So I have started watching Torchwood lately. (Yeah, Rescue Me has been postponed slightly.) If you haven’t spent much time watching BBC America lately, Torchwood is a spinoff of Doctor Who that began in 2006. It is about a team of sexy people:

We really enjoy black leather and snogging each other.

who are kind of like Mulder and Scully, in that they investigate aliens and shit like that (also they have a pterodactyl in their office—damn, pterodactyl is a hard word to spell) but unlike Mulder and Scully, they like to make out with each other. And strangers. And aliens. People talking about the show in the extra features on the DVDs often refer to the show as “dark,” which only proves they’ve never seen anything on HBO, because it’s frankly a little cartoonish at times. The drama seems a little lightweight; when people are killed, it has about as much impact as the opening murder on an episode of Law & Order. Maybe I’m jaded, but I’ve seen a hell of a lot darker stuff on CSI.

Torchwood is also, kind of hilariously, set in Cardiff, the capital of Wales, which is kind of like setting The X-Files in Portland, as it’s amusingly improbable that an agency described as outside the government, more powerful than the CIA or MI5, is set in a smallish bayside town full of castles. I’m sure there’s some UK joke about it being set in Cardiff that I’m not getting. Overseas readers (both of you), feel free to educate/yell at me.

I will be honest: I started watching Torchwood because John Barrowman, who is in the middle up there, is one of the judges on Any Dream Will Do, and he looks like a hot, butch Tom Cruise and is a delightfully bitchy judge. I have kept watching it because it’s pulpy and silly and EVERYONE MAKES OUT WITH EACH OTHER. I’m not kidding. Everyone. Without regard for sexual orientation. There are boys kissing in the first episode, girls kissing in the second. Boys kiss girls too, occasionally. It’s incredibly fluid; basically, everyone is bisexual, or at least kind of unconcerned with labels. It’s interesting in both an academic and a lusty way; I have heard the word “gay” used exactly once—they don’t really discuss it. The characters just sleep with who they want to sleep with. It’s not something I expect to see on American TV any time soon, and in that it certainly has a leg up on HBO.

This post is less than timely. But I feel like there are some things that need to be said in regards to Brody Jenner, SNL and the way they are shaping the public’s perception of the gays.

It seems like the mainstream tolerance of gay men is evolving in healthy, if annoying, ways. In the 70s, 80s and 90s gay characters came and went on comedic television shows. Sometimes they lisped and nancied about like debutantes. Other times they were tortured closet cases. (For the record, I think that Leon’s depiction on Roseanne is really one of the best early gay characters — he could be fey at times but mostly was just a regular guy with a day job)

So when Queer Eye came around, it really broke down a lot of doors (as stereotypical as the premise was) in creating an atmosphere where gay men were completely out and unapologetic. And they were usually ha-ha funny while staying pretty true to themselves (even if they hammed it up). And Will & Grace created a pretty devastatingly accurate portrayal of the straight girl/gay guy dysfunctional relationship while also managing to be incredibly funny.

But now there’s this trend — I suppose you could call it a trend — of a straight guys making comedies that mine man-on-man affection for laughs, but mask it with enough frat house charm to make it clear that there’s no real homophobia at play.

On Paul Rudd’s hosting gig on SNL earlier this season and in the new Andy Samberg movie (also with Rudd), they tried to reap a lot of laughs by putting men in intimate situations (SNL: nude men painting each other, messy kisses between male family members; movie: a misinformed gay dude kisses Rudd to an awkward reception, usage of the word “man-date” — a term that annoys the living crap out of me).

The trick about all this is that there’s no homophobia at play here. I’m sure these guys are all in the right place politically (pro-marriage, etc.) and Paul Rudd played a homo in that awful early 90s Jennifer Aniston movie before it was trendy to play gay. But what irks me is the fact that two men kissing each other is being played for a laugh, with the intended audience response being “oh, I can’t believe they went there!”

And as pleased as I always am to see Paul Rudd in homoerotic situations, I’d rather not have it played for comedic effect. I don’t want to seem humorless about this (there’s plenty of glitter-encrusted, stereotypical gay humor that I love — Planet Unicorn, anyone?), but if we lived in a *perfectly* civilized and tolerant society there wouldn’t be anything particularly awkward about all of these situations.  And pandering to the ole’ man-on-man kiss for a laugh can be belittling, considering the fact that that is exactly what gay men do.

On a tangential note, this phenomenon reminds me of the show Bromance on MTV, which (full disclosure) I’ve never seen a full episode of. Watch this clip to get a summary of what it’s about — but it’s basically a show where six guys compete to be Brody Jenner’s best friend. They compete in challenges, bare their souls and have Brody visit their families to ensure their compatibility (no shit!).

And while there’s more than a little homoeroticism afoot (there’s been a lot of ballyhoo about a group outing in a hot tub), there’s a certain vein of jockishness that is intended to ward off all perceptions of true gayness. Take this homoerotic (and completely staged) clip for example:

What I’m trying to say is this: The fact that straight guys on TV, even douchebags like Brody Jenner, can put themselves in gay situations and not react horribly is Progress.  Capital P.

But calling a show Bromance has an inherent underpinning of wanting to assert your own heterosexuality before it’s called into question. And for the SNL/Apatow crew to constantly get laughs based on men showing affection — it can get wearying, no matter how benign the intentions are.

I do not understand people who purport to care about and make a point to watch the Oscars and then just bitch and bitch and bitch about how the show is too long, it’s so self-indulgent, and there are all these unnecessary montages. Every single year someone’s whingeing about how they’re dreading the length of the show and it’s going to be so overblown, and the organizers are giving pandering interviews about how they’re “really going to get it under three hours this year, folks, we promise!” and then they make the poor sucker who put an entire animated short on her MasterCard stand in the aisle to accept her award. Here’s a solution for everyone: Don’t watch the show.

They asked us to give shorter speeches because Americans can't understand our funny accents.

Honestly, it is an awards show for actors, the most self-obsessed people in the world short of Kim Jong-Il. If you don’t want to hear them thanking their personal trainers and giving the occasional speech about Palestine, don’t watch the show.

There are 24 awards categories. There’s also the dead people montage, the host’s opening song and dance, the couple minutes each nominee for Best Picture gets, the performances of the songs nominated for Best Original (and let’s talk about how ridiculous it is that they all get shoehorned into a medley), and whatever other history-of-film points the producers want to make. Considering it’s live, that’s not going to be a short program. So if you don’t want to watch a four-hour show…don’t watch it. Or only watch part of it. I don’t understand why the show has to short-shrift the people who worked just as hard, if not harder, as the more famous nominees on sound editing, documentary shorts, and costumes so that the show clocks in at 3:50 instead of 4:06. We have TiFaux now. We can pause the show to go to the bathroom or send out for more pizza rolls. There is no need to make those more obscure nominees stand in the audience to accept their awards or line up on stage like the world’s most awkward dodgeball team while one’s name is announced and the other four try to look happy. Because one day, Kevin O’Connell will win. And at that time, the Susan Lucci of the Oscars will deserve his own standing ovation, running time be damned.

Maybe this would be easier if the show wasn’t such a colossal event for ABC. I suggest the Oscars follow the lead of the Independent Spirit Awards and decamp to some smaller channel that has no problem giving them a five-hour block on a Sunday night (or a Saturday night for that fact, which would be awesomer). Like Sundance, or IFC, or freaking HBO. That would solve the cursing problem.

I’ve never heard anyone complain that the Super Bowl goes on for too long. And there’s just as much pageantry: the twelve-hour pregame show, the song before the national anthem, the national anthem, the coin toss, the flyover, the halftime show, the commercials, for crying out loud. Your average Sunday NFL game fits into about three hours; this year’s Super Bowl ended around 11 p.m., four and a half hours after kickoff. And, you know, no one really cares. They watch it till it’s over. If the Oscars really are the gay Super Bowl, they should get the same consideration: It ends when it ends, and if you’re tired, set the TiFaux, go to bed, and watch the rest during breakfast. Just shut up about it.

If you’ve been paying attention to the gay blogosphere, you may have noticed that a recent English Pepsi ad has earned the ire of the American Family Association because of its gay content. (Helpful hint: Whenever an organization has the word “family” in it, they’re sure to be insane. And probably closeted too, but that’s for another time.”

Here’s the clip in question:

I’m not necessarily bowled over by Pepsi’s inclusiveness given the fact that the buddies are contorting their faces in the final frame as if they’d just watched a lion disembowel a gazelle. But I suppose I’ll take what I can get in terms of gays getting mainstream exposure.

This is the day of talking about shows that aren’t part of the TiFaux canon.

First, it’s The View and paper products. Now, it’s Wheel of Fortune. You’re up next, CSI: Miami.

I just thought I’d share this cute clip from Wheel of Fortune of a gay dude matter-of-factly introducing his fiance (no scare quotes), Chuck. And then he wins!  Yay!

I need to get a boyfriend and then win $40,000.  If anyone knows how to make either of those happen, please e-mail the TiFaux account.

Oh, and true story: I was totally watching this at the gym when it happened, but I wasn’t listening to it.

I haven’t thought about Kathy Griffin in a while, but she’ll be on in full force on CNN tonight. She has great chemistry with Anderson Cooper, mostly because she busts his chops (as they say in 70s-era sitcoms) all the time and he has to maintain some degree of composure and professionalism.

I’ll probably DVR it, as I will be out on the town. Most likely passed out drunk in the corner of a dive bar by 12:05, covered with confetti and wearing a silly hat.

What is there to say about Rosie’s Variety Hour?

‘Twas a bizarre venture from the start — taking the once family-friendly comedian/talk show host (turned polarizing, lesbian lighting rod for chat show conflict) and having her host what they pitched as an old-timey variety show with song, dance, comedy and celebrity guests. It seems like a fine idea objectively speaking, but to have Rosie at the helm is to damn the project entirely.

I keep trying to think of who they expected would watch this show (update: Rosie LOL-haiku-ed that there will “b no more” today). At this point, Rosie’s almost a cult figure — appealing almost entirely to lesbian moms and the dangerously liberal. It’s hard to think about what major demographics would really get excited about this, much less imagine who thought this could be a runaway success.

I actually watched the first episode, which aired the night before Thanksgiving.  Truthfully, the thing that took me aback was the fact that it was probably the gayest thing I’ve ever seen in my life. Since Rosie is essentially both a lesbian and a gay man, the show featured her wearing an awkwardly femme outfit while leading the uber show-bizzy production (it a very sing-y, dance-y event — an hour-long embodiment of “jazz hands”).

I’ve been given rainbow condoms by a drag queen at the gay pride parade, but I wasn’t really prepared for the level of camp and theatricality on Rosie’s comedy hour. The routines were pretty shockingly gay-centric for a show that one would imagine is targeted to a similar audience as American Idol. After starting out with some of Rosie’s hackey jokes about gay men and high heels and an appearance by Liza herself, who should show up but Clay Aiken.  And they proceeded to tell gay jokes for four hours.

I don’t know.  I was just kind of shocked that even in this new, progressive Yes We Can era of American culture, that this would fly. Not that it’s a bad thing to have gays being out and proud in primetime, it was just a bizarre mixture of elements to have in a much-hyped show.

All in all, I would probably just have to say that this is unnecessary programming. I don’t know if the premise is just un-executable or if they botched it. It seemed like a telethon with no cause, with shamed guest celebrities performing clunky comedic skits and song and dance routines that aren’t actually entertaining.

Aside from the gays there were appearances by Alec Baldwin (NBC says “Watch 30 Rock”), Jane Krakowski (NBC says “Watch 30 Rock”), Harry Connick Jr., Gloria Estefan, and Alanis Morisette (um, why not?).

Here’s a bit of what you (probably) missed:

Journalism!

Back in 2004, during that nightmarish period known as the Bush-Kerry election, I found spiritual inspiration for my junior liberal self by listening to Air America Radio (which, I think, still exists). My favorite show was called Unfiltered, featuring a bizarre trio of Lizz Winstead (creator of The Daily Show), Public Enemy’s Chuck D and a woman I’d never heard of named Rachel Maddow.

Maddow was and is a Rhodes Scholar, a lesbian and an uncommonly likable brainiac. She’s also the host of her own new show on MSNBC. During these final breathless moments at the end of the election cycle, she’s a life preserver in the middle of a sea of ridiculous punditry.

Make no mistake, she’s a fire-breathing liberal and a pundit at heart. She’s not around as much to change peoples’ minds as she is to reaffirm the beliefs of people who already agree with her. However, when you’re (read: I’m) listening to her talk, it’s amazing to hear someone articulate everything you’ve (I’ve) been thinking but haven’t been able to cobble together.

There’s been a bit of controversy in the gay blogosphere about MSNBC’s attempts to femme her up — an idea that, to me, sounds just as bizarre as it does wrong.  Rachel wearing a dress would be just as strange as me wearing a dress. However, they seem to have struck a happy, Ellen-ish medium with some foundation and a Hillary Clinton-style pantsuit.

In any case, check out Rachel Maddow as a delicious counterpoint to Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck and the FOX News psychos.

Clay’s made it official — he’s a lesbian. Or at least his haircut is.