Do you perk up when there's mail in you inbox? As a general rule, I do. Now, I'm talking actual mail from people not spam. Imagine opening your mail and finding an email from a guy asking you on a date.

Wait, this guy -

I'd go out with him, well, if I was single, I mean. Lucy Holland got just such an email from Mr. Sullivan. Now, along with his request for a date was a link to his personal website. Ms. Holland, who seems like a firecracker of a woman to me, turned down Mr. Sullivan's invitation. Why Lucy?

She did however forward the link to Mr. Sullivan's website to a friend. Who forwarded to, well I'm not sure how many people, but before long Peter's website was getting 20,000 hits a day.

Mr. Sullivan says that he did not send the message to Ms. Holland, but rather a colleague did it as a joke. Um... personally if I was said colleague, I'd be taking full credit for this one.

The website petersullivan.co.uk has been taken down, but for a short time a message read, "The website was always intended for family and close friends. Big shout out to the gay community who have shown a disturbing degree of interest in my site. Sorry to disappoint you, I am actually straight."

A later message read, "I have had to remove the site as the level of hits was growing astronomically and I wasn't completely happy with the content - it was work in progress. I apologise to those individuals who are not lucky enough to receive a personal response to their 'kind' e-mails, text messages and telephone calls I have had from around the world. However, I am sure you will appreciate this level of notoriety does not afford me enough time. Stay posted, there's more to come! Peace."

The face to face asking out is looking pretty good right now, isn't it?

More here...
Romeo Becomes Internet Laughing Stock

what if you found out your grandma had a "lesbian love affair" when she was your age or younger? that'd be pretty awesome, i think. just as long as you don't imagine any of it...



...alright, alright. so i'm sorry i mentioned your grandma right before an old lady started talking about masturbation in front of a fire. but hey...we're all grown-ups here, right? well at least some of you guys are. i'm still working on it.

the point is, that commercial is awesome. and a little disturbing. and a little gross in hindsight. but then it goes right back to being awesome. full circle. you know, like how your grandma used to do her ballet friend Doris in the park. *circles*

aw, that was mean of me. i'm sorry. i keep doing that. here, let me make it up to you. now, sit back in your chair and imagine my other wife Rachel Shelley giving you a right *may-saj* as she whispers sweet nothings into your ear. she then starts to kiss your neck softly and she lets out a light whimper. her hands move towards your chest...as she starts to...

--oh wait, you guys are totally interrupted when Cybill Shepard walks in with her top off lookin' for her massage oil.

hee...

Wednesday night, 9 PM. Charlotte has downloaded Sim City to her cell phone so that she can occupy herself when I'm not available for her amusement (like now, because I'm too busy doting on you, beloved reader).

As I type, Charlotte confesses that she has a crafty goal: She is determined to make her Sim character go lesbo. What Charlotte doesn't realize, but I do since I just Googled it, is that same-sex relationships have been an option since Sim City 2. All you need is trust, affection, and shared assets. If only real life were so simple.

Charlotte is ten minutes into the game and so far, no luck hooking up with another girl. She can't seem to get her Sim to leave the apartment, let alone go on a date.

If you or your kid has ever had a Tamagotchi, you are already familiar with the tyranny of owning a virtual person. It's like having a small child--or needy girlfriend. It is now Charlotte's job to see that Poppy (a name she chose because it is at least phonetically the same as that hot Latina on the L Word) is well fed, clean, entertained, and employed (she'll need to talk to another Sim named Penny if she wants to find a job but Penny is apparently never in the mood to talk.)

Time for me to go downstairs and feed the dogs. When I return I discover

A Florida cosmetics company has decided to test the outer limits of male stupidity and has introduced yet another overpriced skin care product. However, this one will be marketed on the assumption that you are even stupider than a complete idiot. The offering is pretty straightforward: if you rub a pleasant smelling lubricant on your penis two or more times a day it will feel really good. No, I'm not kidding. Somebody really thinks you will pay extra for that revelation and for instructions on how to do it. This product is custom made for those of you who need product warnings like "placing a plastic bag over your head may cause suffocation" and "Drinking Drano will make you sick".

I suppose the company, Mensmax is performing a public service. Like me, you probably neglect your penis oblivious to its many enemies. Oh yes, clueless male, your penis is constantly under assault. The skin care experts at Mensmax have in fact identified five critical and relentless enemies that prevent your penis from remaining young, vibrant and lovely. They are friction, heat, chemicals, the exhausting and taxing process of enlargement and retraction and, of course, the ultimate enemy of all skin: aging.

The April 7 press release introducing skin care for the penis, "RestoreMax", notes that "Millions of American men spend billions of dollars on skin care for every other part of their body except their penis. Skin care should not stop at the penis. This skin needs special attention, and MensMax developed Restore Max specifically for the special needs of the skin on the penis.

On March 9, I broke an extremely disturbing story on a blog posting by one of this nation's most influential and powerful religious leaders, the Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Rev. Mohler praised the opportunity, thanks to advances in genetic science, to root out sin in the womb by altering the gay gene and save souls from the abominable sin and tortured life of homosexuality even before birth.

This QueerSighted post quickly led to a blogosphere and media frenzy culminating in a story in the nation's leading and most influential national newspaper, The New York Times. And the Times got it wrong, missing the real import of the story. In fact, almost no one seems to have understood the true meaning and impact of this story. The Times headline suggests that a leading Evangelical leader has embraced nature over nurture. But the real headline is, "So What?"

The Times reports that the besieged Rev. Mohler has been attacked by both friend and foe. But like the Times, both sides are missing his point--and what a point it is. Religious fundamentalist should be celebrating a new prophet and advocates of science and reason should be quaking in their boots.

Religious fundamentalists feel betrayed by Mohler's assertion that there may very well be a gay gene and that homosexuality is therefore biological. Advocates of science and reason have condemned Mohler as a genocidal maniac and neo-Nazi. Both sides are right, but again, they have both missed the point as did Saturday's New York Times.

Written by Jonathon Scott Feit
For WITH THIS RING Magazine

I'm writing to you from Las Vegas, home of the 2007 American Association of Advertising Agencies Media Conference and Trade Show. The last panel I sat in was called "The Business Case for Diversity in Media." Half the audience walked out. I didn't, but only because I was practically catatonic, imbued alternately with disbelief and dismay.

Granted, the AAAA meant well by having a diversity panel -- as my colleague Jack Myers, editor/publisher of the Jack Myers Media Business Report has said, it's better to shoot for diversity (even if one falls short) than not to discuss the topic at all.

But diversity has been rhetoricized ad nauseam at media and advertising industry events over the past two years, and advances are slowly being made. The problem, therefore, is not the concept: no member of the so-called "liberal media" -- nor anyone with a prayer to stay in mainstream business -- would decry the happy goal of diversity.

However -- and this is a big "however" -- two black men, one black woman, and one Hispanic woman do not a panel on "Diversity" make. Diversity does not, and cannot, simply mean mashing together persons of color, whose experiences, while varied in their own right, far from encompass the broadest range of experiences.

Where were representatives from the GLBT community, the disabled community, the Asian community, the immigrant community, the senior community, the youth community--or hey, here's an interesting one---the white community?

(How exactly did "diverse" become synonymous with "not white"?)