Tag Archives: john

Gay Kids…It Could Even Happen To You!

15 Mar

 

In 1971, philosopher John Rawls postulated that an ideal world would be one we created based on a “veil of ignorance”…that we should design a society as though we had no idea where, and to whom, we would be born. If you don’t know if you’ll pop out of the womb black or white, rich or poor, handsome or ugly, smart or stupid, you might be more likely to make sure all of those groups have at least a fighting chance at achieving happiness.

This idea is crystallized in the recent double-revelation by Republican Senator Rob Portman that not only is his 21-year old son gay, but that he is reversing his long-held position against the legalization of gay marriage. It’s a move that I, for one, applaud, although it should remind us all of the fragility of our convictions. For many of us, our principles are a luxury we’ve been afforded because we haven’t had to walk a mile in anyone’s shoes but out own.

Rob Portman went his entire political career thinking that gay marriage was wrong, or at least, that it wasn’t his problem, because he wasn’t gay. He never took two minutes to wonder what he might think about it if he were gay. Or if one of his children were gay. Well, today we found out what he would do: completely reverse his opinion.

While Senator Portman is enjoying his involuntary crash course in Rawls’ Theory of Justice, here’s some other fun scenarios he can ponder:

Rob Portman could imagine that instead of being born to an upper middle class family that owned a successful business and sent him to Dartmouth, he was born to an uneducated, single mother on welfare. Does he still think children of all socioeconomic backgrounds shouldn’t be guaranteed health care?

Or he could imagine that instead of being born in the United States, he was born in Baghdad, Iraq. Does he still think the invasion of that country, which cost 100,000 Iraqi lives, was a decent thing to do? Or he could imagine that he’s the unfortunate neighbor of some suspected militant in Yemen. Does he still think unmanned drones flying overhead, assassinating villagers at will, is a fair weapon to use against people you aren’t even at war with?

He might for a moment ponder that instead of being in good health, he had Parkinson’s disease. Is he still against stem cell research that could cure his illness? For that matter, he could imagine that instead of being born tall, white, intelligent and good-looking, he was born short, Mexican, with a learning disability and facial disfigurement, and see if that maybe has any impact on his ability to win elections.

Or if he really wants to stretch his mind, he could imagine that, instead of being born a boy in America, he had been born a girl in the poorest area of Nepal, and sold into sex slavery for a few dollars by parents who couldn’t afford to feed her. Does he still think tax breaks for billionaires in America are good, and foreign aid to poverty stricken countries is bad? Or has briefly imagining life as the least fortunate among us informed his world view in any different ways?

I’m not trying to pick on Rob Portman, who I’m sure is a decent enough guy. But like so many of us Americans, he seems to walk through life mostly unaware of a simple fact: There are objective right and wrongs in this world, but we often ignore them, because we’re only thinking about what’s right for us. We may have worked hard and earned everything we have, but at the end of the day, don’t forget that we happened to pop out of a nice, middle class vagina in the 20th century in the wealthiest nation on Earth. Little baby Rob Portman didn’t earn that, he just lucked into it. He had already won the social lottery before he was even born. I know we can’t snap our fingers and solve the problem of global inequality, but we can at least act like we’re aware of it, be humble about our good fortune, and think twice before further improving our own lot at the expense of another’s.

I’m glad Senator Portman was able to open his mind a little after considering what would be fair to another person, his son. If our elected leaders could do that for the other 300 million Americans—and the other 7 billion people on the planet—then I’m sure America would become the great champion of freedom and justice that we all imagine it is.

Adam Farasati is a screenwriter living in Los Angeles, CA. He recently published his first novella, The God Killer.

Advertisements

I’m Gay For Evolution!

10 Mar

If Mother Nature is constantly selecting genes that help people survive and reproduce, why the heck are there so many gay people? In theory, same-sex couples don’t reproduce at all, so you’d figure the trait would die off. But the opposite is true…homosexuals comprise an estimated 6-10% of the population. The only answer is that homosexuality must confer some genetic benefit. So what is it? Gay guys are great with interior design, but that’s more of an advantage in the Castro than it was in caves 50,000 years ago (although we all love a tastefully adorned, post-modern cave).

First, let’s remember that natural selection promotes survival of the fittest genes, not the fittest individuals. Individuals just carry the genes, and they aren’t the only ones who carry them. For instance, if you have an identical twin, they have 100% of the genes that you have. Non-identical siblings have 50% of your genes. First cousins, 12.5%. In other words, your genes are passed on not only through yourself, but also your family.

With that in mind, a leading theory on homosexuality is that it confers a benefit to the kin of the homosexual individual. For instance, if gays or lesbians don’t reproduce, but they somehow help their siblings reproduce successfully, then homosexuality will be selected for. A gay guy might not have kids, but if his sister (with whom he shares 50% of his genes) has a shitload of kids, she will pass on some of his gay gene and, in the next generation, there will actually be MORE gay kids, despite the fact that the gay brother didn’t reproduce. There is new evidence to support this: a 2009 study in Italy found that the maternal relatives of gay men have more children on average than maternal relatives of straight men.

There are other hypotheses as well. The one I like most is “The Johnny Depp Theory.” It goes something like this: Typical gay guys are handsome, sensitive, stylish and nurturing. In other words, all the things women love. But what if you could be—oh, let’s say, “80% gay.” That is, gay enough to have many of those qualities women find attractive, but still straight enough to like chicks? Well, my friend, this would make you quite sexually successful. Take for example Johnny Depp, Justin Bieber, and other incredibly hot guys who are, as we say in the scientific community, “kinda faggy.” Thus, homosexuality in men might be something of an over-reaction to selecting for the traits women love. So catch .22 for gay guys…you’re really hot, but you got so damn attractive you forgot to like vagina!

This could certainly be part of the puzzle, but it doesn’t explain some important facts: A) Not all gay guys are “feminine.” B) What about lesbians? “Butch” chicks aren’t particularly attractive to men (sorry, Martina Navratilova!)

So I look deeper. Turns out gay people are pretty important in society. For instance, two of my five favorite musicians of all time are gay (Freddie Mercury and Elton John). And as anyone who took theater in high school knows, there’s also a bajillion gay actors…and by the way, I’m including closeted gay guys like John Travolta, Tom Cruise and Kevin Spacey, to name a few. You can fool TMZ, but not natural selection! Mark my words…Suri Cruise will be a female golfer. Benjamin Travolta will study ballet.

And politicians! I know you’re thinking: “Really? All I can think of is Barney Frank.” Yeah, he’s the only openly gay politician in America. But what about outed congressmen like Mark Foley (the sexting teenage boys guy) or Larry Craig (the gay airport bathroom guy)? And how about Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney and Alan Keyes? Gay? No. Carrying the gay gene? Yup! Newt has a lesbian sister, Dick and Alan lesbian daughters. Ah, Republicans. Why don’t you all just form a boy band and get it over with.

And don’t get me started on organized religion. Gay guys love the priesthood like fat people love Hometown Buffet.

Furthermore, imagine how many gays and lesbians we might be seeing in these areas if we didn’t live in a Judeo-Christian society that persecuted and vilified homosexuals for the past two thousand years. Most of the people I’ve mentioned thus far didn’t even come out of the closet until late in life, if at all…homosexuality is essentially forbidden in politics and religion. And contrary to popular belief, it ain’t that accepted yet in the arts either…the only thing they’ve let Ricky Martin sing since he came out is a cancer commercial. And yet, despite the obstacles, homosexuality persists.

Art, music, politics, religion…gays and lesbians are giving pop culture quite the reach-around. As always, I refuse to see coincidence, only Darwinian providence.

Writer and mythologist Joseph Campbell has surmised that today’s artists, actors and musicians were yesterdays cave painters, storytellers and shamans. It wasn’t all hunting and gathering 100,000 years ago…even before language, there was art. And while it may not seem like much, the simple paintings we find on ancient cave walls begin to occur just as human innovation exploded in size and scope. What was it about art and culture that helped humans survive? It created no food, killed no predators. But perhaps it helped us explain mysteries of life that science and religion were not around to address. Did the crude murals we find at ancient burial sites help early humans deal with the death of loved ones, giving them renewed strength to persevere in the face of tragic loss? Did drums and music create powerful bonds in tribes, bonds that fostered cooperation and love? Did storytellers use humor and drama to keep spirits high and to relate valuable lessons? Did shamans, in creating religion and mysticism, begin to fill that spiritual void we’re all still trying to fill today?

Was Andy Warhol the descendant of such a cave painter? Elton John the descendant of early musicians? Ellen Degeneres a latter day storyteller? Outed Pastor Ted Haggard a contemporary shaman?

And if these rare but important individuals were truly valuable to the tribe, then I wonder if their lack of offspring isn’t so much a negative side-effect, but rather an intended adaptation. Don’t forget that 100,000 years ago, just like today, the most energy and time consuming thing you could do was have kids. Children required sharing precious food and resources, and if you were a good parent, sometimes even sacrificing your own life to save your child’s. I ask you: Is it possibly better for the clan if the most important people don’t have kids to take care of?

Nowadays, of course, you can be queer and have children. There’s adoption, surrogate mothers, and if you’re not quite ready for that, small annoying poodles. So modern homosexuals get the best of both worlds…hotness that makes them sexually attractive, skills that make them invaluable to art and society, and the freedom to experience the joys of child-rearing. And as long as your siblings keep getting knocked up, your faaaaabulous genes get passed on too. As Darwin might say, you get to have your cock and eat it too.

Mazel tov!

Dear single people of Los Angeles: You’re not all 8’s

22 Feb

Expectations ruin everything. If I tell you Iron Man 3 is the best film ever made, and you go see it, you’ll likely be disappointed and tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about. Which is a shame, because Iron man 3 is actually a pretty good movie. You might have liked it a lot more if I hadn’t messed with your expectations.

I’ve come to believe that dating is the same. In the greater Los Angeles area, there’s over 17 million people. One fifth are the prime dating age, 21-34. Of those, about half are single at any given time. That’s almost 2 million single people. Half are men, half women, so let’s say a million each, give or take.

The bell curve of attractiveness.

If I categorize them based on hotness, on a scale of 1 to 10, there’s 100,000 men and women on average for each level…1’s, 2’s, 3’s…and so on. But in reality, it’s probably more like a bell curve…lots of people in the middle, few on the high and low extremes. Still, this should be good news, because by definition most people are average, and thus there should be hundreds of thousands of normal people out there who are our physical equals and eager to date, mate, and marry.

And yet, it doesn’t feel like there’s hundreds of thousands of decent partners out there for us. Sometimes it feels like there aren’t any. How is this possible?

Faulty expectations. You want people who don’t want you. Worse, you feel you deserve people who don’t want you. Your expectations are too high. When your expectations aren’t met, you become distressed, lonely, and frustrated. Why can’t I find just one person in this whole city that I like, who also likes me back?

My solution: Get your heads out of your asses, Los Angeles! Or, to put it more specifically…YOU’RE NOT ALL “8”s.

I understand your thought process. You think you’re being quite reasonable and honest with yourself. You’re happy to acknowledge you’re not a perfect 10. After all, you bite your nails sometimes. Nobody’s flawless! In fact, even a nine seems a bit high, in a city where Reese Witherspoon is “alright looking.” So you’re happy to call yourself an 8. That can’t be too high, right? After all, 80% is the equivalent of a B- in high school. You know you’re not a B-. You’re more like a B+. So let’s call it 8.8.

I repeat, delusional Angelenos: YOU ARE NOT A FUCKING “8”.

10’s.

Let’s start from the top: Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are 10’s. No argument there, I assume?

9’s.

Now, I’m going to be generous and say that average looking TV stars (let’s say, The Office’s Jenna Fischer and John Krasinski) are 9’s, although to be honest I feel a little weird putting them that close to Hollywood royalty like George Clooney, Tom Cruise, or Katherine Heigl…all 10’s. But let’s say that John and Jenna are way up there as 9’s for now, and no lower…for your sake. And let’s go ahead and add in all the professional athletes, Playboy centerfolds, multi-millionaires, etc.

8’s.

Then who does that leave as 8’s? Wait…you think it’s you? HAHAHAHAHAHA. I just laughed so hard I trickled pee into my Spider-Man undies. You, an 8? Pfsht. 8’s are the non-famous, non-rich, but still mega-hot regular people of LA. Truly gorgeous men and women. Fashion models. Future rock stars. CEOs of record labels. People who used to be on The Hills. Stars of The Bachelorette. Daniel Tosh.

7: Good looking guy in an Audi. (Pretend this is not Jason Statham).

Now we’re at the 7’s. I guess some of you are here. Really good-looking people. People who have no trouble hooking up with the hottest guy/girl at the bar (well, a West LA bar). People with awesome  jobs. Nice cars…Audi A5 or better, please. Very funny, smart, or sexually gifted, and probably all three.

This is most of us: Classic 6’s who think they’re 8’s. Get off the bar, drunks!

Now the 6’s are where a lot of you folk should be classifying yourselves. Don’t worry, nothing wrong with being a six. It’s definitely above average. Nice looking, smart, funny. Good job.  You were popular in your sorority or fraternity (but not that popular). Able to get laid, with some regularity. But not with Victoria’s Secret models.

Decent looking girls. AKA 5’s.

5’s: Average looking. Maybe you have nice boobs or a girthy penis. You sometimes can hook up with a 7…if they’re completely wasted. You dream of being on a reality TV show, but your level of celebrity hits its peak when you were interviewed about a local shooting on the ten o’clock news.

4’s.

4’s: You’re overweight, mediocre looking, or sort of a douchebag. You are not smart, and the only people who think you are funny are your friends, who are also 4’s, and also not funny.

3’s: You were made fun of by other kids when you were young because of the way you looked. In truth, I can’t blame them. You think of yourself as a 5. You are wrong.

2’s.

2’s: Bad news, 2’s: You are devoid of personality, which is odd, because people as ugly as you are supposed to develop a sense of humor or smarts to compensate. But for some reason you didn’t. Good news: There are still tens of thousands of people in LA left for you to reject with confidence (see below).

Sorry Verne. Mini Me = 1

1’s: Hey 1’s! How ya doin’? Doin’ good? It’s fun to talk to a normal person, huh! So, just a quick update: you are virtually un-dateable to 95% of the world. But there’s always other 1’s, including circus freaks and radioactive mutants, who are equally hard up. If you guys can figure out the mechanics of sexual intercourse, I say, go to town! Everybody deserves somebody. And the funny thing is, at the end of the day, there’s as many people out there in your target range as there is for a perfect 10, when you think about it.

So as you can see, we’re all woefully misguided about where we rank in this town, and that in turn destroys our expectations about who we deserve. On average, you’re bumping yourself up 20% too much. I know why you do it…you’ve got the “intangibles” that go beyond physical appearance, money, or fame. You’re “hilarious.” You’ve got a “special charm.” You’re “great at volleyball.” You’re working on an “amazing screenplay.” Here, let me help you factor those intangibles into the equation. Think of all your qualities other than looks and income, rank them on a scale from 1 to 10, write those numbers on a piece of paper, and then shove that paper up your delusional ass. You’re a 6. Just deal with it. The sooner you come to reality, the better off you’ll be. You’ll never be happy looking for an 8 when you don’t realize they want nothing to do with you. Especially if they’re delusional too and think they’re a 10! What 10 is going to marry a 6?!!! See how many problems this is causing? In economic terms, we are experiencing rampant price inflation in the meat market. And it affects the ugly and beautiful alike. No wonder George Clooney won’t settle down. He’s probably looking for a 12!

But in the end, it is not our own minds, but rather the times we live in that are to blame. Your ancestors of 40,000 years ago lived in small tribes, 150 people at most, including children. Now out of that, how many single people? Let’s say 80. 40 males and 40 females. Everybody knew everybody else. If a “6” caveman was aiming for a “9” cavewoman, she just rejected him, and he moved on down the line. By the time he got down to other 6’s, there was probably only three or four to choose from, and what with competition from other males, he was probably happy with whatever he got. The whole process probably took a week or less. It reminds me of my childhood days in front of the TV…before we had cable, we basically only got 10 channels. If “Three’s Company” was on one of them, I was happy. These days, with five hundred channels to choose from, I’m never happy. I just keep on clicking and clicking and clicking, hoping “Casino” is on, which it never is. Meanwhile, on one of those five hundred channels, a perfectly good episode of Three’s Company is going unwatched.

Anyway, I hope this clears everything up. Now quit walking around Hollywood like you’re better than 80% of the people in the bar. You’re not. You’re better than 60%, at most, and that’s if there’s circus freaks and radioactive mutants having a beer. But don’t look at your demotion as bad news. It actually might be the best thing that ever happened to you. Would you rather continue to be a lonely 8, or a happy 6 in a loving relationship?

And in the interest of full disclosure: I’m a decent looking, reasonably successful screenwriter who drives a 4runner. On a good day, I’m an LA 6.5. (But then again, I am funny, and I do have a blog…so let’s just say 8…)

You May Also Enjoy:  Controlling Boyfriends and Paranoid Girlfriends…Please Chill the Fuck Out!