Skip to main content

Epic Faggotry--The good kind!

So my friend Meg made my week when she tipped me off to this: Tchaikovsky was fantastically gay*. Like, unbelievably gay. Like, Freddie Mercury gay. Like, so gay his fabulousness radiated across Russia and warmed the hearts of millions (Ah, if only the Russians weren't such cold, heartless bastards, eh?). Oh, I came my pants. Verily.

Such a bear; do you think he was much into leather, too?



As a flaming queer and wiki nerd, I've read a lot of these "Personal Life" and "Sexuality" subsections in people's wiki-bios. Like, a lot. There are definite patterns--hints, even, for the desperately closeted queer looking for solidarity/lulzy gay troll. In fact, I'm pretty sure you could actually rate people's degree of gayness by how well their wiki "Personal Life"/"Sexuality" subsection conforms to some of these patterns/hints. Hm. I'll have to make a mental note of that in case I get bored--Make bogus wiki gay rating system. I know this much--for simply having a "Personal Life"/"Sexuality" subsection, you get a rating of at least 50% gay. You'll see why that's important in a moment. Like, in the next paragraph.

Basically, in order to warrant a "Personal Life"/"Sexuality" subsection, one must reach at least a certain level of gayness--or at least the speculation thereupon must have reached at least a certain point. Even the flamboyant Courtney Taylor-Taylor of The Dandy Warhols used to have a "Sexuality" section; it naively concluded that he was "just very metro". Fag. Doesn't matter that he's married some poor beard, still a fag.

Of course, there's almost always dispute. Apparently no matter how gay you are, someone will always assume you're straight and argue it to the death. It's just a rule of life--and wikipedia. There's always bickering--cuz we're just good lil queers like that, eh?--over this letter or that person's opinion/interpretation or so-and-so's biography about the fag. Read/skim/glance upon Morrisey's "Sexuality" subsection and you'll see what I mean. Goddanged queers. Can't y'all just make up your minds and get back to the glorious butthurtz??

Anyway, with Tchaikovsky, on the other hand, there's no such flibbertygibbeting about--it's simply assumed at the outset that he was a raging homo. The real question seems to be why the fuck he ever bothered marrying some poor broad (only a minor dispute; twas but a beard, obvs, much like that hag Courtney Taylor-Taylor married) and just how utterly unbothered he was by his own gayosity. He was so chill with the man-loving that over his lifetime he left behind, like, reams of letters and diaries and autobiographical material about it. Like, it seems the only thing holding him back from declaring his love of buttsecks to the world every morning was concern for how it might affect his family and his own professional career. Lame, but understandable...I guess. Hell, even his brother was a faggot!

Hm. Rule 34 anyone? I smell some hot toasty wincest....

So you gotta understand, in order to subvert all that wishywashing gay/nay discussion like this, one has to be really really gay. I'm so amused by this--to no end. I imagine he must have been much the same class of queer as I am--all but constant gay jokes and flirtation, guffawing much as I do at the hilarity of buttsex and cumshots (easily the two funniest things in all of human history), and generally shamelessly oggling any hot lad ass that happens by. Fuck yeah!

So, epic fag was epic, and that was pretty fucking win for his era. If only he and Whitman had met.... God, who would have topped whom in that scenario??


* As if to prove my wiki nerdness, I figured I'd include the permalink as of 8:04am on Wednesday Sept. 8, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyotr_Ilyich_Tchaikovsky&oldid=383320102

Comments

Other things that might interest you...

Oatmeal is tasty.

{slurps up berry-oatmeal-deliciousness} Indeed. I need to work on rebuilding a morning schedule. I can be zombie-like enough that I'll waste a perfectly good morning, and have often slept through many. And, really, it's such a useful time of day.

lol what - and yay!

We'll get to the lulz in a second but first...I gotta brag a bit. "brag" may be a bit overwrought a word, actually, but still. I'm fucking stoked, dude. See, I ordered a wireless keyboard for my computer, and it arrived yesterday. And it works like sex on toast, baby. My old keyboard was just that--old. And wired. The latter wasn't such a bother until I set up the new desk, as you'll understand in a just moment. Meanwhile the keys stuck--don't even start--and made a shitton of noise (I only fully realized how obnoxious this was when I started using the new keyboard) and otherwise looked ugly and out of place. Also, I had a plan. See, the middle bit of the new desk's desktop is actually a flap that lifts up to reveal....well, a space. A sort of drawer. A place to put things (away), like, oooooh....say....a wireless keyboard & mouse when they're not in use/not needed? Oh yeah. It looks fabulous when everything's put away. So yeah, th...

My new favorite painting.

I, generally speaking, love art. I wish I understood it better; sometimes I can articulate its effects on me and what I think; at other times, that's tough for me. This is an attempt at understanding art, if only by trying to understand my experience of it.¹ The title of this post is a bit funny, tho: "New" is misleading—I first drafted it 6 years ago in Dec 2017, updated it in Aug 2018, and revised it a bit this week (Feb 2024). I'll write more about visual art and my ability to interact with it another time, but here's what I've got for now. So I finally went. There's a show right now at the Phillips Collection on Pierre-Auguste Renoir, my longtime favorite artist, and I went. I got to see more of his work at one time than I ever have before. And I found myself a new favorite painting among them—not just a favorite out of Renoir's work, but perhaps a favorite among all art I will ever see. The exhibit itself explores the story behind one of Renoir...