'Out' and 'Genre' Take Different Paths

The New Issue: Two Gay Monthlies…

gustafson_wizard_of_oz1.jpg

Speaking with Boulton, we got the distinct impression that he doesn’t find anything unique about being gay today. We’re just like everyone else. Consider his description of gay writer David Levitt: “I was really inspired by how much he just stood at the big table of short story writers at the time and just wrote short stories that were very normal.” We don’t know about you guys, but we’ve never wanted to be “normal”. Sure, gays should emphasize that there’s nothing abnormal about gays, but we’re personally not comfortable saying there’s nothing particular about the gay experience. We don’t want to be culturally “normal” – or average.

There’s nothing more boring to us than gay guys who play down the their gay identities and spend their time shopping, eating and fucking: a population Genre seems content to perpetuate. We won’t say we don’t like shopping, eating and fucking, because that would be an obvious lie, but we’re also pretty keen on thinking. It seems to us that Boulton’s coming at Genre from a mainstream perspective. Here’s a man who’s definitely queer experienced, but not necessarily queer.

Yes, Boulton claims Genre‘s totally inclusive, but his aforementioned editorial suggests he’s not thinking straight:

The magazine for the American – who isn’t ashamed of anything – G, L, B, or T. Gentlemen mark your calendars and join me in ringing in a post gay America.

When flipping through the new genre, we definitely see the G and the B, but what about the T? The content’s aggressively geared to a certain gay: affluent and materialistic, like a lot of mainstream magazines. If cars, cock and clothes alone make the gay man, we’d rather be straight.