Join us as we thrust into house music...

Week of May 2 04

If you're wondering why my essay about crystal meth isn't on the Genre website yet, you're not alone. Our HoD update has been foiled this week because I expected that piece essay to be online by now, and I was going to react to it. But it isn't.

I was told it would be posted last Tuesday. Does the internet have a greater plus other than to spread information quickly and efficiently? I think not, and so it seems fairly absurd that the article isn't there. Even if/when it is, you're going to have to register in order to read it. These delays and registration requirements are probably why Genre's website is the lowest Alexa traffic-ranked of all the major gay magazines, and by a huge margin:

The Advocate: 24,966
Out: 75728
HX: 242065
Instinct: 270505
Genre: 538652

Why register to read Genre when you can read The Advocate, Out, HX and Instinct for free?

(Note from the future: you can read a scan of the original Genre article here.)

Since my planned update has been hindered (maybe next week?), I'll open the mailbag this week. First up is pb:

Last week you wrote:

"In general, the self-identified gay 'community' is only into 'diversity' in terms of identity, i.e. ethnicity, race, age, sex, etc. The only kind of diversity that really counts, diversity of thought, is often anathema to these people."

Very true -- in my 8 months (wasted) at Heritage of Pride, I found that the long-time activists had no interest in new ideas or helping anyone. Activism (especially GLBT) tends to be more about ego than compassion; or perhaps I should say "selective compassion".
If you agree with the activist's beliefs, they will be more than happy to shower you with their compassion. If you do not agree, then they will be unsympathetic and will brand you as an enemy of the community.

Indeed. One wonders how firm the bubble is in which activists seem to live. Minds unwilling to be challenged do not grow.

HoD reader Mark writes:

Hey D,
I stopped into my friend Felipe's last night and thumbed through his Genre only to see your name (and photo)!
But I thought you were kind of wimpy.  The info was good and it was well written but you weren't your same ol cold circuited self.  Did they tone you down?
Online you're always topical and informative but you also give a strong energy that makes me want to keep on reading.  In the article, the highlighted "...bitch slap" line was true to your usual style. This current web update is noticeably charged in comparison to the article.

UGH! The sting of Mark's word hasn't left my face.. he said I sounded "wimpy". Ugh.

Yes, Genre toned me down, and you're not the only one to have noticed, but more on that another time. "Diabolique Lite" was still too much for some Genre readers. Enter, James Delph:

DX,
I was interested to read your piece in Genre denouncing Peter Staley and his ad campaign. Then I went to your website and read more of your writings.

Lucky you. Welcome to the House of Diabolique.

While you are well spoken, you seem to criticize everyone else and reserve praise pretty much only for your own opinions.

Somewhat true, but how does that make me different from other pundits?

To my credit, I make a point of crediting others when credit is due. You can see so yourself in my columns about Michael Moore, the smoking ban, Iraq, and Madonna/Kabbalah. I provide links in these essays to writers I respect and encourage readers to learn more.

I do this because no one should ever take my word for anything.

You see yourself as a voice of reason and logic. Yet you are actually quite panicky and windy in your writings. Even an alarmist one might say.

Examples?

Just as you decry Staley's crystal/HIV connection, you set up similarly shaky "links" of your own such as your assertion that the public nature of Staley's campaign will automatically bring law enforcement and public health crackdowns.
Like you, I would be sad if sex clubs and nightclubs were shut down by the cops en masse because of Staley's campaign.  But I am not sure he is the one to blame here.

You're making leaps that I haven't made. I never said that Staley's ads would "automatically" bring law enforcement into gay clubs. I said that his ads haven't helped. Staley's ads inspired the Daily News, NY Post and Newsday to call on the police to crack down, and at the Staley-inspired HIV/crystal forum I attended, an official from the NYC Dept of Health lauded Staley's ads and then announced plans for the "increased surveillance of gay men."

Even Staley has remarked that he wasn't happy about the call for police attention. This was an unintended effect of his ads.

Are these things not evidence enough? Simply put, the ads don't work on drug-taking hedonists. They do work at riling up the news media, public health and law enforcement officials.

Activists ought to educate and inspire the "community" to better behavior if that's what they want. Bitchslapping ads like Staley's set up an adversarial relationship between activists and clubgoers where there needn't be one.

You also use identify a comment on a DJs ability to encourage drug use/abuse as being false in the finale to one of your rants. But I have been in many clubs where DJs such as Abel, Victor Calderone, Junior Vasquez and Peter Rauhofer are quite obviously spinning speedy crystal teasing tunes. They drive anyone with an un crystal impared mind, heart and soul out of the club. One friend of mine calls it the "giddy-up" sound.

So you're saying that if DJs play faster beats they should be held legally responsible for pushing the crowd to use crystal!? The notion is absurd! Whether anyone in the crowd bumps up is completely out of a DJ's hands. This is so self-evident as to make your comments seem a joke.

DJs have always varied the musical pace throughout the night, crystal or not.

In 1994, England passed the Criminal Justice Bill, which banned large events that featured "music with repetitive beats" under the logic that such music could not be enjoyed drug free. Perhaps you should move to England since you seem to agree. Giddy-up!

You are also a dreadful ageist.  I am 41 and am cooler than most 20-somethings who I know.  I work in fashion and get around town -- gay and straight -- quite a lot.  You kept saying that Staley's techniques only work for people above a certain age.  That's bullshit and you should re-think your comments lest you appear dumb.

You seem to have dreadful trouble following logic. I'm sure this has nothing to do with your age, and everything to do with your intelligence. After all, you do work in fashion.

Re-read my article. I never said Staley's ads worked only on people above a certain age. I simply said that they definitely don't work for people my age or younger, because we grew up underneath a bleating chorus of hysterical, over-the-top drug warnings, like Staley's. We're numb to them by now.

As for me being ageist, check out this column, biddy.. but you've proven that wisdom comes not necessarily with age.

I also laughed when you quoted the 20-something girl who questioned Staley's ads because there is a disco ball in place of the model's head. Don't you get the symbolism (anonymity?) of that?

I quoted Janine ("Who would honestly look at the picture of a guy with a disco ball for a head and regardless of what it says, think, I'm going to stay away from that!") because hers is the typical, dismissive reaction of a 20-something clubgoer to Staley's ads. Whether or not you agree with her reaction is irrelevant. It was presented as evidence to my point which is that the ads are not fulfilling their purpose. Their intended effect is lost.

It is you who don't get the symbolism of the ad. A dude knocked on the head with a disco ball in a faux-flyer design that says "Buy Crystal, get HIV free!" seems to implicate all of club culture for crystal and HIV. How about an AOL logo on the guy's head instead of a disco ball? I bet more tina-fuelled sex orgies are arranged via AOL than at any dance club.

Would AOL stand for that? Oh wait - according to you it wouldn't be symbolic of AOL, it would be symbolic of "anonymity"!

And before you suggest that dance clubs trump AOL in the crystal sweepstakes, do an AOL member search for PNP and jump again.

The trouble with the internet is that it's acessible enough to give guys like you platforms for all to read.

You're right. It's troubling when just anyone can express their opinions for all to read. The horror of ideas!

While you may see life as complicated and endlessly multi-tiered, most people live a simpler existence.

I'm not making this up, folks.. he actually wrote that.

Fear not, James Delph, I realize that there are many like you who live a "simpler existence". So hear me, simpleton: the House of Diabolique apologizes for disrupting your life with "complicated and endlessly multi-tiered" thoughts.

Make things simple, not so complicated and conspiratorial.

Got it. Simple, like Genre?

I praise Genre for publishing my thoughts. But the trouble with magazines like Genre - unlike webpages like mine, on the internet - is that Genre's primary purpose is not to get people to think but to get people to buy things. 25 pages of the May issue are actual content, 33 pages are ads, and 38 pages are ads made to look like articles. My favorite is this from page 32:

"Ben Affleck parties with the best of 'em. But no matter what, the Oscar-winning screenwriter's hair always retains that healthy sheen. His secret? Aesop's Wild Lime Hair Polish."

I'm so sure!

Mind you, simple James Delph, I have nothing against such things. It's what mass-market, consumer magazines are all about. If that's the kind of "simpler" content you enjoy, have at it. But don't disparage my right to be heard just because you like things simple. It's one thing if you disagree with me. Fine. Let's debate. Let's engage. I can handle you or anyone. But how dare you question my right to be heard?

Even Staley says he placed his ads to provoke discussion. It is discussion in which I am engaged. I disagree with Staley completely but I respect his right of expression, even on phone booth ads all over the city. Vigorous debate is essential if a culture is to thrive.

My words represents the thoughts of many. Ignore them at your own peril, simple James Delph, and say HI to all of the "activists" who have their heads in the sand next to yours. Is everything one-tiered and simple in the ground? Are you using Aesop's Wild Lime Hair Polish? It adds luster without leaving hair sticky, greasy or heavy!

And as for education, how many people do you think would ever find their way into drug education classes, pre-addiction?

Who said anything about classes!? Ads that don't alienate, demonize and exaggerate would be a good start.

And handing out pamphlets at events (when people are leaving impared)?  Even sillier.

Works for HX doesn't it? HX often makes it into homes where it's actually read.

Maybe simple James Delph is right. We're all idiots. Devious DJs spin "speedy" music to drive us to do crystal, we're too stupid to be educated, and patronizing, over-the-top ads actually do work. We're either lying when we say they don't, or we're too dumb to realize it.

Delph's patronizing attitude is emblematic of a disrespect for clubgoers that the House of Diabolique has always been here to destroy.

C'mon guy, wake up.

You wake up. I never sleep.

until next week, remember..
when you dance, we are a part of what you feel
(unless you're simple James Delph).

-