Those Not Gay Husbands
To the Editor:
Commenting on your “BTW” squib about the TLC show, My Husband’s Not Gay [March-April issue], I finally watched the show on my DVR. I was surprised at how open these guys were about their gayness. I thought it was refreshing to see someone try to live such a tightly balanced life.
As to what they got out of it: When the one single guy said he wanted a wife and kids, I had to wonder why he doesn’t settle for a husband and kids. Same-sex marriage is legal in Utah, and, as of next year, two men will be able to have a baby without using an egg (it will be done using their stem cells). So they would both be the biological parents. He didn’t mention living within religious dictates, so I assume a husband and mutual children might satisfy him.
I did notice that the three married guys married women who were not in their league. I can see why the women settled, as they could not land a straight guy as attractive as their gay husband. I do feel for them, always living on edge and wondering what the husband is really doing when he’s off with the boys.
Scott Orrell, Rochester Hills, Michigan
To the Editor:
My Husband’s Not Gay was such a bad idea for a TV reality show. And this show was an instant ratings failure, too. Does anybody remember Boy Meets Boy? Let’s bring that one back—but without the gimmick that some of the fifteen dateable candidates were actually straight, unbeknownst to the show’s “main man.”
Raymond Banacki, Brooklyn, NY
To the Editor:
In Andrew Holleran’s assessment of The Imitation Game (Mar-Apr 2015), he refers to Keira Knightley’s time onscreen as calling to mind “those old Judy Garland-Andy Rooney movies.”
Of course, Andy Rooney never appeared in a Judy Garland movie. It was Mickey! Time to tune your history gay-dar!
Dean Waller, Seattle
To the Editor,
Readers of Karl Whittington’s fascinating article (“Jesus’ Penis and the Seed of Faith, (March-April 2015) on the cartographic representation of Jesus’ penis in a medieval map drawn by Opicinus de Canistris were certainly challenged in making sense of your “flopped” reproductions. I could only understand his piece by viewing the images in a mirror.
Jean-Francois Vilain, Philadelphia
The image was indeed somehow reversed in the publication process. I noticed it when I received the issue, but the drawing is so strange, I didn’t think anyone would give it a second thought.
There are two different issues: First, Opicinus wrote the captions facing a number of different directions, so there is no true “top” or “bottom” to the image. Second, the reversal of the image that produced the backward writing was a mistake. However, note that even when printed correctly, some of the writing is still backwards!
Karl Whittington, Philadelphia
In my desire to show the figures right-side-up, I made the mistake of “flipping” the image, which had the effect of reversing the writing. The proper procedure would have been to rotate the image 180 degrees, which also rectifies the map of Europe. By the way, I did notice that the Latin text was reversed but assumed this was some sort of medieval gambit to further encrypt the hidden meanings of this extremely strange and symbol-laden drawing.
So here are two new views of the page in question. At the top is the image as it was received, presumably its orientation in the original codex. The two main figures, Jesus and Mary, are upside-down, though the third figure, the priest/artist himself, disguised as Jesus’ penis, is upright, and most of the writing is rectified. Below is the image as I intended to run it, righting the two figures and the map of southern Europe (Italy is clearly visible as Jesus’ leg).