The Gremlin's Wings

All right, there has been something on my mind for the last long while. It has nagged at me, especially since I moved back to the city and saw this every day, I feel like a dam that is going to burst if I do not vent this frustration with this particular trend anywhere. The fact of the matter is:

I hate skinny jeans on men.

Just posting that picture up there has made me feel sick to my stomach.

Skinny leg, low-cut jeans on men is a fashion trend that I cannot follow in good conscience, and there is some damning evidence for it as well. First off, I’ve seen this one around for most of the 2000′s (I always get confused in what to call this decade – the 2000′s? The Zeros? The Naughties?), and the first place I saw it? Women. I can admit, a woman in one of these jeans doesn’t look too bad. Maybe they look a little more fragile in these ones, more like a stiff breeze could break their legs, and I think it may encourage the anorexic/bulimic look, but if you have the body for it and it works for your fashion sense, go for it. There is some women that genuinely can rock out this look.

Note I only say some women.

Some fashion designer, in whatever infinite wisdom they use (insert very sarcastic eye-rolling motions here), decided that this look would be perfect for males. And voila. A trend is born.

Problem is… it looks ass-ugly.

I have no problems with some things being unisex. The hooded sweatshirt, for example, is a good example. I think females look good in one – granted, they look even better when wearing mine after a night of… okay, let us not go there – and it is an acceptable thing. Guys’ ties is something that some people are using as a fashion trend on females – a hint, it only looked good on Avril Lavigne for about two years and she stopped wearing it too. Some of the long hairstyles that made it over from females to males I can stand, as well.

But these jeans that is the focus of this post… just… NO!

Unisex is great, but when I hear stories about men interchanging their pants with their girlfriend and wearing their girlfriend’s pants… that is just stepping over a line. (Yes, I have heard that one, from a male who was proud of this fact. Scared me to no end.)  It almost seems that society is trying to castrate men – first the mustache falls out of favor, then male manicures, and now this?!? – and leave us with effeminate males. If I was a conspiracy nut, I would say that a group of hardcore feminists are in control of the fashion world and trying to strike back at males for centuries of oppression, and it was a subtle way of striking fear into those that are male, and proud to be male. I am not, so I will just say it is disturbing.

Why am I speaking up now? Actually, I have told this to the face of several men, whom have just shrugged it off. The one that I mentioned earlier that swapped pants from his girlfriend told me that she thought it was hot. To be fair, I knew both of them, and I always thought they were both semi-freaks of nature as-is. Is this anti-masculinity as a trend, or is that the little paranoid voice in my head that feels that it is perfectly logical to buy a shack in the middle of the woods, three rifles, enough ammo to declare World War 3 and foodstuffs to last a nuclear holocaust talking and saying that?

Of course, it could just be that fashion is inherently stupid. I mean, have you ever actually watched any of the reality shows where they are competing to be fashion designers? I would not want any of them on a remote desert island with me, and they would be the first ones sacrificed for food if that were the case – a fashionable roast, anyone? – so I tend to agree with that. So really, we are trusting trending to come from these people?

I guess I will just have to live with the fact that men want to be emasculated. The more we buy these clothes, the more plentiful they become in the Gaps, the Old Navys, the Off The Walls, or wherever people buy clothing. I am just wondering when it will be fashionable for men to wear skirts and dress like 80′s hookers… and not be in drag. Maybe never. Maybe in ten years. Maybe we will all look like extras from the Rocky Horror Picture Show in five years. Who really knows?

All I know? I am not going to be doing the Time Warp again. Even if it is just a jump to the left… and then a step to the right.

When I got this blog I never thought I would have to have sequels to my own posts, but apparently I do, especially when I make somewhat erroneous statements that should be corrected, and then within themselves analyzed and explained.

Now, quoting myself:

Actually, that last one has always confused me. WAS there a new bible that specifically forbade two people from expressing their love for each other by getting married? I am not a Christian, true, but I have problems believing that an all-mighty God that is forgiving and loves everyone suddenly hates people that openly admit attraction for the same sex. Did Jesus all of a sudden hate little Billy because he found out he liked looking at Tommy instead of Jill? I just… I do not get it. As far as I know, there is nothing specifically in any part of the Bible that says a marriage is only in between a man and a woman. Marriages had been going on for years before the New Testament was written; it’s only natural the Bible includes at least one marriage ceremony.

After some humbling I got from certain people whom I hold in high esteem, I decided to take some of my own advice and investigate for myself into the parts where marriage in between two people of the same sex is talked about in the Bible, in either the Old Testament or the New Testament. I read Genesis and Exodus completely, and used Wikipedia as a guide to skip to the parts where the rest of this topic were brought up. This is my results.

What is odd is that people today kind of gloss over the fact that same-sex marriage is not brought up in the Bible whatsoever. I am serious on that. Nowhere does it say, “Two men can not get married” or “Two women can not get married”. Actually, when reading over all the parts that people quote for evidence against same-sex marriage, only one part of the Bible actually mentions same-sex intercourse in between women (and I will come to that later). Most of it has to do with male homosexuality and sexual relations specifically.

As you can probably guess, the word “sodomy” is directly derived from the city of Sodom. The passage that directly relates to same-sex relationships in general is Genesis 19:4-9. I will quote from the New Jerusalem Bible, because it was easiest to find online:

4 They had not gone to bed when the house was surrounded by the townspeople, the men of Sodom both young and old, all the people without exception.

5 Calling out to Lot they said, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Send them out to us so that we can have intercourse with them.’

6 Lot came out to them at the door and, having shut the door behind him,

7 said, ‘Please, brothers, do not be wicked.

8 Look, I have two daughters who are virgins. I am ready to send them out to you, for you to treat as you please, but do nothing to these men since they are now under the protection of my roof.’

9 But they retorted, ‘Stand back! This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge. Now we shall treat you worse than them.’ Then they forced Lot back and moved forward to break down the door.

Now, to put it in plain speak, basically these two angels came down posing as people to see if the people of Sodom were bad. They met Lot, who was a good man and gave them shelter and food. That night, a bunch of townsfolk found out about what the two people were doing there and basically preemptive strike them by having sex with them. The rabble, being mostly men, were about to rape the two traveling men. Lot offered his virgin daughters, but the crowd wanted retribution on the two travelers and wouldn’t settle for anything else.

What’s odd about this section is that the New Jeruslaem Bible specifically states “have intercourse with”, but other bibles actually say “meet” (for example, the New American Standard Bible says this). See, one of the things I brought up in the first part was how the original Bibles were written in Aramaic and Hebrew, and direct translations are sometimes not possible. Indeed, even looking at the English language, “intercourse” does not specifically have a sexual meaning. Dictionary.com refers to intercourse as “dealings or communication between individuals, groups, countries, etc.” while still retaining the sexual connotation of the word in a later definition. In Hebrew, it is even more confusing. The word “yada” is used in this passage, which directly translates to “relations” in a non-sexual manner, though it is used as innuendo to sex in other parts of the Bible. It is the key to the very sexual connotation of this entire passage of the Bible, and there’s a question as to its accuracy. What was that gang trying to do to those two? Were they going to gang-rape the travelers, or were they going to simply beat them? A trick of language is really all that stands in between us and the intent of the original writing – note I do not say author.

I realize that the Old Testament is more used by the Jewish religion than Christianity, but all of Christianity is based upon the teachings of the Old Testament. What really boggles me is the next part of the examination of the books, which comes from the Book of Leviticus. Leviticus basically is the closest thing you can ever have in the Bible to a book of direct rules. It is where Moses gets the laws he must pass down to the Isrealites, mostly about procedures for worship and stuff like that. 18:22 is what we’re interested in, though, and is the most commonly cited evidence against same-sex coupling in the Bible, and for good reason. It reads:

You will not have intercourse with a man as you would with a woman. This is a hateful thing.

Again, translation issues with the last little bit there, as well as the intercourse bit. I checked a few different versions of the Bible, and this one is pretty clear-cut as a sexual connotation, though, especially considering Leviticus 18 is going over what is classed as incest before this little gem pops up. So according to the Old Testament, sex in between two men is wrong.

All right then, so we have our clear-cut proof, but why am I still hanging on this point? Because of Leviticus 20:13, that is why.

The man who has intercourse with a man in the same way as with a woman: they have done a hateful thing together; they will be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Yes, this is a quote that I am going to use against people whom are arguing with Leviticus 18:22. Why? Well, there are a few reasons. First off, if someone is using the Old Testament as a rule reference in Christianity, it stands to say that entire book becomes fair game, right? Second, it very clearly states that the punishment for sex in between two men is death for both parties; if someone believes so strongly in Leviticus 18:22, why are they not doing the duties directed to them by God Himself and putting every gay man to death that they can find as directed by Leviticus 20:13? Third, why is Isreal not following this law? Isreal was set up as a Jewish state with religion making the backbone of the Isreali way of life. The Hebrew Bible – the Old Testament – is the books they follow. Yet, Isreal’s LGBT rights rival that of anywhere in the world, according to Wikipedia. Gay couples can not get married on Isreali soil – this is really the only spread of religion that affects gay couple’s rights – but out of country marriages are recognized.

I am skipping over Ruth 1:14, the Books of Kings “male prostitute” references, and the Books of Samuel story about David and Jonathan, because they are really weak references. Ruth 1:14 is way open to interpretation, as is the David and Jonathan story, and the Books of Kings “male prostitutes” were part of rituals of other religions that were expelled because they were not needed for rituals for God – a morally ambiguous thing since the female prostitutes were kept. Also, I am skipping these so I can get to the New Testament.

I will admit, I was used to the script and voice of the Old Testament when I switched gears over to the New Testament, and I found myself confused when I started to read over the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. The language was different, definitely. The Apostle Paul was a good writer, and the book is written much like an open letter to the people of Rome. Not a bad way of putting things, I think.

Romans 1:26-27 has apparently the most condemning view of homosexuality, and I can see why:

²⁶ That is why God abandoned them to degrading passions:

²⁷ why their women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural practices; and the men, in a similar fashion, too, giving up normal relations with women, are consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameful things with men and receiving in themselves due reward for their perversion.

Yes, this is the mention of female homosexuality that I was mentioning earlier. However, I learned long ago that context is everything, so I read back a bit in this chapter and I discovered that this was apparently punishment for idolatry, the First Commandment. Oh yes, I just pulled out the Ten Commandments on you. The entire structure of Chapter 1 of Romans is starting off with introducing Paul as the servant of Jesus and referred to as an apostle, and he is telling the Romans about how proud he is that the Romans believe that Jesus is the Son of God and their savior. He apologizes for not coming earlier to the Romans to talk with them because he was held up with responsibilities to the Greeks and barbarians, and then expresses his joy at preaching to the Romans. He believes that God is great and for everyone that believes, and that people who do not honour God and acknowledge Him will be abandoned to “unacceptable thoughts and behaviors”.

In context, the standard Christian behavior of today now seems a little clearer, and makes me understand those that are gay in the Christian communities and what they must go through. According to this, people whom have sinned are being punished by giving them homosexual desires. Specifically in this passage is mentioned idolatry, which is putting something else above God whom is supposed to be the highest on the totem pole (now there is a mixed metaphor if I could ever think of one). So a Christian man or woman who is an upstanding member of the community and is the first person to further the word of God and Jesus, feels the desire for someone of the same sex… and this is punishment for breaking the First Commandment? Is it just me, or does this sound like entrapment?

It seems that Paul was the only one that brought up homosexuality in the New Testament, referring to it in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 as well:

⁹ Do you not realise that people who do evil will never inherit the kingdom of God? Make no mistake — the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites,

¹⁰ thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians again is set up like an open letter; probably better to say that this is the recorded text of a verbal sermon given in the church at Corinth. This particular passage, though, suffers from translation problems as well; “sodomites” in the New Jerusalem Bible is actually derived from the greek word arsenokoitēs in the original untranslated version. This is a word whose origin can only be guessed at – and is many times within the different translations of the Bible – and only appears here and in 1 Timothy 1:9-10. It actually can translate out to “abusers of themselves with mankind” as it does in the King James Version of the Bible, or “those who practice pederasty” as it does in other versions.

It is odd that Paul does not say that fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God; Jesus himself said that fornication defiles a man (Matthew 15:19-20 and Mark 7:20-23) and it would be logical to assume that fornicators do not inherit the kingdom of God as Paul said would happen to the sodomites as well. To be honest, it sounded like Paul was homophobic. Why would Paul be the only one to bring up homosexual practices when it was not even brought up by Jesus himself? And why did no one else bring it up? I seriously doubt that only one of the twelve apostles would come across homosexual behavior; after all, pederasty was kind of big in both Greece and Rome.

With how much emphasis has been put on the words pointed out here, I wish there was more on this. I wish the meaning was clearer in what they were trying to say, because there needs to be a way of grokking this better than what we have today. While the Bible is direct in some places, where it is direct has me asking questions, and then other parts combined with that confuse me and make me want to know why. I am not a theology scholar, nor do I pretend to be. I am just a guy seeking answers to questions in my own mind.

Paul also had one other good point that I would like to point out while I am here. It is something I caught from Romans 1:21-22:

²¹ …they knew God and yet they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but their arguments became futile and their uncomprehending minds were darkened.

²² While they claimed to be wise, in fact they were growing so stupid…

If you talk to some people, they will tell you that I have, in the past, been a victim of this. In fact, we all can be at times when we do not see the other side or try to understand why someone is arguing so passionately for or against. This applies to people who believe and people that do not believe as well, which is where I disagree with Paul the Apostle on this subject. Whether it is faith, politics, economics, or any topic in the world, we are all victims of this, and the better we are at recognizing it, the better off the world will be.

…what? Just because I do not have cable means I can not step in and say what I thought about a TV show’s series premiere?

Moving on…

If no one knows what the Stargate franchise is, allow me to summarize. It’s all based off of the 1994 movie named Stargate, starring Val Kilmer and James Spader. Basically, the movie was about this device found in the Egyptian deserts called a stargate that can create stable wormholes in between two of these gates. Blah blah blah, big talk about Egyptian symbols, the pyramids were really landing platforms for spaceships, yadda yadda yadda, BAM they go through the gate and find a tribe of humans that worship the sun-god Ra. Basically after that, it turns into a sci-fi action film. At the end, they blow up the bad guy, the geeky guy gets the hot girl and stays behind, and the military guys go home. Roll credits.

The film got itself a cult following, and eventually a group of people pitched a sci-fi TV show based upon this premise (with a few minor revisions to the details) and then Stargate SG-1 was born, which lasted a decade of (in my opinion) pretty decent storytelling. Sure, there was some weak points, but what show doesn’t? Show me someone who thinks that every episode of any show did not need any improvements that lasted that long, and I will show you every type of happy pill that’s in their medicine cabinet. Then there was another spin-off, Stargate Atlantis, that pushed it further, going into another galaxy.

But, well, what franchise doesn’t try to go that one more?

Stargate Universe, unlike the previous outings, takes, in my opinion, so far what looks to be the grit of the original movie and try to bottle it up into a TV show. I am just going to come out and say it: I like it. I have been a fan of the series before this, and to be honest, the new direction was quite refreshing. 2009 is truly the time of the re-imagined old universes getting their day. We had Star Trek earlier, and now this.

Now, here’s what I like:

• The sets were not “chipper”. If you look at Atlantis, the main sets they needed every day were just so cheerful in comparisons – reds and light blues, lots of bright beauty shots of the base, abandoned for 10,000 years but still in pristine condition. SG-1 was looking to be somewhat hopeful with their sets as well, with the Cheyenne Mountain complex in bright lights and stuff. Stargate Universe tossed 80 people into a hundred thousand year old starship on a course to the edge of the Known Universe, and it felt like it. The sets were dirty, brown and black, there was grime everywhere… it looked old. It felt old.
• Colonel Young/Dr. Rush. No, I am not talking about slash-fic – now THAT is a mental image I want to erase. I am talking about the character dynamic in between the two. I liked the play in between the military and the brainy civilian know-it-all, and I believe the two actors carried the part well. I couldn’t even remember that Robert Carlyle was in any other movies… like The Full Monty.
• They killed Christopher MacDonald. I have seen him in enough asshole parts, and him playing a good guy Senator didn’t really fly with me that well. Thumbs up on that one.
• Desperation. You’re lost out in space, inconceivably far away from home… and you actually got the feeling that they were struggling. Only two sci-fi franchises have attempted something like this, and one failed so miserably with this premise it should be taken out back and shot, while still being a relatively okay series if you ignore that fact. The other was the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica. SGU does this job very well so far, and I hope it keeps this momentum for the series.
• Eli. The gamer kid who ended up solving a mathematical proof embedded in a video game – which was Stargate Worlds, by the way – was beamed out of his home and onto a spaceship, and just gets thrown into situations all the time. I loved that.
• According to the literature on the series, Ming-Na’s character is a lesbian. Wow, the person that played Mulan is not so Disney-clean anymore, h-uh?
• There was no big bad guy forced down your throat within the first two hours of the series. The only enemy they really have is each other, and the fractures start to show.
• Small nitpick, but one that fueled online debates: they corrected an error from the Stargate Atlantis finale that really irked people. Thank you production design team on Stargate Universe for naming the George Hammond the RIGHT thing instead of the General Hammond. (For people unfamiliar, General Hammond was the first commander in Stargate SG-1 of the command center for the base. Don S. Davis, the man that played Hammond, died before the series finale of Atlantis, and they made the character die and named a battlecruiser after his character.)

And here is the things I did not like:

• The actors that play the Lieutenant and the Marine Sergeant. I did not like them. They just did not seem… right for the part. The Lieutenant I thought was more believable, but not by much. I wanted to get behind the Lieutenant, and I felt for the Lieutenant… but I could not fully get behind him as a character. The Marine Sergeant was worse; I wanted him pushed out of an airlock.
• Lou Diamond Phillips. Uh… where was he? He showed his face, what, once? I was promised some Lou Diamond Phillips time, now someone please get me some bad-ass Lou Diamond Phillips action time up in this series!
• The three-parter. That irritates the crap out of me. The two-hour series premiere is actually two of the three parts of the general arc of this storyline. That just makes me want to stab things with pointy objects because I have to wait another painstaking week in order to finish my unfinished business with this show.
• Man, the Ancients must be really conveniently seeding the way for this ship to make it this far with drone ships manufacturing stargates for them… it smells like plot convenience, and while I understand that you can not have a Stargate show without stargates… it just seemed to be a little off, and just too convenient.
• I want more! Stabbity-stab-stab-stab.

Well, another thing to add to the “things I would get cable back in my house for” list. Still is not enough, though.

Other reviewers give shows, movies or music thumbs up, stars, percentages… but me? I am just going to say I liked it, and that it drew me in for the next episode. Sure, it has its shortcomings, but hey, what new show doesn’t?

(Oh, and a side note for MGM: if you want to advertise a Stargate show like a movie, then make it a movie, dammit. The trailer was completely misleading.)