Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
backlash

Can Details Get Away With Calling Someone a “Douchefag”?

detailsjohnmayer

Can a magazine that plays it straight but actively courts a gay readership get away with making tasteless gay jokes? Conde Nast’s Details sure thought it could when it published “The Rise of the Douchefag,” one of the magazine’s trademark “Let’s identify a trend, or make one up, and then package some witty copy around it.” Front and center in the piece, next to Marc Jacobs’ ex Jason Preston, are Project Runway designer Christian Siriano and his DJ boyfriend Brad Walsh — who had a major problem with Details throwing the “fag” word around, let alone being identified by a mainstream magazine as a “douchefag.”

The article’s premise: There are gays, and then there are gay “douchefags.” Like douchebags, only with the F-word. A handy charticle helps identify which is which: A guy is only gay if he “bleaches teeth”; he’s a gay douchebag if he “bleaches anus.” Gay if he “saves up for calfskin briefcase”; gay douchebag if he “saves up for calf implants.” Gay if “posts sleeveless pictures on Connexion”; gay douchebag if he “posts pantsless pictures on Manhunt.” See how this goes?

detailsdouchefag
(Click for a larger, and readable version)

The backlash started on Twitter, when Walsh tweeted: “so, just to be clear, when a major (albeit dying) magazine for straight men refers to me in part as a ‘fag,’ that’s homophobia. and hate.” It was followed up by a few more short bursts, including: “i don’t mind someone thinking i’m a douchebag or calling me gay. opinion and fact. but calling me ‘fag,’ even if OUT did it, is not right.”

Details got wind of Walsh’s outrage, and opted to change the story’s online version. There, the headline now reads, “Meet the Gay Douchebag.” But the print version (in the December 2009 issue with John Mayer on the cover) already shipped, with the original “The Rise of the Douchefag” headline — and Siriano and Walsh’s photo included.

So Queerty asked Walsh to explain what happened. He tells us:

A friend showed me the article, and in the print version I didn’t really understand why the photo of me and Christian was there. It’s not really explained. But in the online version of the article, they refer to Christian as a stereotypical gay “always with a pocket square” (though he’s not wearing one in the photo, and doesn’t ever wear them), and me as the “douchefag” who is “always with a pocket gay.” I’m not sure why the fact that my boyfriend is shorter than I am is funny. I think it’s a flimsy joke to begin with. But calling me a “gay douchebag” is fine. I am gay, and they are allowed to think I am a douchebag. That’s their opinion. It’s the use of the word “douchefag” that I have a problem with. I don’t appreciate any magazine referring to me as a “fag.” I don’t like that word. I wouldn’t be happy with a primarily gay publication calling me “fag” either. If OUT Magazine called me a fag I would be just as upset. It’s not appropriate, and it is offensive, and you’d think on the eve of 2010 that would be clear by now. It’s a dumb article, and it really stretches to be funny. But that’s their choice. If they have no valuable content and need to fill two pages with an unfunny listicle of stereotypes, that’s their problem as a dying magazine. But why call, me “fag” in the process? I know it’s a tired point nowadays, but really, imagine if they had done the exact same article about black people, and included a punny interpretation of the “N” word. Would never ever have gone to print. It seems like they were trying for controversy for attention, and unfortunately, some people think that while making fun of race is off limits, making fun of sexuality is acceptable.

chrisbrad

And therein lies a critical part of the story: Can any publication — gay or straight — get away with calling someone a fag? If not, then it shouldn’t be in print. But if the rules are looser for gay mags, does Details qualify? That’s a question even Details doesn’t like to answer; it’s stocked next to GQ and Esquire, but appeals to Out‘s readership. It’s headed up by a straight married guy (Dan Peres) but hires top-notch gay talent (Augusten Burroughs is a columnist, and Simon Dumenco is a regular contributor). Does that give it enough gayness to qualify? (Worth noting: Queerty uses the word “fag,” as both a replacement for “gay person” and as a pejorative, but mainly when discussing bigots, like John Ensign.)

We asked Walsh what, if anything, Details could do as a make good.

Well, they can’t go around the country and take back all the issues they sold with my face across from the word “DOUCHEFAG” in big red letters, can they? I don’t think they need to do anything, no public apology would mean anything to me. Homophobes who are forced to apologize… what does that do? I think they should be fined or required to print a full page ad for GLAAD or something appropriate, for printing the word “fag” in a way that deliberately makes fun of gay people. There should be legitimate consequences for such use of that word and other slurs.

Novel idea! We’re checking with Details right now about that.

In the meantime, you tell us: Is Walsh right to feel slighted by a major magazine for throwing around such an offensive word? Or is Details just having a good laugh — with, not at us — and guilty of nothing more than some off-color humor?

By:           editor editor
On:           Dec 8, 2009
Tagged: , , , , , ,
  • 128 Comments
    • Bill
      Bill

      I read this on the Details web site a few weeks ago.

      I think it is offensive and vile and clearly meant to denigrate gay people.

      I think that it should be reported to GLAAD (so that they can do nothing.)

      But Details has definitely lost me as a subscriber for this one.

      And I’m not usually very sensitive at all about stuff like this, but this is offensive.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 12:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      Amazing that a more or less mainstream publication would think that it was appropriate to publish something like that, especially considering its readership. Hopefully, the “fags” will stop buying Details which should bring it’s readership down to about ZERO.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 12:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • gentle ben
      gentle ben

      details is the homophobic jock who sucks dick in the dark

      Dec 8, 2009 at 12:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • reluctantcommenter
      reluctantcommenter

      the list isn’t very funny. it’s either too obvious, or too confusing. i bet a straight guy wrote it.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 12:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Timothy
      Timothy

      As a white guy I have no right to use the N word. Any time. Ever. Even if I think I’m being funny. Even if I have convinced myself that I’m really not bigoted, no siree, nope not me.

      And no straight magazine (or one who pretends to be) is ever EVER allowed to use that word. And to direct it towards gay people is homophobia. To direct it towards one particular gay person is unbridled hatred and vile venomous nasty evil bigotry.

      always.

      even if they are convinced that some of their best friends are gay, just like Sarah Palin.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 12:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Connie
      Connie

      Details needs to be called on the carpet for this. It’s ridiculously offensive. Hit ‘em where it hurts – their wallet.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Em
      Em

      Good thing they posted this side-by-side comparison… it’s pretty difficult to tell a gay douchebag from a regular gay guy.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      I had a prescription for Details for a while, once I saw one
      too many digs at the Gays either thru inuendos or directly
      I was cured and when they began the barrage of pleas to
      renew, I told them to shove it……….Advise I would ureg
      all who read or prescribe to that homophobic rag follow….

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChrisM
      ChrisM

      If they think they’re creating a new word and turning it innocuous right off the bat, they’re wrong. I’m sure I’m not the only one who has had this slur thrown at them already. The fact of the matter is that any incarnation of “fag” has a hurtful connotation.

      What gets me is why a magazine that wants gay readers would think using that word would be a good idea. Or the article, at that, which is incredibly stupid.

      However, Timothy, I think your statement that “no straight magazine” should ever use the word is incomplete. Nobody, gay, straight, or bi, who respects others should use it. Arguing that gays should get to use the word only alienates people from us, and telling people they can’t say it because they’re straight is more likely to cause more people to use it out of spite. In fact, the only reason I can think of for the magazine to have published this article is the author having gay friends that use the word. Claiming that makes it alright is hypocritical and leads to stuff like this.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      sp: Advice I would urge…

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Clark
      Clark

      Silly, stupid, hypey, made up trends that aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. Like all magazines.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sal(the original)
      sal(the original)

      call me a douchefag is like callin me a douchenigger.words like this are only used by the ignorant,details is over!!!!!!

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • illuman23
      illuman23

      I didn’t know Brad Walsh rode a Harley…

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alan brickman
      alan brickman

      i still prefer to use the potically correct terms “asshole” or “jealous loser”…

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • drewbrown
      drewbrown

      I think it’s funny, and I think you are all overreacting.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Yuki
      Yuki

      I find it fascinating that Queerty is reporting on this yet they use the word themselves, and even note that they do. Personally, I don’t care if you use it against people who are bigoted, or if you’re gay; the word shouldn’t be used at all.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian NJ
      Brian NJ

      I think the author of the article was inspired by the website http://www.hotchickswithdouchebags.com/

      This website comes up with clever names for all brands of douchbags. And I think the attempt at calling out Christian Siriano is very funny, because he is such a douche. The idea is that there is a complete asshole straight guy, and a complete asshole gay guy, is brilliant.

      But without the gay community knowing about the whole straight douchebag thing, the joke is hard to see. So no, I don’t think it is offensive. Anyone who saw Project Runway with Christian Siriano would kind of get the joke. Every ten seconds he would describe himself as “fierce.” Douchebag, see?

      I would like to see Queerty just join in the joke, rather than get all bothered about it. For a douchebag like Siriano!@%^&

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • nicole
      nicole

      it’s offensive and unfunny. walsh is correct in his sentiment and details should face some form of repercussion for their lapse of judgement.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      No. 17 · Brian NJ: What you consider being a “douche” others would consider a brilliant little pocket Gay who knew exactaly what he was doing and how to position himself for a successful career on and after Project Runway.

      Christian is “fiercely” laughing all the way to the bank………..

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • netwerqq
      netwerqq

      it’s somewhat offensive, but what’s MORE offensive is the article itself: not funny in the least.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alfonzo
      Alfonzo

      I more offended that that they got what makes some a douche all wrong.

      I initially saw this on their website, but didn’t realize they used the term “Douchefag” in their magazine. When I saw it, I immediately thought of Sophia Lamar’s “Shitty Faggot,” which I find humorous.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matthew
      Matthew

      I laughed when I read the article. I definitely have a few friends who are the Douchefag on occasion. If you all are subscribers you would be aware that a few weeks back they took a stab at ‘toolboxes’ and a test to see if you’re a tool or not. I think the magazine was inclusive to the gay community and sure did give me a good laugh. The F word is just like the N word only those in the community are allowed to use it. I’m pretty sure a straight guy never knew about bleaching your anus.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChrisM
      ChrisM

      Brian NJ: did you even read the article? Just read the gay (non “douchebag”) parts. And I thought it was bad before I read it. They say gay is being taken to a “new depth of tackiness,” as if its not only tacky to be gay but some kind of fad, and then reference stereotypes that I’ve never even heard of.

      Oh, and we are both “eagerly awaiting” Sex and the City 2 AND gay marriage. Good to see that privileged people can take civil rights so lightly.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      Did Sammy Sosa get carried away with bleaching his anus?????

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      And checked out Brad Walsh on the Google. Attractive in a strange way. That guy has the freaking roundest face I have eva seen……………

      Dec 8, 2009 at 1:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scott ny'er
      scott ny'er

      wtf. bleaching his anus? please tell me they made this up just to be funny and people don’t really do this. i’ve never heard of this. do people really do this?

      why straight people would enjoy this, IDK. so why this is in a straight mag. IDK. But, all said, I skimmed it… thought it was funny at times and not offended.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 2:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      lol, listicle.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 2:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GJM79
      GJM79

      Jesus Christ, queers have really let this simple, meaningless word get blown WAY out of porportion. Its just a word guys, get over it already. The more credence you give to it the more those that hate us are going to use it. Quit boo-fucking-hooing over being called a fag and get on with your life. Maybe if you didn’t portray yourselves as mincing, makeup wearing sissies then someone pointing out the obvious wouldn’t bother you so much. Who cares if they call you a fag? Have you never called a girl a bitch, or a gang member a thug, a fat person a heifer? Do you think all these people are going to cry and whine over that nonsense and try to not only restrict free speech but complain endlessly over something that is so trivial? Get over it!

      Dec 8, 2009 at 2:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      No. 26 · scott ny’er: Brace yourself my friend, the practice actually does exist. The pornsters started it because some actors asses looked “too dark” in scenes where rimming and anal was involved, like they were dirty (sorry there really is no polite way to discuss this topic)……..hence some genius figured the lotion used to treat vigileto (which Michael Jackson claims to have “suffered” from) which causes uneven pigmentation could be usefull (?) in porn shoots.

      Queerty: BOTH Entertaining and Educational! :-P

      Dec 8, 2009 at 2:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • thisguyukno
      thisguyukno

      I have to say I was a little perturbed by the use of the portmanteau of douche and fag in the title of the listical, however I honestly found it more tasteless that John Mayer was on the cover. Details is notorious for its edgy, sometimes offensive articles, and although this one isn’t nearly as successful as some of its other works as far as execution, I understand what they were trying to achieve.

      I am not going to cancel my subscription because of this, mainly because this is part of the reason why I’m subscribing in the first place. Have you even read some of their other stuff? Articles about having sex at the workplace, raising your kids to be douchebags, cheating, sex tourism, what have you – punches of literature on the darkest sides of the human psyche/reality. There are also other good articles on iraq/afghanistan, a story focused on the heterosexual male, smart stories about a male and female celebrity. They covered that cross dressing mayor in Oregon. I’m just saying, for me, this one instance of near breach of the line between hate and satire, is not going to do it for me. I’m not that much of a pushover.

      For me, at least, it’s still my metrosexual/gay man’s “New Testament.” I’m an openly gay college student and it’s nice to buy and read a magazine that doesn’t label/self segregate itself as straight or gay that I can share with my friends no matter what their sexual preference is.

      http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/28/101-being-offended/

      Questions of they day:

      How old are you?
      How diverse is your network of true friendships?

      Dec 8, 2009 at 2:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sam
      Sam

      Details really is over. I have a subscription and NEVER subscribed. Some magazine I did subscribe to folded, and now they’re sending me this trash. Just goes to show how desperate they are for readership numbers…

      Dec 8, 2009 at 2:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      @GJM79: “mincing, makeup wearing sissies” ? Looks like we definitely do need to get all kinds of pissed off about the word “fag.”

      Dec 8, 2009 at 2:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      Oh, and thisguyukno, I always thought “metrosexual” was synonymous with “closet case.” LOL

      Dec 8, 2009 at 2:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GJM79
      GJM79

      @ROMEO: Do you know of a more accurate word to describe “mincing, makeup wearing sissies” (besides ‘Pete Wentz’)?

      Also, I’m deeply offended by your use of the (completely arbitrary and otherwise empty) phrase “closet case” b/c it most accurately describes someone I know in what I have determined is a derogatory way. Therefore, I insist that we immediately shut you down, completely censor your free speech, publicly chastize anyone for stating their opinion, and create a constitutional amendment that “closet case” become a federal offense so as not to trample on anyone else’s delicate and fragile sensibilities.

      Have you ever been in the presence of a chic that is clearly a fat dumb bitch (picture these girls from MTV’s Jersey Shore) and someone calls her a “fat dumb bitch”? Now she probably realizes that she’s a fat dumb bitch as well as everyone else around her. What she’s actually pissed about is that someone pointed out the obvious in front of other people and the realization that everyone around her also thinks it’s true. The same goes for when someone calls a fag a “fag”.

      However, when fags allow the word to offend them, it becomes more useful to people that hate us. Its a word, get over it.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 2:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GJM79
      GJM79

      @THISGUYUKNO: Many thanks for the excellent Stuff White People Like link! A spot-on assessment of privledged people’s inherent desire to be offended by the most trivial junk just for the sake of displaying their self-imposed weak and inane sensibilities.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 3:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      DGM: If you think gay guys are all “mincing, make-up wearing sissies,” then it pretty much shuts down the discourse here, don’t you think?

      I’ve related this little bit of history before, but let me reiterate why I find the word “fag” offensive. The word faggot in relation to gays derives from the middle ages when homosexuals were used as fuel along with bundles of tree limbs to fuel the fires at public burnings of heretics and jews. Documented fact. So I shall continue to be offended by the word, and I won’t be getting over it.

      Also, it’s “chick” not “chic.”

      Dec 8, 2009 at 3:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Adam
      Adam

      I think details was out of line

      I have yet to figure out how professional organizations haven’t caught onto the difference between connotation and denotation.

      It is never the use of the word as much as it is the reason for using. are you being ironic or are you being cruel? In this case, it appears details wasn’t trying to be ironic, but sincerely use the word to describe something negative that we should refrain from.

      Do I call my friends fag on occasion? Hell yea, typically after they’ve ordered really high maintenance cocktails at the bar. Do I want them to stop or give a shit or feel they should change their ways, absolutely not. I love high maintenance friends. it makes me seem low maintenance.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 3:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GJM79
      GJM79

      @ROMEO: I’m very impressed that you allow a term from the Middle Ages to influence your mentality hundreds of years later. How progressively empty-headed of you!

      And where in my comments did I proclaim that all gays are “mincing, makeup-wearing sissies”? I can’t seem to find that anywhere, so do you plan to demonize me by falsely putting words in my mouth? If so, you can save your (also highly impressive) spelling corrections. Learn how to properly debate a topic without resorting to Fox News fact-checking tactics and then we can discuss the issue.

      Oh, and Jews and Middle Ages should be capitalized.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 3:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      GJM: re-read your post; you’ll see it there big as day. Sorry about the lack of caps. It happens to the best of us. LOL

      Dec 8, 2009 at 3:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • del
      del

      gjm79 – you said it up top. those exact words. are you high?

      Dec 8, 2009 at 3:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tonyboy
      Tonyboy

      but you are blanche! you are!

      Dec 8, 2009 at 3:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from  England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      @ GJM79

      Sweet. You sounds like a nice guy that I could always trust to have my back if I got beaten on by some people.

      I remember you, you’re the guys that laughed and bullied people your whole life, calling them n*gga’s and f*g’s but when they’d be upset cause they though you were their friend you said ‘CAUSE IT WAS FUNNY, DON’T YOU GET A JOKE, FREAK!’.

      Everyone laughed. You were top dog again. And that person shrank more into their skin. Result. Welldone.

      What more can be said?

      Although Darwin’s theory was only for animals and us humans are an evolution of the animal, it’s good survival of the fittest still rings true.

      Life is shit. People are shit. Tada!

      @ Everyone

      Come on guys.

      Straigh White guys are all dumb, stupid looking, grotesque and so rabbidly ignorant they always end up marrying women who cheat on them and take em for all their money!

      Come on, they don’t get pissed off about it (although some have when I’ve boxed em in that hole GJM79 loves!), say it as is it and ignore those pathetic dog brained f*ckers when they whine and cry like a bitch and end up ‘beating the shit outta someone for looking at em’.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 3:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GJM79
      GJM79

      @ROMEO & DEL: No, I still don’t see a sentence anywhere that states “all gay men are mincing, makeup-wearing sissies” and I am not high, although it doesn’t sound like a bad idea after this conversation.

      “Mincing, makeup-wearing sissies” refers specifically to those gay guys that are mincing, makeup-wearing sissies. I am gay but I myself am not a mincing, makeup-wearing sissies. So no, you may want to miscontrue my words to make it appear that I am saying what fits your whiny PC agenda, but that is not the case.

      Also, has it ever occured to anyone that the reason why “fag” has such a negative connotation to it is b/c primarily mincing, makeup-wearing sissies are the ones that are truly offended by it? Who most often bitches and moans over the apparent offensiveness of this word other than the biggest queens of us all? Instead of owning it and thus removing the stigma, they’d prefer to let those who use it hatefully win. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 3:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • del
      del

      gjm79 you’re quite mistaken if you think only “mincing, makeup-wearing sissies” are offended by the word “fag.” i think 9 out of 10 gay people would probably be just as upset if a magazine called them a fag. in fact i am willing to bet that gays who wear makeup on a regular basis are LEAST likely to be offended by it since they probably hear it so much more often than the rest of us do. they are likely desensitized by now.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 4:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mucklucky777
      mucklucky777

      Wanna get even? SUBSCRIBE with the Bill Me Later feature. Then don’t pay. And when they send you the bill, tell them they’re Douchefags.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 4:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      GJM79

      Who most often bitches and moans over the apparent offensiveness of this word other than the biggest queens of us all?

      Perhaps the gay men who hear the word “faggot” just before they’re beaten half to death. But then I guess they’re just being, “Mincing, makeup-wearing sissies”.

      Don’t worry, GJM79, you’re cred with your het friends is safe. You’ve done a fine job of showing all us mincing queens that you’re all man; not queeny, nor bitchy at all. But just remember, as Truman Capote said:

      As everyone knows, a fag is a homosexual gentleman who has just left the room.

      Remember that next time one of your straight friends votes against your right to equal marriage.

      Now I suggest you get your ass back to the plantation before your spot is taken by an even straighter acting and looking gay man.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 4:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      “Owning it and removing the stigma” ? What planet are you from, GJM?

      Seriously, do you mean to tell us that if some jerk calls you a fag in front of others to insult you, that isn’t going to piss you off? Or some babe comes on to you at a bar and then calls you a fag when you turn her down, that’s not supposed to piss you off? I’d rather get pissed off at being called a fag, then not get pissed off and be called a pussy too.

      BTW: “Quit boo-fucking-hooing over being called a fag and get on with your life. Maybe if you didn’t portray yourselves as mincing, makeup wearing sissies then someone pointing out the obvious wouldn’t bother you so much.”

      If you meant something else, GJM, it sure doesn’t come across.

      Seriously, now. Are you on the Details staff? LOL Hope not for your sake, cause that rag’s on its ass.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 4:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GJM79
      GJM79

      @Mr. Enemabag Jones (Love the name, but I find it highly offensive even though its just a trivial and harmless word, and therefore think that your free speech should be censored):

      I’m puzzled by this plantation suggestion/comment. Please explain.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 4:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      Why hasn’t Mr. Letterman posted here yet?

      This is right up his anu….er, alley, I meant to say. LOL

      Dec 8, 2009 at 4:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      GJM79

      Love the name, but I find it highly offensive…and therefore think that your free speech should be censored

      You’ve used that particular bon mot already; in comment number 34. When a gay basher uses an anti-gay slur while assualting someone, will you defend his freedom of speech with the eagerness that you would curtail ours?

      even though its just a trivial and harmless word

      So, do you feel that “fag” is also a “trivial and harmless word”? You’ve seemed to equate my name with the word “fag” by using the above quoted sentence in both instances.

      I’m puzzled by this plantation suggestion/comment. Please explain.

      Simple, if we were all slaves, we’d have a name for you. Since we’re all gay, we have a semantically diffent name for you, yet one whose intention remains unchanged.

      As far as your defending the indefensible, here’s an explantion by way of a quote from an emminent gay:

      The only thing that ever consoles man for the stupid things he does is the praise he always gives himself for doing them.
      Oscar Wilde</i

      Dec 8, 2009 at 4:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GJM79
      GJM79

      @Mr. Enemabag Jones: Its nearly impossible to have a real conversation with someone who uses quotes from a dead celebrity to back up his point, so I dare not try.

      And for the record, no one was assaulting Brad Walsh in this article, he was never in any physical danger, he wasn’t being “bashed” as it were so let’s just keep things in perspective. At best he was trying to bring to light the fact that a certain element, however small, of any population is going to be marginally offended by the usage of certain words, while at worst is using this instance as a way to boost his celebrity (hopefully he has a quote you can use in a future post).

      The point is that a small fraction of gays have completely blown this whole thing out of proportion for the sake of PC nonsense. Details is a gay magazine anyway, why would it want to alienate its primary audience? There is absolutely no way it was intended in the context that got Mr. Walsh’s panties in such a twist and therefore should not be taken out of that context.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 5:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Landon Bryce
      Landon Bryce

      Details is the Larry Craig of gay mazines: gay, but in the closet and gaybashing to cover itself. It’s audience is men not comfortable enough with their sexuality to subscribe to official gay mags, but who want exactly the same content and approach.

      Anyone who uses the phrase “panties in a twist” to refer to gay men is too homophobic to ever understand why the phrase “douchefag” is offensive.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 5:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • del
      del

      gjm79 is just trying to cause trouble. he can’t possibly believe his own nonsense.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 5:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sav
      Sav

      I don’t understand how it can still be okay for anyone to use fag in a derogatory sense. I always correct people when I hear them use the word. This article is disgusting and the publication should be reprimanded. If there are no concequences, it will only get worse.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 5:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      Its nearly impossible to have a real conversation with someone who uses quotes from a dead celebrity to back up his point, so I dare not try.

      Obviously not true, since you are clearly trying to do so. If it were impossible, you wouldn’t have responded.

      …he wasn’t being “bashed” as it were

      Really? Mr. Walsh feels differently. Or will you now present a set of guidelines that we mincing, make-up wearing queens might follow in regards to what constitutes bashing?

      so let’s just keep things in perspective

      Yes let’s do. Do you, or do you not consider the word “fag” to be a “trivial and harmless word”? Would you, or would you not defend a gay basher’s use of anti-gay slurs as “freedom of speech”?

      The point is that a small fraction of gays have completely blown this whole thing out of proportion for the sake of PC nonsense.

      Actually, whining about Political Correctness has become the new PC. It’s practiced by those desperate to assimilate with whatever majority is in power at any given time. The contrarian members of society who at once denigrate anyone who exercises their right to speak, while championing that same right for others–usually those whose opinions they share.

      Details is a gay magazine anyway

      Proof? Evidence to back up your opinion?

      why would it want to alienate its primary audience

      It hasn’t with this article. It attracts that segment of gay men who loathe anything which reminds themselves of their own sexuality, and reinforces stereotypes that het readers may hold about gay men. Clearly since you’ve jumped to Details’ defense, their ploy worked.

      There is absolutely no way it was intended in the context that got Mr. Walsh’s panties in such a twist and therefore should not be taken out of that context.

      Did you not chastise another poster for his inability to debate a topic?

      It’s become apparent, in your feverish attempts to defend this article that you are either an employee of Details, the writer of the above article, or simply so wrapped up in your own self-importance, that you can’t begin to imagine that gay men might not fall slavishly at the feet of every straight magazine that may make mention of us.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 5:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Connie
      Connie

      No. 51 · GJM79
      “There is absolutely no way it was intended in the context that got Mr. Walsh’s panties in such a twist and therefore should not be taken out of that context.”

      Really GJM79 – in what context should it be taken when a STRAIGHT men’s magazine prints your photo and refers to you as a douchefag? Kindly cut and paste a photo of yourself over Christian and Brad and see how you feel about it then.

      I fail to see how you can think Brad is using this article to boost his celebrity when 1. He didn’t send his photo in to be printed, and 2. he’s referred to as both a douche and a fag.

      Anyway, Brad doesn’t give a crap about his so-called celebrity status, and because I actually know him and you don’t, I can make that statement.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 5:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      I don’t like it. It’s making a perjorative term trendy. In any case, it’s childish. Don’t these people have an imagination?

      Dec 8, 2009 at 5:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • watson
      watson

      haha most people are bitching about this article because their reading it and seeing that they actually fit into the gay douchebag type…

      Dec 8, 2009 at 6:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • del
      del

      no because brad walsh said in the article:
      But calling me a “gay douchebag” is fine. I am gay, and they are allowed to think I am a douchebag. That’s their opinion. It’s the use of the word “douchefag” that I have a problem with. I don’t appreciate any magazine referring to me as a “fag.” I don’t like that word.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 6:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • thisguyukno
      thisguyukno

      @Landon Bryce

      It’s not a gay magazine, although I do agree that it is very “gay”. Although I wouldn’t really call it a straight magazine either. Which is why I believe it’s a MENS magazine, with no other qualifier. That, I think we can agree on.

      And although there are probably some closeted guys out there that do subscribe to it, if you are familiar with the archetypes of articles it contains you’ll notice it’s NOT exactly the same approach and content, although it is similar. There are clear differences in that there is always at least one story about heterosexual relationships/sex and something culturally about (typically hot) straight women, among other non sexual preference focused literature. If you can accept the idea of blended wines then you should be able to accept Details.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 6:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Attmay
      Attmay

      You people are pathetic and crypto-fascist. Did the article hit too close to home for some of you?

      Don’t get mad, get even. When someone calls you a faggot, call them a breeder. It is your casus belli.

      As far as I am concerned heterosexual male is just a synonym for “douchebag”.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 6:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • john
      john

      its so funny that masculine acting gay men think that they’re the only one who should be accepted. To them, fem guys are annoying and the cause of all gay peoples problems. I have some news for you butch gay guys: Straight people hate you just as much as they do the fem ones. You’re fools for tginking otherwise.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 6:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChrisM
      ChrisM

      “Also, has it ever occured to anyone that the reason why “fag” has such a negative connotation to it is b/c primarily mincing, makeup-wearing sissies are the ones that are truly offended by it? Who most often bitches and moans over the apparent offensiveness of this word other than the biggest queens of us all? Instead of owning it and thus removing the stigma, they’d prefer to let those who use it hatefully win. It just doesn’t make sense to me.”

      It isn’t the camp gays who are “hurting” the gay cause. It isn’t the ones who aren’t stereotypical enough to increase visibility of gays, either. It’s people like GJM79 who play into the double standards with which LGBT people are treated by society.

      I’m offended by the slur “fag,” and I’m not a “mincing, make-up-wearing sissy,” as you put it. In fact, a lot of people are surprised to find out I’m gay because they are too stupid to realize that people who are different from them don’t fit into a nice little box. These are the people who are using the word “fag.” To them, ALL gays are the same. When they use that slur against a “sissy” they are using it against all homosexuals.

      Instead of your little theory about us being offended by the word “fag” because it “truly” describes us, how about I propose a theory? I bet you have a bunch of straight friends who like to joke with you and call you a “fag” to your face. And I bet you laughed along with them the first time because you didn’t want to be “that guy.” So now you laugh along with them every time they do it, and you’ve deluded yourself into thinking that they respect you and actually consider you as much of a person as they consider themselves. Is that about right?

      You would think, being a member of a minority group at a high risk of violence and depression, that you could extend a little bit of respect to your peers and not use a word that every single gay basher or murderer has screamed at their victims. But if you have to be the cool gay that your friends can be disrespectful around without getting set right, go ahead. That’s more important.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 7:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dan
      Dan

      Well, it seems to aptly describe the nasty self-hating posters on every “Morning Goods” photo!

      Dec 8, 2009 at 7:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hephaestion
      hephaestion

      The word “douchefag” may ONLY be used by gay persons.

      Any hetero who attempts to use it shall be excommunicated from decent society.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 7:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ron
      ron

      uh…..as an out gay man in his late forties, lemme just say — “douchefag” pretty much defines an entire species of gay man. “Details”, which frankly is not so much a magazine as it is a brochure, nailed it on this one. There are plenty of douchefags out there, they tend to be gay men of a certain vintage, ie: over 30, and they deserve every derivative they get.

      If you don’t like being held up to ridicule, douche fag, stop wearing abercrombie and fitch when you’re over 30, stop acting like a complete nitwit at bars, and stop being such an asswipe to women/other gay men/men….

      leave it to Details….

      Dec 8, 2009 at 8:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • meltelly
      meltelly

      yeah, douchefag is a little extreme to have passed the editors, who are probably douchefails themselves…..I’m glad mr. Walsh responded with intelligence, but before the call for boycotting commences, perhaps the wait for an apology or admission of bad doing should be enough….why beat what is already bloody (the mag industry)…ya know?….they’ll get it. and if they dont…then, well…

      Dec 8, 2009 at 8:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • meltelly
      meltelly

      @Terrwill (re: post 8)…you said prescription…and I know you meant subscription…did you correct that mistake on your part? lol..anyway, i wanted to be catty and say maybe that was a fruedian slip, but I dont want to be thought of as a douchefag, I mean douchebag :p

      Dec 8, 2009 at 8:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Carl
      Carl

      Am I the only one who learned from their parents “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” ? A word only has power if you give it power. Call me whatever you want, I know who I am. I could care less about what strangers call me. They don’t know me so why should it bother me. I would be more upset if my parents or friends called me insensitive or rude then if a stranger called me a douchefag.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 8:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • meltelly
      meltelly

      @Carl

      You are right, but in an ideal world, which is not reality – In this case, the generalization of homoness into categories, good or bad, are not what we need when we are not even on an even playing field….I would say that they have the right to say what they want, of course, but ethically, given our situation, and knowing that we are a good chunk of their market……..

      Dec 8, 2009 at 8:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      Amazing the amount of support a closet like Details Magazine is getting on this thread. Always fascinated me the way some gay guys willingly beat themselves over the head with a hammer so straights won’t get arm strain.

      As for the rest of us, BOYCOTT DETAILS MAGAZINE !

      Dec 8, 2009 at 9:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • D.B.
      D.B.

      Personally, I’m not particularly offended by this item in “Details” — while it’s certainly not the wittiest piece they’ve ever run, it’s definitely not out of the norm for this mag’s content. (And yes, I generally consider “Details” a gay mag.)

      And deep down, I kind of think the people most offended are so because it hits a little too close to home. If the name fits….

      Dec 8, 2009 at 9:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • meltelly
      meltelly

      @ Romeo

      True to a certain degree, but really, c’mon, the only reason why Detail(ed) can get away with that is because of our lack of support within the politics of the day…Boycott Obama, or Hillary, or Barnacle Frank….not a dippy lil’ mag with no inuendo save the weekly changes in the wind….Go for the marrow, sir.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 9:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      ron

      Ron, I was going to tear into you for bitching about something as banal as the clothing some men choose to wear, no matter their age. Then I read your blog and noticed that you not only referenced “King Of Kensington”, but Jane Eastwood as well. I’ll let it slide.

      BTW–Lovely pics of your much younger boyfriend and costumed little dog. So not douchie at all.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 9:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nicholas
      Nicholas

      I loved the article – It made me smile and laugh. Just renewed my subscription to the mag.

      (…That said, I guess the article hit too close to home for all of the douchefags who left the ranting, bitchy comments above…)

      Dec 8, 2009 at 10:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scott ny'er
      scott ny'er

      @No. 29 · terrwill

      Queerty: BOTH Entertaining and Educational! :-P
      ==============================
      LOL. That last line made me smile. :)

      Thanks for answering the butt bleaching question. Sheesh. I’m still a little open mouthed here (and not in that way!!! you dirty pervs, you! I’m joking, guys. Like this article.)

      Hey, I’m a very sensitive dude but really, I think this article is harmless. Details always writes these funny articles. I don’t see malicious intent here.

      It’s not like it’s a Mormon gay-hater saying this as he stands with a sign reading, Adam + Eve not Steve. It’s… Deeeetails.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 10:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Greg
      Greg

      get outta here! they are DOUCHEFAGS!!! that’s why they’re pissed off. They give gays a terrible terrible name and have done more to set us back than details ever has!

      Dec 8, 2009 at 10:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Greg
      Greg

      and oh yea, i’d rather be lampooned in Details than Instinct or Genre or any other gay trash rag.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 10:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Greg
      Greg

      To: No 5. Timothy, get a f*%^ing life man! and get a job, 12:46pm really, really? nasty evil vile? how do you know the author of the article isn’t gay? stop ghettoizing yourself! we don’t only belong in crap magazines (instinct) or crap movies (eating out) we belong in mainstream media (and if you want to call that straight media, go ahead), in serious journalism and satire.

      Dec 8, 2009 at 10:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      Greg, I don’t know where you’ve been. We ARE represented in all the major media, movies, etc.. We’re among the most talented contributors to the straight media. And that straight media shows us the courtesy of not calling us fags. Details can fucking do the same.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 2:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Landon Bryce
      Landon Bryce

      Does anybody want to join me in asking Queerty to STOP using “fag,” unless they are quoting someone or doing for clearly defined purposes, such as the discussion here? This is not a private clubhouse, and we aren’t all pals. I agree with Brad Walsh– I don’t like the word, and I want gay publications to stop using it, too.

      I take Queerty as seriously as any other news source for gay issues. I’d like to be able to take you more seriously. You have the best eye for which stories are important and the least stereotypical point of view of any of the major gay blogs. You should be a bigger player in the blog game, frankly, because you get the medium but have genuine journalistic chops.

      It’s a legitimate moment to re-examine the policy and ask if the Dan Savagesque snark is worth giving cover to people who use bigoted language in genuinely hateful ways. And also whether growing up a little regarding the language you choose to use might not pay off in this rough time for media.

      Grownups don’t say “fag.” 2010 is the year of the adult.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 4:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Freddie
      Freddie

      Guys, it’s funny. Lighten up.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 6:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ryan
      Ryan

      Details was trying too hard to be edgy and they overstepped. Clearly, the article was meant to be tongue in cheek. They went too far, they edited their site online, problem solved. Of course, no one enjoys pearl-clutching melodrama more than the gays (except maybe the right wing Christians) so this minor bit of nothing is going to be blown up into a HUGE DEAL by people who crave self righteous indignation like its crack. Sigh. Whatever. Oh, and the gay douchebag in question who thinks Details should be fined needs to go back to civics class and reacquainte himself with the First Amendment.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 6:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      No. 68 · meltelly: Silly goose! that was on purpose, “prescription” being “cured”…………c’mon work with the drugs!!! :-P

      No. 76 · Scott ny’er: I just can’t figger out how one applies said lotion…….. :-}

      Dec 9, 2009 at 10:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Landon Bryce
      Landon Bryce

      Ryan:

      You think it is appropriate to refer to gay people, facing the likelihood of Uganda passing the death penalty for “aggravated sodomy,” as engaging in “pearl-clutching melodrama” when they object to being called “fags.” You are the same sort of homophobe as the writer– who I don’t like any better if he happens to be gay.

      You homophobes tend to be not especially intelligent, as we see if your assertion that fixing the online edition of the article fixes the problem. The editors of the print edition of Details sent my boyfriend– uninvited– a magazine that thinks it’s funny to use hate speech against gay people. There are millions of copies of “Douchefag” out there.

      You think that editing the online edition magically made all print copies disappear. If all gay people were that dumb, I would have a low opinion of us, too.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 10:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ladd
      Ladd

      While the basis of the article is offensive, I love that they directly compare Connexion.org to Manhunt… LOL I definitely agree that Connexion is less douchey.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 11:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ryan
      Ryan

      Wow, Landon. Wow.

      Gotta say, I’m a pretty cynical guy, but even I couldn’t anticipate that there would be any pearl clutching melodramatic queen out there with the fucking gall to invoke Uganda in an attempt to win an argument about an American magazine calling someone a rude term. I think you’ve single handedly invented a gay version of Godwin’s Law. So, thanks for that. I think I’ll try that the next time I’m in an argument with someone about a gay rights’ issue:

      “I’m not sure if we need a law like ENDA–”
      “GAY PEOPLE ARE BEING EXECUTED IN UGANDA!!!”
      “Sigh. You win.”

      Oh, and gay Ugandans–you remember them, the ones who, unlike you, *actually are* “facing the likelihood of passing the death penalty for aggravated sodomy”–I’m gonna guess they could give two shits about what some stupid magazine called an even stupider douche bag who doesn’t even know what the First Amendment is.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 11:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jacob
      Jacob

      I think fag shouldnt be used full stop. It is offensive and im young and practically find anything funny but that is a joke thats gone too far. By using words like that, implies to its reader that its acceptable to use. Which it is not!

      Dude, you guys have lost another reader here! Oh well…your loss lol!

      Dec 9, 2009 at 11:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kim
      Kim

      No. 87 · Ryan: but isn’t fag hate speech? Walsh said he didn’t mine being called a douchebag or gay, but it was the word fag. I’m curious really, does anyone know if fag is considered hate speech or slander or something punishable by law?

      Dec 9, 2009 at 12:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GJM79
      GJM79

      Kudos to those of you rational commenters – WATSON, ATTMAY, RON, KARL, D.B., METLTELLY, FREDDIE, RYAN etc who actually use logic and reason to realize how harmless this article really was instead of immediately screaming like banshees on the moors (thank you Parks & Rec) while making ridiculous comparisons to Uganda and calling for boycotts and reparations.

      As pointed out numerous times, “douchefag” probably just hit a little too close to home for some guys which infuriated them. No one likes being called a douchebag and the “fag” part just incited their misguided fury even more.

      @RYAN – On a side note, your evident intelligence is a huge turn-on. Good for you! Any chance you live in the Chicago area ;-)

      Dec 9, 2009 at 12:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Attmay
      Attmay

      @87 Ryan:

      Bryce’s Law: Anyone who tries to create an equivalent between a word in a magazine and (forthcoming) genocide in a foreign country is losing the argument.

      I shouldn’t be surprised that Douchefag Central (aka Queerty and the rest of the Gay Leftist Blogreich) was offended. You sucked Obama’s cock throughout that whole miserable campaign and then turned on him when he failed to deliver the Change You Were Dumb Enough To Believe In. You accuse those who say the same things about Islam that are said regularly about Christianity of “racism,” even though the same criticisms of Christianity apply to Islam and then some. And a lot of you here seem to have no problem with a dictatorship (I saw Hitler’s economic policies defended here once someone admitted that the policies in question were socialist). You all had a mirror held up to you and when you saw the ugly, hateful, piece of shit staring you in the face you didn’t like it. No wonder we don’t have gay marriage; who’d want to be married to the likes of you?

      The article is funny because it’s true. But I’m too niggardly to afford to subscribe to Details because they’d probably jew me out of more than what I’d expect to pay, and then if I objected, they’d stop sending it to me like a bunch of Indian Givers.

      BTW, look at this and note the date (2005):
      http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Douchefag

      And then read this:

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

      Don’t get mad. Get even. Stop being a douchefag and bash back!

      @65 Hephaestion:

      I have already excommunicated the breeders from decent society no matter what they say or do.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 12:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      Fact remains, guys, DETAILS removed the item from their website and wished it could get the hard copies back. LOL

      Defend that shit all you want. Most of us here know what we’re looking at. And we know what you dorks are, too.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 12:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ryan
      Ryan

      No, Kim, name calling isn’t hate speech, no matter how rude the word, and thank God for that. The only speech banned in America are lies about someone (aka slander), speech that puts people in jeopardy (like telling fire in a theater) and encitement to violence. Which would be like saying “let’s kill those fags!”. The KKK still exists, and they have a right to publicly call Obama the “n” word if they want. And I’m sure they do. If people want to boycott Details over this, that’s how it can be punished. But not through the government. And thanks, GJM79! But sorry, I live in LA. :)

      Dec 9, 2009 at 12:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kim
      Kim

      Thanks Ryan. I still think the article shouldn’t have been written especially with that word. But if there is no law against using the word fag then I guess Details can do whatever it wants.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 1:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • New York Chris
      New York Chris

      Ok, granted, it IS somewhat offensive, but for Christ’s sake, lighten up. Christian Seriano IS a douche.

      Have we really gotten this politically correct that we’re taking this on instead of so many other things out there. Let them be ignorant. If it offends you, don’t buy their ridiculous “Style” publication which is about style only so much that it caters to people in flyover states who need a magazine to tell them what style is. Then, when they can’t afford what’s in the magazine, they go to their local mall and buy Abercrombie.

      Excuse me now, so I don’t break a heel on my way down from the soapbox.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 1:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • del
      del

      new york chris you’re missing the point. they didn’t care about the word douche. they cared about the word FAG

      Dec 9, 2009 at 1:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • james p. p.
      james p. p.

      I’m sorry, but I agree with most of what Details wrote.

      The problem here isn’t the content (as if an open gay male wrote it, most of us would laugh/groan/roll eyes and move on.)

      Details is a “bisexual” magazine. Details readers are, by large, not homophobic. And any (actual) straight male who reads Details probably will look at the list and say “hey, my gay friend doesn’t do any of these douchefaggy things… he must be pretty cool.” cuz let’s face it – who really get’s their anus bleached? really.

      So the question is: “should bisexuals tell gay jokes?”

      And the overwhelming response here is “no”. I admit, I sometimes roll my eyes when i hear a bisexual guy tell his “coming out” story.

      But I just don’t take it that seriously. Sorry. There are so many other issues around us bigger than some metro magazine trying to collect the readers together by saying “hey, let’s laugh at THOSE people… over THERE… and let’s call them ‘fags’ because South Park made it okay now…”

      Dec 9, 2009 at 1:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Landon Bryce
      Landon Bryce

      Dear Ryan,

      Thank you the point that someone like you who calls gay people “queens” is going to be okay with other people using the word “fag.”

      And for someone who accuses others of excessive emotion over this issue, it seems to really, really make you upset that other people find this offensive. Count your posts, kiddo– you’re the overwrought one.

      But thanks for showing us all how sad and pathetic gay people are when they hate themselves. Always instructive.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 4:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eric
      Eric

      http://www.details.com/contact/contact-details

      Contact Details and let them know that they don’t have the right to toss around the F-word.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 5:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kian
      Kian

      This article reads like a manuel on how to be gay but not too gay.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 5:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ryan
      Ryan

      Again wow, Landon.

      I had no idea “queen” was now a slur like “fag”. You teach me so much. And I’m not upset people found this offensive, just amused.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 6:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charlie
      Charlie

      Thank you Details,
      Fag, faggot, fruit, homo, queer, fairy, nancy, pansy, queen, swish, poofster, dyke ad nauseum weren’t enough, now we have douchefag to add to the lexicon. You’re the best.

      I guess this means I just don’t have a sense of humor, maybe they should get Bantu to give them a couple of his favorite expressions.

      And for all of you who think this is just harmless humor, it will not be long, if it is not already, before little Johnny will be called a douchefag on the playground – yeah, kids are almost as mean and as stupid as the writers in Details

      Dec 9, 2009 at 6:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Isaiah
      Isaiah

      LOL. I seriously get lost in the wonder that is the comment section. Catty, bitchy and down-right mean! Far more interesting than the article or the magazine that started all this nonsense.

      Keep it coming fellas!

      Dec 9, 2009 at 8:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChrisM
      ChrisM

      Ryan, GJM79, and all you others who like self-deprecation: why don’t you try going on an African American blog and try telling them that they shouldn’t get so upset when someone who isn’t black throws the word “nigger” around, whether in a racist setting or a “joking” one?

      The point is that the words “nigger” and “fag” are both associated with the dehumanization of a group of people. Remember in high school English class, when you’d be reading a Toni Morrison book aloud and the word “nigger” would come up? Half of the class would refuse to even read the word, saying “n-word” instead. Why all of this for a word? It’s because people who aren’t racist respect blacks and recognize the hate they face(d), and don’t want to endorse ANY vestiges of that hate.

      That magazines and people who claim to be pro-gay throw around the word “fag” reflects the fact that these people don’t realize how much hate we still face and don’t respect us enough not to use a slur. We don’t even have fucking equal marriage rights yet, and you want to support our supposed allies using a word that the people who hate us use when they commit violence against us!? You guys really are self-loathing. You’re basically saying “I’m fine with the way society treats gays, let’s leave it at this.” Maybe I’ll be more comfortable with you making light of discrimination when the discrimination ISN’T so visible. But I doubt it.

      By the way, drop the argument that words don’t mean anything. Half of our humanity’s experiences would be meaningless if it were as simple as that. Ever hear of the linguistic relativity hypothesis?

      Dec 9, 2009 at 9:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Attmay
      Attmay

      @103 ChrisM(oron):

      Way to distort our arguments. Just because we believe this article is not only worth fighting over does not mean we will fight the REAL enemies tooth and nail.

      Meanwhile did you look at the actual contents?

      Look at all the LGBT rights opponents who DON’T use that word.

      And look at all the white gays who shouted the word “nigger” after they helped steal our rights in California with Prop H8. And if it’s not okay for non-blacks to use it then it is unacceptable for blacks to use it. There is no double standard for language.

      Homophobic scum post here without being banned yet this magazine article that will be forgotten in a matter of days is worthy of a fatwa? No wonder we are treated like shit under federal law: we don’t have our priorities straight.

      How about the fact that mainstream media turns a blind eye to the real attacks on gays each and every day that we are unequal under the law in this and other countries? What did GLAAD ever do about that?

      Dec 9, 2009 at 10:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • thisguyukno
      thisguyukno

      To be grammar nazi, they technically used a portmanteau that contained the f word. It itself is not the f word. Although it looks like two separate words since it is also a compound word, I don’t believe that’s how it was used. Which is why in the cover of the article they said “meet the gay douchebag”. It could have said something else.

      Also, this is not the first time they’ve used the f word to make a portmanteau. In an April 2006 issue, an article talking about what was “gay” used the word “fagatronic” to describe something that was “beyond gay” (the author was criticizing his use of a pseudonym). I remember reading this then and being a little off put just the same, but again, it wasn’t enough to offend me such that I would no longer read it (somehow, because the word wasn’t in its true form, I was able to contain myself).

      This was nearly 4 years ago.

      If you’ve still been reading this magazine since then and were offended now, enough such that you will no longer read, then either the gay world didn’t alert you enough to stay away from a “homophobic magazine” like Detail, or you were too ignorant in your unbridled trust in its purist intentions for the politically correct and didn’t do your research. If we all knew exactly how companies have offended, or worse, taken advantage (remember, it was just a word) of disenfranchised people, then we wouldn’t be consuming anything.

      Get over it. I’m over it.

      Dec 9, 2009 at 10:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Blayne
      Blayne

      I canceled my subscription to Details several months ago. I only got Details because I subscribed to Men’s Vogue, and when they folded I had to choose something else or be stuck with Portfolio (I was already receiving GQ). Details will go the way of Men’s Vogue and Gourmet, but unlike those two, Details won’t be missed.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 2:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AussieGuy
      AussieGuy

      Tasteless.

      I dare them to try it with any other minority.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 4:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paolo
      Paolo

      I’m so intrigued about the “male perspective” on homosexuals. (blaring sarcasm voice)

      Dec 10, 2009 at 6:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paolo
      Paolo

      the *straight male perspective mind you I still have my penis.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 6:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Adam
      Adam [Different person #1 using similar name]

      It’s obviously not right to call anyone a FAG. Details sucks these days and Brad is right… they’re dieing. However, he should be flattered that a magazine like Details even knows who the hell he is. My circle of friends have called him worse!

      Dec 10, 2009 at 10:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Victim of Censorship
      Victim of Censorship

      This strikes rather close to home. I recently wrote a comment on a website which was *about* struggling with self-loathing, in which I called my behavior “faggy” to illustrate a point. It was a heartfelt comment and I really struggled to nail it. The comment was deleted without explanation by the site monitor, who I know, and who I had thought of as a friend. When pressed for an explanation, I was told it was because use the word “fag” was considered gay bashing and that there had been three complaints (out of hundreds of readers).

      Aside from the knee jerk reaction of the moderator (first initial Z, for the curious) who clearly just doesn’t get it, as intelligent as she otherwise is, the larger point is that Politically Correct censorship is still Censorship, and should be a last resort instead of a first line of defense. The antidote to hateful speech (if my self-expression really was hateful) is MORE speech, not censorship.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 2:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChrisM
      ChrisM

      You people don’t get it. It’s not about freedom of speech or censorship at all. It’s about choosing the words you use carefully, and respecting people. Is it censorship to ask employees not to curse around customers? No, it’s tact and it’s common courtesy. Not using a word that is a slur against a group of people should be considered common courtesy. But no, members of our community are fighting against that.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 2:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @ no. 110 – ChrisM

      Obviously, you have not seen any of Michael Letterman’s lies, rants, insults, name calling and personal attacks on these threads which include words like “faggot”, “deviant”, “pervert” and “diseased”, among other pejoratives.

      Like the Mormon Church who spewed hatred and lies at the LGBT community and got Prop. 8 passed, Mr. Letterman has rained a maelstrom of verbal abuse down on our heads and is now whining that it it is the members of our community who are verbally abusing him???

      Mr. Lewtterman now complains that he is getting “annoyed” by those who have defended themselves against his attacks. In addition to having said that he would like to hold a poster’s neck under a stream and “watch the bubbles rise to the surface”, he is now making veiled threats, that would in effect, teach us a lesson.

      In an ideal world it would, indeed, be nice if everyone had the tact and common courtesy to refrain from cursing, hurling epithets and verbally abusing others.

      Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world. So, what are the alternatives? Must we of the LGBT community don lead vests and riot gear to protect ourselves from those who don’t abide by the rules of common courtesy and respect? Obviously, such people possess nether of those attributes.

      Or, are we just supposed to take our lumps like good little boys and girls and not make any waves?

      Dec 10, 2009 at 4:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @ 101 – Charlie

      And then there are the really endearing terms like cock-sucker, dick-breath, cunt-lapper, fudge-packer, perv, deviate, sperm-gulper, fuck-face, et al.

      And when we of the LGBT community take umbrage with such deprecating and demeaning terms, we are told that we are “thin-skinned”, “overly sensitive” and that we need to “get over it.”

      Those who defend this sort of thing shoiuld try walking up to a hetero woman and calling her a cunt, twat, breeder mare or some other similar put-down or walking up to a hetero male and calling him a pussy, a cunt-lapper, a breeder or a carpet-muncher and see what happens to your face?

      It would give entirely new meaning to the term “double standard”.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 6:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChrisM
      ChrisM

      Schlukitz, I think that I agree with you and that you misunderstood me. I was saying that Details, and other publications or people, should have the tact and common courtesy to not use the word “faggot” as jerks like Michael Letterman do. I was responding to those who said asking Details not to use that word amounted to “censorship” of the magazine.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 6:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @ no. 114 – ChrisM

      Obviously, I did misunderstand you and I sincerely thank you for clearing that up for me.

      One of the problems with the written word, is that it lacks the added dimensions of intonation and facial expression to help convey the intended meaning of a comment. On blogs like this, it is so easy to misinterpret a commentary in a negative vein, even when it was offered as a positive statement. :)

      My sincere apologies, accompanied with my appreciation for a quick response to bring me up to speed.

      I hope you are enjoying a pleasant evening.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 6:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChrisM
      ChrisM

      No worries, I understand. It’s easy to read things differently online, especially when they’re short and not set up properly.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 7:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ksyxx
      ksyxx

      So uh besides the taboo wording… I found the list funny and fairly accurate. Hissy-fits aside, whoever wrote the article was kinda right

      Dec 10, 2009 at 11:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo
      romeo

      Checked out the article at the supermarket. Borrowed a pair of TONGS from housewares to turn the pages. Thought the article was kind of prissy and cutesy. Exactly the kind of thing that would get the author in his own “douchefag” category. Much as I suspected before reading it.

      Dec 10, 2009 at 11:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The girl
      The girl

      I find it ironic that some of you are upset about the slur, (and rightfully so!!!!) yet I have to sit and ignore the bashing words like “sparklecow, breeder and midwestern homophobe” to get through the comments. (and other comments on this site)

      But wait, what? This site isnt for straight women, so who cares what I think…

      That’s…. interesting.

      I can’t comment on the actual article, because i didnt read it… “douchefag” is stupid… so, i didnt have any interest in reading it. (and cue the jokes about my comment being stupid so you are not reading it… which i know is a total lie, because you made the joke)

      Back to lurking…

      Dec 11, 2009 at 11:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChrisM
      ChrisM

      The Girl, you’ll notice that a lot of the people using those slurs are the ones using the word “fag” as well. And the ones who are complaining about “fag” but still using that slur, well they’re hypocrites and you and I know that. They are in the wrong, too.

      So what, then, is the point of your comment? Just because there are some people throwing around slurs on our side, too, means that the use of “fag” is ok? Or is there no point at all? I agree that I have been more quiet about the use of “breeder” and other slurs that get thrown around on here (which doesn’t mean I agree with them). But like you said, this is an LGBT site. My comments (and probably others’) are first and foremost concerned with the LGBT issues that the Queerty articles present. This one is about the use of the slur “fag,” so that’s what our discussion is centered around.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 3:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @ no. 119

      Back to lurking…

      Good place to be, if you have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation.

      Self-righteous people like you throw the first snowball (water-hardened, Imight add), and then yell for your mommies, like the Mormon church did, when we return the fire.

      Here’s another word for your lexicon.

      “namby-pamby”.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 3:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Victim of Censorship
      Victim of Censorship

      @No. 121 · schlukitz

      Oh, look! A douchebag! His sexual identity is entirely incidental to his douchebag status, and needs not be mentioned or guessed at. Douchebaggery doesn’t need sexual qualifiers, since it transcends all such qualifiers, as well as those of gender, race, religion, politics, etc. In the end, when a person has “achieved” the level of douchebaggery on exhibit here, it really becomes their defining quality and how others know them. Details creation of the non-PC portmanteau was ill-conceived because most of us already know that gays can be douchebags equally as well as the heterosexuals.

      Thank you, schlukitz, for clearing this up with your example.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 9:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      And thank you, Victim of Censorship…a veritable paragon of sagacity. Sarcasm font on.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 10:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Your mom
      Your mom

      @No. 123 · schlukitz

      If you really don’t know what I’m talking about, read what you’ve been writing. You’ve already been forced to make one apology. Put down your defenses for a moment and take a look at yourself and how you’re relating to strangers. Perhaps you are a wonderful person in real life, but I have no way of knowing that. My only frame reference for you is your rather hateful comments.

      Now, go back to hiding behind your “sarcasm font” if it makes you feel safer. You have my permission.

      Dec 11, 2009 at 11:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @ No. 124 · Your mom

      Not having had the pleasure of exchanging any dialogue with you, I am not certain exactly what it was that prompted your seeming need to chastise me.

      I went back and re-read all 124 post on this thread. Of that number, I made six posts.

      Post no. 49 made reference to Mr. Letterman who has been slamming the gay community ferociously for several weeks now on a variety of Queerty threads. Believe me, My tongue-in-cheek reference to him, was baby-talk compared to the vile things he has said about the LGBT community. Interesting that you have not posted one objection to his psychopathic remarks over the past several weeks.

      Posts no. 112 and 115 were with ChrisM wherein I misunderstood the gist of his post. I said nothing hateful to ChrisM and when he drew my attention to what he had actually meant, I apologized, as any gentleman would do. Please note that my apology was accepted.

      In post no. 113, I was actually agreeing with Charlie and added some names that we of the gay community are frequently addressed as, in addition to those he listed. Nothing hateful here either.

      On post no. 121 to the Girl, I called it like I saw it. Giving my honest opinion is not being hateful. It’s just telling it like it is.

      Oh…and I guess Victim of Censorship calling me a douchebag in his post no. 122 is not in the least bit hateful? Please note that I did not resort to calling him names, nor was there one instance of my calling anyone a name in any of my six posts.

      My response to him in post no. 123 was duly earned by his snide and snarky comments, so no apology is required. Sarcastic, perhaps. Hateful, o.

      So, if you would be so kind, could you please point out to me exactly what I said that cause you to launch a personal attack on me?

      You’re not my mom, so why are you acting like you are?

      Dec 12, 2009 at 2:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • joel
      joel

      Ok but is it legal?

      Jan 3, 2012 at 8:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     


    POPULAR ON QUEERTY


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.