REVIEW: “Fashioned Forward” Gaultier music exploration at the DMA fails

Last night held a whole lot of mixed feelings for me.

I finally made it to the Jean Paul Gaultier exhibit at the Dallas Museum of Art, thanks to a sort-of ticket-only pre-show viewing. The crowd wasn’t so thick and I could soak in all the edgy, avant garde work by the designer, as well as the innovations used in the exhibit — mannequins with animated faces, two-level displays and an automated runway showed the museum really upping their game. It made me  proud of the place. And the exhibit itself was full of energy.

But then came the reason we were there.

Fashioned Forward was billed as “a musical exploration of the creative spirit of fashion icon Jean Paul Gaultier.” I was fascinated by the idea of pairing music with fashion, like wine with food. With punk rock skirts for men and ornate corsets made of straw, I could only imagine how the side-by-side would be.

I did not expect what happened.

A cast of four singers, a guitarist and a pianist made up the cast for the night, led by artistic director Ryan Taylor (not onstage). The Horchow Auditorium was packed with a diverse crowd and the show opened with Cole Porter’s “Anything Goes” followed by John Duke’s “Morning in Paris.” Unfortunately, it started the show on the completely wrong stiletto. American standards aren’t what I picture as augmenting the hard edges and spiky textures of Gaultier. Not. At. All. Foreign language songs like “Chiome d’Oro” disengaged the show even more, and poems about (or merely mentioning) fashion were peppered in without much effect while slides of fashions acted as backdrops for works intended to relate to that look.

That was the first half.

—  Rich Lopez

Give a lot of head? Check yourself for cancer

Oral bottoms might need to be in tune with their health after reading this. The New York Times posted Monday that “throat cancers caused by a virus transmitted during oral sex have increased significantly in the United States in recent years, researchers reported on Monday.” Buzzkill, but worth knowing:

“This is the first definitive evidence that these changes at the population level are indeed caused by HPV infection,” said Dr. Maura L. Gillison, the senior author of the new study and the chairwoman of cancer research at Ohio State University.

The research is published in The Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Kevin J. Cullen, director of the Greenebaum Cancer Center at the University of Maryland, said the study was well done. “It’s very clear that this is becoming a major epidemic,” he added.

He said his own research team had found similar increases in throat cancers in Baltimore during the last 30 years. Researchers think the trend may be attributable to increases in oral sex, particularly among younger people who think it is safer than intercourse.

Dr. Gillison said the increase in throat cancers was not a cause for panic because they still are not common. There are fewer than 10,000 cases a year. Most people with HPV do not develop cancer.

So, as Gawker put in their post, “if you suck a lot of dick, either get vaccinated or spend the rest of your life worrying that every “lumpy, swollen lymph node” and “lingering sore throat or earache” might be blowjob cancer.”

We’re still waiting word on any similar trends in butt-munching.

—  Rich Lopez

Equality Texas calls gay divorce ruling ‘uninformed, outdated and homophobic’

Instant Tea is no attorney, but we can read. And having now thoroughly perused a Dallas appeals court’s gay divorce ruling from Tuesday, we’d say it doesn’t take a law degree to tell you that it’s bad — like, real bad.

The gay divorce ruling reads like an anti-thesis to U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision last month declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional. Thankfully, we can take comfort in knowing that the gay divorce ruling will have a limited impact in terms of legal precedent. And maybe, just maybe, it will serve as a helpful reminder about just how far the LGBT community has to go in places like Texas.

Anyhow, we’ll have much more about the ruling in Friday’s Dallas Voice, but for now we thought we’d share this statement sent out Tuesday afternoon by Equality Texas:

The Fifth District Court of appeals has taken the most extreme, the most conservative view possible on each issue before it. It’s not as if they wanted to just overturn the trial court’s decision, they wanted to smash it into ground and discourage anyone from ever filing a pro-LGBT suit ever again.

The ruling harkens back to a view of the world from generations past — a world where LGBT people were content to live in closets, and were afraid to demand to be treated with dignity and respect. A dignity and respect that this court goes out of its way to completely deny.

In going so far to overturn the trial court’s decision, with such an extreme opinion, the appellate court has lowered the bar for any effort to overturn its ruling:

• The Court’s view of marriage is historically inaccurate. Marriage existed in many forms, for many reasons, for many thousands of years.

• Refusal to view sexual orientation as a suspect class singled out for disparate and discriminatory treatment ignores both the entire purpose of DOMA and the anti-marriage amendment, as well as the well-documented history of discrimination, hate crimes, and statutory treatment of LGBT individuals.

• The Court’s view of same-sex relationships is uninformed, outdated and homophobic — predicating its decision upon the ability to have children naturally — thereby ignoring the thousands of Texas households raising kids with same-sex parents, or even single parent households.

• The ruling holds Texas’ laws are “rationally related to the legitimate state interest in fostering the best possible environment for procreation and child-raising.”  Evidently to the exclusion of all others, and without a shred of evidence in the record — particularly since longitudinal studies have demonstrated that same-sex parents are as good as raising kids as straight couples.

—  John Wright