Homoerotic Archaeology: Mr. Male Review (March 1985)

Friday, March 29, 2019

Mr. Male Review (March 1985)

Peaking in 1984 and 1985, Mr. Male Review was a lesser-known publication which competed with larger magazines possessing a similar name, including Hot Male Review and Male Review. While the photo spreads in most homoerotic magazines merely offered pictures of their models, Mr. Male Review – like a handful of other publications – provided short biographies of its models to give readers a more personal connection. The March 1985 issue presents three such cases (Ricky Dean, Timothy Glenn, and Rich Parsons), along with a comic starring the interstellar hero Max Puma.

No comments:

Post a Comment

What is Homoerotic Archaeology?

In 2016, I discovered several discarded boxes at an estate sale. Under their flimsy flaps were hundreds of well-worn issues of homoerotic magazines from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. I purchased them out of mild intrigue and, as I perused their pages, I was startled to realize that something commonly disregarded as pornographic smut earnestly chronicled the evolution of gay culture: the social and sexual liberation of the 1970s, the crushing devastation from AIDS during the 1980s, and the gradual strengthening of the community in the 1990s. As a gay man, I was touched by the subtle narrative these publications told. As a historian, I was motivated to digitally preserve their content. And, as an educator, I was driven to create a platform to share that information freely with others interested in the progression of gay society. Homoerotic Archaeology is that venue. Here you will find the advertisements, articles, short stories, and (of course) pictures found in these magazines lovingly preserved and presented for future generations of gay men to enjoy and study.

Why Preserve Homoerotica?

As early as the 1970s, scholars such as June Rook have stressed the need to preserve homosexual history in an effort to combat repression and establish a cultural background for future generations. Much of the preservation process admirably focuses on the substantial works of homosexual artists and thinkers; however, it sadly ignores other elements quintessential to the community’s history, particularly homoerotica. Although frequently labeled obscene filth, homoerotica has, just like the significant creations of artists and thinkers, been a prevalent part of the group’s culture and has played an integral role in shaping identities and perceptions (consider how influential Tom of Finland’s hypermasculinity has been in molding the body ideals of modern gay men). Due to this factor, the conservation of homoerotica is just as essential as the preservation of major artistic and theoretical homosexual works.