer and in the closet? Maybe he’s a Queer boy but hasn’t come out yet and came over to The Castro with her tagging along so he could check out the guys out of the corner of his eye when she’s not looking? Because what other reason would a breeder couple be interested in hanging out in a Queer bar? Loco.

Then yesterday afternoon (el 15 de abril de 2017), mi amigo and I were in The Castro. The San Francisco Film Festival is currently underway. It was very crowded. As we were standing over by the parking meters, this young him-tall/her-short (the typical breeder couple) wearing the conformist black and gray “uniform” that one sees around here came down the sidewalk hand-in-hand/arm-in-arm. Of course they had to stop right near us to put on a show. They went into this absolutely desperate-looking make-out scene on Castro Street as if they were going to have sex right there. It didn’t matter to them that the sidewalk was very crowded and people wouldn’t get around them. I suspect they both got off on the attention and being watched, and it was clear that he planned to drill her as soon as he could. Mi amigo/My friend and I then went up to Milk Plaza. Mi amigo commented on the barrio/neighbourhood. He said: Just look around, The Castro has been so Disney-fied. It also reminds me of the Powell Street cable care turnout area where everyone pretty much looks the same. There’s nothing that gives a clue that someone is Queer. Everyone looks homogeneous. I said: Well the intent of the conservatives (including the merchants) has been to turn The Castro into another Walnut Creek, California. There’s nothing unique or special about Castro anymore that you won’t see anywhere else.

Maybe it’s best that I stay out of The Castro. I’m the least annoyed when I do. Mi amigo says he no longer feels comfortable or even accepted in The Castro as it becomes more and more The Breeder Party Mecca. The Castro is a place for obnoxious breeders to come to hold hands, make-out, him feel her up, her feel his butt, party, get drunk and throw up on the sidewalk and on the windows of store fronts of the businesses. And to hold hands and make out in front of the (what’s left of them) Queer boys still here and hang out in the Queer bars. I see quite a few guys in The Castro sometimes still (such as yesterday on the weekend) but because of how people have conformed and sanitised themselves, there’s no way to know who’s Queer and who’s a breeder. And historically that’s the way it’s been when Queers are in the closet. Whereas in the former Gay Mecca days, Queers were proudly out and proud. There was no doubt whatsoever who was Queer. But those days are gone and that’s why I and the people I know say that it appears that most Queers are back in the closet, including here in San Francisco’s Castro. Chau.—el barrio rosa


Sexual Freedom and Revolution

Bi Now Means Masculine And Not Bisexual

Why Are Bisexual Guys Calling Themselves “Str8?”

Why are heterosexuals so attracted to gay areas and gay bars?

PrEP and “Our Sexual Revolution ?”

All the Queer boys and their wives

More people in the US are “identifying” as GLBTQ ? WTF ?

San Francisco’s Straight Mecca (November 2016)

A gay guy tries to prove he’s straight by getting a girl pregnant

You Go, Girl! You Go, Ms Thang!

“Proud To Be Going Straight.” At Gay Pride?

The “Discreet” Gay Guys in New York City

The “Discreet” Gay Guys

The Dental Industrial Complex

Do you give the name of your previous dentist ?

Hola a todos. This article is not about the outrageously expensive costs of dental work these days. That would be an article in itself.

This article is mostly about this: When and if you go to a new dentist, do you answer that question at the end of their form asking for the name of your previous dentist and your reason for leaving him or her?

I used to answer that question until it backfired on me in a very uncomfortable way.

To begin with, there is absolutely no reason a dentist needs to know the name of your previous or former dentist. A medical doctor doesn’t ask the name of your previous MD. They don’t seem to care which physician(s) you saw before coming to their office. And a new dentist will take all new x-rays anyway, so that question they ask is really “fishing”/data-mining for information that should be private. So with dentists, it’s none of their business which dentist you saw previously.

The reason that question is on the form is for their office to do a background check and a credit check of sorts on a new patient by contacting the former dentist and asking if the new patient paid his/her bills in full, or did s/he leave a balance due and come to the new dentist expecting to do the same. In other words, the office is trying to find out if their new patient goes from one dentist to another leaving unpaid balances, all of which should be private information. Because of privacy issues, dental offices should not be allowed to disclose anything about a patient to another dentist.

A dentist I saw over the course of maybe two years asked this question on his form and I made the mistake of answering it because I was taught from my corporate office experience to “never leave anything blank because it shows a lack of thoroughness.” Yeah, well these days I deliberately leave some things blank because the question they’re asking is none of their damn business. With this new dentist I saw, I wrote on their form my former dentist’s name and the reason I gave for leaving him (which they also asked) was because his work was falling apart, which was true. I didn’t think at the time that I’d have any reason to see the former dentist again nor did I think this new dentist would contact my former dentist. Wrong. Months later, I had a crown come off that my former dentist had done the work on so I went back to him to have him re-cement the crown thinking I wouldn’t have to pay (or pay much) for the office visit since he did the work. Well, when I went to his office to have him re-cement the crown, that was the most uncomfortable experience I’ve ever had in any dental office, ever. He was like a very different person. He was somewhat hostile but tried to hide it to a degree. He then came at me with rather overt anger. For the first time in my history with him, I felt very unsafe in his office. When I sat in his dental chair, he disagreed with me over which tooth I had come to see him about. Duh. I knew which tooth the crown had come off of and my tongue knew which tooth it was but he disputed that because he seemed to know better. Then after he realised I was correct about which tooth it was, he proceeded to put the crown back on. But the way he was going about it left me feeling threatened. I couldn’t wait to get out of his office. I had never felt that way around him before. It was as if he had flipped out. I couldn’t figure out what was wrong and I left his office asking myself: “What just happened? I’ll never go back to him again.” Later, I remembered that I had written his name on the dental form at that new dentist’s office so I could only presume that they called him and that’s all it took for this major change in his behaviour. If I remember correctly, he charged $150.00 to re-cement the crown, reflective of what I call The Dental Industrial Complex. $150.00 for cement and roughly 5 minutes of his time (in an angry manner) to put a crown back on? I suspect that charge also reflected his anger and rage with me. Sometime after that office visit, the crown came off again, but I had no thoughts of going back to him.

In the past when I’ve seen that question, “Name of your previous dentist” I’ve thought — and I think many people probably think — the question is on the form for the new dentist to make contact with the former dentist to get x-rays. One should not think that. As I said earlier, most dentist prefer to make a fee by taking their own x-rays. So I’ve learned the hidden agenda behind that question. It’s not to get x-rays. It’s really to check you out to see what kind of person you are and if you pay your bills. And frankly, it’s none of their business especially when, in my case, the new dentist required all payment up front so there was no way to have an unpaid balance. That’s one thing I found annoying about the new dentist’s office. Also with this new dentist I went to see, a few seconds after I arrived and they said “hello” to me, they would blurt out: “Would you like to pay now?” It came across as rather desperate. I did pay at that time to keep things “smooth” with their office, but I was also thinking, “Well no, like with anything else, I’ll pay after services are rendered.” Mi amigo/My friend tells me that with his dentist he always pays after the work is done and they never ask for payment as soon as he walks in the door.

I wasn’t with the new dentist very long for many reasons: He was extremely expensive. Well he had to pay the rent in that expensive San Francisco Financial District office somehow! I went to him in part, because of the school from where he claimed to have graduated from which I won’t name, and assuming he wasn’t lying about that. Although I don’t remember ever seeing degrees/diplomas on his wall. I also went to him because he advertised on his website that he used dental laser treatment claiming that many procedures can be performed without a shot or a drill. Curiously, during my appointments in his office, I never saw the dental laser treatment equipment. I asked another dentist about that (a dentist who studied piano with me) and he said: “You can’t miss it; it’s rather large equipment. It sounds like he doesn’t have it.” He never used it on me if he did. I mentioned the dental laser treatment to his staff on occasion but they remained silent when I brought it up. I don’t remember any of them saying, “Yes, we have it” or “Yes, we use that.” So I came to think that he didn’t really have it in his office or use it. So why was he promoting laser treatment on his website? He also only worked was there 4 days a week and I noticed he started subletting space to other dentists to help pay the rent. His office was all about “fee, fee, fee, fee, fee.” I got so tired of hearing about fees. It became so ridiculous that I started referring to one of his staff people as “Ms Fee.” (Not to her face of course). Mi amigo/My friend would ask me “Who called?” I’d say, “Oh that was Ms Fee from that dentist office.” The new dentist didn’t do any work on me at all the entire time I was with him (roughly 2 years), which I found odd. Instead, he outsourced all work to specialists and I suspect he got a kickback from them (a referral fee) for doing so. Other patients said the same in their online reviews of his office. I questioned his receptionist about his outsourcing of work on one occasion. I said, “Dr _____ is not doing my root canal?” The receptionist said, “Oh no, we leave that to the professionals. It would take Dr ______ all afternoon to do a root canal.” Really? I thought: All afternoon to do one root canal? WTF? What did he learn in that well-respected dental school he claims to have graduated from? (The receptionist’s comment wasn’t speaking too highly of their dentist. Did she not realise she had just said that their dentist was not a “professional?” LOL). Then there was this: If you got a cold just before a scheduled appointment, they expected you to be at your appointment regardless of how sick you were with your cold germs and all. They didn’t care about cold germs floating around their office and infecting other people, or whether you couldn’t breathe well because of sinus congestion. None of that mattered to these cold, indifferent people who were all about dinero/$$$$$$$$$$$. The Dental Industrial Complex. Instead, they sent a patronising reprimanding letter and threatened the patient with a large fee (I think it was maybe $50.00) should this happen again. I received a letter like that after having to cancel my appointment on one occasion. I didn’t give them 48 hours’ notice because I couldn’t. I came down with a bad cold the day before an appointment. I respect people and their time so I was not lying about having a bad cold. And again, they wanted my bad cold germs floating around their office. Unconscionable. And I really resented their attitude and their reprimanding letter written in a style if they were speaking to a child. I had never cancelled an appointment before. In the end, I didn’t stay with them long because I sensed that the dentist did not enjoy being a dentist but rather preferred office management instead, since that’s all I ever saw the dentist do. This dentist didn’t even clean teeth. A hygienist did that and I did have a good rapport with her and I had a relatively good rapport with most of the staff. Although I came to cringe whenever I got a call from or saw Ms Fee’s face. Ugh. With their office, it felt like it was all about dinero/money and high fees. That’s why I refer to the Dental Industrial Complex.

Another annoying thing that the Dental Industrial Complex is doing — aside from their outrageous fees — is sending these automated “Happy Birthday to you” e-mails on the day of a patient’s birthday. If these birthday wishes were sincere it would be one thing. But they are nothing but automated spam and even at the bottom of the “Happy Birthday” email there’s this language about what programme sent it. All they do is put the patient’s e-mail address into their “Happy Birthday” programme (presumably as soon as a new patient registers with their office) and on your special day this programme shoots out this cold, shallow and superficial birthday wish to their patient. In reality they don’t even know it’s your birthday because a human is not sending the e-mail nor do they care it’s your birthday. It’s very tacky.

Since that experience with that new dentist and how he ruined my rapport with my former dentist, when a dental form asks for a previous dentist, I now give them the name of my childhood dentist. He was a previous/former dentist and then I write “retired” in parenthesis after his name so there’s no way possible they can contact him, considering I think he’s probably dead now. Chau.—el barrio rosa

Trump’s Terrorists

Hola a todos. I received some e-mail comments following the terrorist attack on Syria last week by the bullying child in a man’s body currently occupying la casa blanca/the white house. I thought I’d respond to a few things that readers wrote:

“Donald says that the Holy Bible is his favorite book.”

My response: Well he lies a lot and lives in an “alternative universe” from the rest of us. His statement is rather meaningless really considering he disrespects at least one of The Ten Commandments, “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” I’m not sure what part of that he does not understand. That commandment does not say, “Thou Shalt Not Kill, except in the case of __________.” No, no exceptions are listed. Just like with war criminal obama, trump — deliberate lower case “t” denoting a lack of respect — couldn’t wait to kill innocent people within his first 100 days in office. What is with these wealthy basura that never grew out of their childhood enjoyment of wanting to play war games with the lives of innocent people? But upon reflection, there’s lots of dinero/money to be made for these despicable millionaire corporate parasites from their use of the barbaric Military Industrial Complex Killing Machine and the insane basura of the trump regime. As of this writing, trump has killed over 1,000 innocent people throughout Africa and the Middle East. Despicable. Most fake-christians hate it whenever I shove The Ten Commandments in their face and their support of state-sponsored terrorism, death and killing when it’s “their guy” in office.

“Trump launched a very expensive hit and run fireworks show.”

My response: That’s sanitising it. In reality, he launched a terrorist attack — that’s what he and/or The Cesspool/Los Estados Unidos/the US would officially call it if anybody else had done the same thing around el mundo/the world or to The Cesspool — on a sovereign nation in violation of international law and without congressional authorisation. I see that his white supremacist/Nazi base (they call themselves “alt-right”) have bailed on him because he campaigned against this imperialistic neocon “Nation Building” agenda (Project For the New American Century Agenda – PNAC) and instead ran on his “Amurrrrrrrkkka First” rhetoric.

Unfortunately, there will be more of this insanity. Such as with North Korea. El Hombre Naranja/The Orange Man wants to take them on. Loco. This hypocritical, constantly angry-looking child in an adult body residing in la casa blanca/the white house has los cojones to say that “North Korea is looking for trouble.” (roll eyes). No, pendejo, you are the one constantly looking for trouble.

I see that career politician, Nancy Pelosi (D), is leading the cheer-leading section for El Pendejo and his terrorist attack on Siria/Syria. She even wants to grant him an Authorisation of War to make his despicable “Nation Building” actions more legitimate. As I’ve written before, the Democrats are just as imperialistic as the Republicans. El Pendejo trump opposed “Nation Building” during the septic presidential campaign. Well, that was then. This is now. The US of Hypocrisy.

San Francisco voters keep voting for la mujer/the woman Pelosi no matter what she does. And rarely does anyone challenge her seat in the house of representatives. Even when they do, the Dembots vote for Pelosi (she usually gets around 78% of the vote regardless of voter turnout) and I suspect if one were to ask these voters to rattle off her congressional voting record you’d get a blank stare from most of them. I suspect most people vote out of partisan devotion and her name recognition, which goes something like this: “Oh yes Pelosi, I’ve seen that name before. Somewhere. Isn’t she on television sometimes? Then I’ll vote for her.” That’s about the extent of it.

True story: There was a protest for Pelosi outside the San Francisco Castro Muni Metro station years ago. (I don’t know how that happened considering what The Castro is today; you wouldn’t see a protest for Pelosi in The Castro today, I can tell you that!). A crowd came out of the Metro station and one woman stopped and asked me, “what’s the protest for?” I said: They’re protesting Nancy Pelosi. She gave me this blank stare. I then added, “She’s the speaker of the house (of representatives).” She said: What’s that? I was thinking: Oh lord. I gave her this “Look at me. Are you in there?” look. She then walked away. Sigh. Even if she wasn’t a resident of San Francisco, she was speaking US-English so I assume she was from somewhere in The Cesspool and she didn’t even know who Pelosi was.

There were some spontaneous protests in US cities following trump’s terrorist attack on Syria. As I asked mi amigo/my friend: Where were these protesters when obama was doing the same thing or worse? Answer: They were making excuses for obama or remaining silent because they felt they couldn’t criticise the guy they voted for. With these protesters, it seems that war is only bad when a Republican is in office. Their hypocrisy is noted. Chau.—el barrio rosa