The Mountain

Come to the Mountain

Gay Domestic | The Subdivision | Digital Photocollage | 2026

Three men, staged in an embrace built for the frame, sit beneath a blue moon and a pink moon — longing and pleasure, both present at once — their skin tones pushed into that heightened, saturated color The Subdivision favors, the Jupiter 3 above them watching as it always does. The trio’s physical ease, the game consoles and screens crowding the room behind them, the anime posters on the wall — this is a set built for a generation fluent in a language older generations never had.

These collages take their shape from new words the twenty-first century has developed for a changing understanding of male intimacy — terms coined not by academics or institutions but by men themselves, working out in real time how to describe what they were feeling and doing with each other. Below are five of those terms, in alphabetical order, with their expanded definitions.

bro job (BROH-job), noun, slang — A sexual act between two straight-identifying men, framed by its participants as outside the bounds of gay identity. The term insists on a separation between act and identity that queer theory has been arguing against for decades — behavior is not identity — but here the insistence runs the other direction, from inside straight culture itself.

bromance (BROH-mans), noun — An intensely close, non-sexual emotional bond between straight men, marked by affection, physical ease, and loyalty that would once have read as romantic. Coined mid-2000s, now fully mainstream.

edging (EJ-ing), verb (gerund) — Deliberately approaching orgasm and repeatedly backing off before climax, solo or partnered, to intensify eventual release or extend arousal. Old technique, new name.

goon room (GOON-room), noun, slang — An online space, usually a voice or video chat, where participants watch adult films together and masturbate in parallel, often for extended sessions built around edging. Communal in structure, anonymous in practice.

manosphere (MAN-oh-sfeer), noun — The loose network of online spaces, forums, and influencers organized around masculinity, self-improvement, and often a grievance narrative about men’s diminished status. Context, not content: it’s the water these other terms increasingly swim in.

A living language is just that, responsive to the linguistic needs of its contemporary audience. For this post, the mountain in the title reflects the climb toward a language for what men have always felt and rarely had words for. And that’s a good thing.

— Behan

Heroes and Halos

Heroes and Halos

Actors Sidney Poitier and Tony Curtis reunite in this collage from their prime, set against a moment from the Defiant Ones played out in successive stills — the source film running behind them with background text.

A purple moon crowns Poitier: allyship, the halo of a straight man who stood by his friend without condition. A pink moon crowns Curtis: queerness, worn openly here, not smuggled through subtext the way the era demanded. The two moons don’t compete. They complete each other, the way the two men did off-screen for the rest of their lives.

Looking back today to 1965: a straight man and a queer man, one Black and one white, friends and allies, together represented the best of what a man could be at the middle of the twentieth century.

Most though did not understand it, recognize it, or embrace it.

It’s never too late to get it right.

— Behan

BW and the Baron

Benjamin, William, and the Baron

Nobody alive can say with certainty that Benjamin Walker, William North, and Baron von Steuben were America’s first recorded male throuple. But nobody can say they weren’t, either. That’s precisely where the closet leaves us — not a denial, just a permanent, maddening maybe.

So, for the sake of argument, The Subdivision accepts the premise. Say they were lovers. Say the household they shared, the will that named them heirs, the letter calling it love and meaning it literally — say all of it was exactly what it looks like.

What would that actually change?

Nothing.

Baron von Steuben still took a starving, undisciplined collection of colonial militia at Valley Forge and drilled them into the force that helped win a war. Benjamin Walker still stepped forward at exactly the right moment with the French fluency the army needed and became indispensable to it. William North still served, still commanded, still earned George Washington’s own written praise as one of the most capable officers of the entire Continental Army. Three formidable, effective, trusted men — full stop — whose competence, valor, and consequence to the Revolution stand completely independent of who they loved in whatever private hours the war allowed them.

That’s the whole point of accepting the premise rather than arguing it. The men don’t get smaller. The history doesn’t get smaller. Only the old, tired assumption that it might have — a lie — gets exposed for what it always was.

— Behan, Improving American History one incomplete painting at a time.

WAM

What a Man | Gay Gaze | The Subdivision | Digital Photocollage | 2026

Five men, one hundred years, three decades of birth, each fifty years apart, all sharing one frame — the men from the 1920s in the background, the men from the 1970s in the middle, and the man from the 2020s at the very front. Not just three looks. Three different official answers to the same question: what is a man allowed to be?

The 1920s

The men in the background belong to an era defined by restraint — social restraint above all else. There was one gender, understood as fixed and self-evident. There was one orientation, assumed and unquestioned. The rules weren’t merely suggested, they were structural, and a man’s entire public self was built around visibly obeying them. Nothing about being gay, or bisexual, or anything other than the single sanctioned category was permitted to exist in daylight, let alone in a photograph. Manhood here wasn’t really about the body at all. It was about compliance, the suit, worn on the outside, where everyone could see it.

The 1970s

Still a suit, but now it’s all about leisure. The men in the middle belong to a genuinely different world — an era of expression rather than restraint. Men were finding their feminine sides. Gay rights had become a public, organized movement rather than a private, dangerous secret. Bisexuality entered the mainstream conversation in ways that would have been unthinkable fifty years earlier — even Penthouse, a men’s magazine built for a straight readership, ran essays exploring it. This was a decade of real openness: access to alternative materials, alternative thinking, alternative lifestyles, all suddenly circulating in the culture rather than being suppressed by it. If the 1920s asked a man to comply, the 1970s asked him to expand.

The 2020s

The man in the foreground belongs to right now, and right now doesn’t have a clean answer the way the other two decades did. We seem to be moving forward and backward at the same time. A significant part of the population wants to return to something like the 1920s — restraint, fixed categories, a single sanctioned way to be a man. Another significant part wants to keep pushing forward the freedoms the 1970s opened up. Both pulls are happening simultaneously, creating an unbelievable cultural tension. What a man is allowed to be right now isn’t settled. It’s being actively fought over, in real time, with no guaranteed outcome.

Restraint, expression, and now — contest. We don’t know who wins. We can only hope.

— Behan

The Pass

Three Day Pass / On the Town

Three sailors. A brief, sanctioned window of freedom. That’s the premise both films share, down to the smallest detail — On the Town, 1949, sends Gene Kelly, Frank Sinatra, and Jules Munshin racing across New York with twenty-four hours before their ship sails. Three Day Pass, filmed some three decades later, sends J.W. King, R.J. Reynolds, and Shaun Victors out with the same clock running, in a genre the culture never let anywhere near a movie palace. Same uniform. Same leave. Same basic dare: find something worth finding before duty reclaims you.

Neither film has much of a conventional plot. What both have instead is an Odyssean journey — a string of strangers and small adventures rather than a single destination, each one mattering for exactly as long as it lasts. Neither story asks to be resolved, because neither is really about arriving anywhere. It’s about the interval itself — the three days, the twenty-four hours, the temporary and specific freedom of a man in uniform who is, for once, not required to report to anyone.

Both films end the same way, too, and it’s worth saying plainly: the sailors get back on the boat. Everyone they met along the way stays behind. That ending isn’t a failure of storytelling in either film — it’s the entire point. The people are real inside the leave and gone the moment it’s over, the way anything found on a pass by definition has to be given back.

What ties these two films together isn’t just the premise — it’s that both were the work of a true auteur, one man’s vision worn in more than one role at once. Gene Kelly co-directed, choreographed, and starred in On the Town. Nick Eliot wrote, directed, and shot Three Day Pass himself, trained specifically for the job behind the camera with a master’s in motion picture production from UCLA. Neither film passed its vision down through a chain of separate departments — each ran through a single set of eyes, just with different resources behind them. Kelly had a studio’s money and crew to realize his; Eliot had almost none, doing far more of the work with far less.

Two sailors’ stories, three decades apart, each one man’s singular vision realized on a different scale — and neither one needed a resolution to be worth the time spent inside it.

— Behan

Two = One

Two Stills, One Light

Two becoming one — a classical, timeless phrase, biblical in its intonation, pervasive throughout Western culture, the idea of two merging into a single whole. That is, in fact, the nature of these two works: formally independent images, self-sustaining, equally interesting each in their own right, merging together to become seamlessly integrated, inseparable — one.

The Wrestlers

Gustave Courbet painted The Wrestlers in 1853, working, as always, from something he’d actually seen — a real match, staged at the old hippodrome on the Champs-Élysées, two men straining against each other in front of a crowd. Courbet was a Realist by conviction, not by default; he built an entire career on refusing to idealize a body into something classical, something safer than what was actually in front of him. Even so, writing to his parents about the Salon showing, he admitted he’d “covered their nudity” — proof that the classical half of this pairing wasn’t as chaste in its own moment as it now reads. Even a painter this committed to unflinching observation still worked inside a limit someone else had drawn.

The film still beside it shares that same basic grammar: two male bodies locked together, a diagonal thrust of limb against limb, weight and effort caught at the exact moment neither man has yet won. Set the two side by side and the vocabulary is nearly identical — not because one is quoting the other, but because two bodies in real physical contest only have so many ways to arrange themselves. Courbet drew the same lines a camera draws a century later, because the bodies themselves were always going to draw them first.

The Vessel

Vermeer’s The Milkmaid, painted around 1658, isn’t about contest at all. It’s about absorption — a woman entirely inside a small, ordinary task, pouring milk from a jug with a stillness so complete the viewer feels almost intrusive watching it. Nothing in the painting performs for anyone. That’s the whole quiet genius of it.

The still beside it works on that same register, not the Courbet’s. Two figures caught in a private, unglamorous room — a laundromat, a box of Tide in frame — absorbed in something entirely their own, unbothered by an audience that technically exists but isn’t being acknowledged. It isn’t about matching poses. It’s about matching interiority: two images, three centuries apart, both built around the same rare thing — a person caught fully inside a private act, asking nothing of whoever happens to be looking.

Two Kinds of the Same

Physicality and interiority — contest and absorption — these are two different energies, and the two pairings shouldn’t be read as saying the same thing twice. But underneath both sits one shared fact, worth naming plainly rather than dressing up: whether the medium is a nineteenth-century oil painting or a late-twentieth-century adult film, both are, in the end, simply light, arranged on a surface, describing a body. The vocabulary doesn’t change nearly as much as the culture insists it should.

Which is really the whole point of placing two images next to each other in the first place. Not two artworks displayed together, but one new artwork, made entirely out of the gap between them — a gap that, once closed by proximity, stops existing at all.

When I’m 64

Eighty-nine names sit on a list published by People magazine of celebrities American culture lost this year. Eighty-eight carry an age, and sorted by decade, one number stands apart. Only eight people died in their sixties — fewer than any decade around it, a real dip between the thirty-five who died younger and the forty-five who died older.

Sixty-five is also the long-established retirement age, the number a life is supposed to slow down at. The list seems to agree, on the surface. Low numbers, a quiet decade, the look of something people simply get through.

And while the statistics tell us if you can get to your sixties, you have a good chance of surviving them, even thriving into your seventies and eighties, that’s not always the case. Two of the eight who didn’t are Jim Hartung and Claude Lemieux, and the collage accompanying this post is a memoriam to both.

They share a timeline. Both are born in the sixties. Both rise to the height of their sport in the mid eighties, Hartung on the medal stand at the 1984 Olympics, Lemieux hoisting his first Stanley Cup in 1986. Their early years were the model of the male physique — trained, disciplined, built for the moment history hands them. The body that wins the gold, or wins the Cup. That same body, decades later, not making it through the one decade built to carry that body through.

We honor the lives they lived. Godspeed, gentlemen, and all those on the list, on the next part of the journey.

— Behan

Source: People, “Remembering All the Stars Who’ve Died in 2026”

Thoroughly Modern

The word “porn” used to describe one specific thing. It first drifted outside that meaning in 1977, when the New York Review of Books coined “gastroporn” to describe a lavishly illustrated French cookbook — a jab at how the photography seemed more interested in seducing the reader than feeding them.

By 1984, critic Rosalind Coward had sharpened that into “food porn” proper, a term that stayed mostly confined to media criticism for the next two decades.

Then social media arrived, and the hashtag did what hashtags do: it took a pointed, slightly academic critique and flattened it into an aesthetic category anyone could apply to anything. Today “food porn,” “real estate porn,” “travel porn,” “car porn,” aren’t critiques anymore. They’re genres.

What actually happened in that shift wasn’t really about food, or houses, or vacations. It’s that “pornographic” stopped meaning explicit and started meaning simply intensified — anything shot, lit, and cropped specifically to trigger a want rather than convey information.

An underwear ad and an adult film both do exactly that. They’re both engineered to produce desire on contact, using nearly identical formal tools: skin, proximity, a body arranged for maximum visual pull. The only real difference left is what happens next — whether the desire ends at a shopping cart or somewhere more private. Strip that ending away and look only at the image itself, and the line gets hard to find.

That’s what these four collages are quietly arguing: three are underwear advertising, one is adult film, and the fact that it takes effort to sort which is which is an accurate report on where the culture’s visual grammar has evolved.

None of this is a complaint about explicit content existing, or a complaint about advertising being seductive — both have always done exactly what they’re built to do. It’s a smaller and stranger observation: that the aesthetic vocabulary built specifically for one has become the default vocabulary for the other, until an entire visual culture, food included, runs on the logic of arousal whether or not arousal was ever the actual point.

Now back to the collages, which one is sourced from an adult film?

Does it matter? All four could sell underwear.

— Behan

Sunday Curb

Somebody’s curb pull becomes somebody’s centerpiece. The transaction is that old and that simple.

This curved mahogany piece — reeded legs, brass casters, a shallow well built for something other than flowers — sits at the curb one week and holds court on the covered porch the next. No sanding, no stripping, no new finish. Just water, soil, and vinca spilling over the rail where a drawer or a tray used to sit. The wood keeps its scars. The shape does the rest of the work.

Furniture like this gets discarded for reasons that have nothing to do with its bones. A stain, a wobble, a style out of fashion in a particular decade. The frame outlives all of it. Set among ferns and impatiens, the piece stops being furniture in the conventional sense and becomes structure — something the plants grow into rather than sit on top of.

The instinct isn’t rare right now. Furniture repair and reupholstery is a market measured in billions, growing on the strength of people choosing restoration over replacement. Antique furniture restoration in particular is having a moment, driven by collectors and casual owners alike who want the object to keep going rather than start over. None of that is new information to anyone who has ever hauled something home from the curb. It just means the instinct now has a market size attached to it.

The dog underneath is Talavera — tin-glazed earthenware out of Puebla, hand-painted in the cobalt and ochre the tradition has carried since Spanish potters and local craft merged four centuries ago. The table above it used to be someone’s problem. Now it’s holding pink.

— Behan

Sources: Furniture Repair Service Market Size, Share & Forecast (Verified Market Research); Key Trends in the Antique Furniture Restoration Service Market (STATS N DATA); Furniture Repair & Reupholstery in the US, IBISWorld

On Space

Interiors

Four rooms on a gradient scale

What is realism? Is it believable scale, an accurate recreation of light? Is it the way the eye sees, or the way the heart sees?

Who’s to say what’s more or less real?

For a millennium and more, Western culture treated a gay relationship as less real than a straight one — less legitimate, less lasting, less worth building a room around.

In the light of day, we’re finding out that isn’t true.

It never was.

Different scale. Same light.

Double STUFF

Harrison Cone on His Current Role with The Bold and the Beautiful

Cone plays Deke, a fashion designer at Forrester Creations and the romantic interest of Remy Pryce (Christian Weissmann) — the show’s first-ever male gay couple, sharing its first on-screen kiss between two men in the soap’s history. Speaking about the role, Cone said he was excited simply to be part of the show, and that learning the storyline would give viewers representation to feel connected to meant a great deal to him — adding that he wanted the moment to feel special for the fans.

On chemistry with Weissmann: “I feel like we had good chemistry right from the start. It was really easy to stay present with each other. I’m very thankful to have him as my on-screen boyfriend because he’s super sweet and made it easy to get to know.”

On the significance of the storyline: “It’s a landmark, pivotal moment in the history of the show, which is a super exciting period to be a part of the show.” (Out Magazine 2025)

Harrison Cone on the Value and Importance of Supporting Gay and Trans Rights

No comments available.

Harrison Cone on His Favorite Line, from a Naluda Magazine Interview

Asked to share a quote he lives by, Cone offered a line by Seamus Heaney: “Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for.” (Naluda Magazine, 2024)

Ambience

On the Nature of Light | The Gay Domestic | The Subdivision | Digital photograph | 2026

Not everything in The Subdivision has to be built. Some of it just has to be noticed.

This is a straight photograph. No collage, no layering. The house set this photo up on its own. The way it has since its foundations were laid in nineteen sixty two. More than a residence, this house is my largest installation today.

A plant in the foreground reads as six different greens. None of that belongs to the plant itself. It belongs to the light that is falling on it. The glass is refracting. The same thing that puts a rainbow in a garden hose spray.

Water sitting on a vertical plane bends light differently depending on thickness and angle.

The result looks composed. It isn’t. It’s just weather, glass, and a moment in time. This is the view from my kitchen. This is the view, diffused light or clearly visible, I love most.

— Behan

Fever Dream

Variations on a Fugue | Digital Photocollage | On Gays Who Dream | The Gay Gaze | Te Subdivision | 2026

A body sprawls across the frame at a scale nothing else in the image can match — a leg here, an arm there, a face turned sideways and half-asleep at the center of it all, other men orbiting in fragments too small to be anything but decoration on something larger than themselves. This is the colossus: not one man but the accumulation of many, dreamed into a single recumbent giant too big for the frame to hold steady.

The set follows a fugue’s own logic. A fugue states its subject once, cleanly, before the rest of the piece takes that subject apart and puts it back together in new keys, new speeds, new voices layered on top of the original line. The pool image here is that subject — the first version made, blue water beneath the whole composition, the figures arriving in their most unforced arrangement. Everything after it is variation: the color shifted into blood orange, the frame cropped tighter around the sleeping face, the whole thing repackaged as a pulp magazine cover, “BEEFCAKE” bleeding in at the edges like type intruding on a dream. None of the variations are lesser. They’re what a fugue does with its subject once it’s been stated — testing what the idea can survive, how far it can be pushed before it stops being recognizably itself.

Beneath these visual variations is a real question, and it turns out someone has actually gone looking for the answer. A small study out of Germany recently asked something almost nobody had bothered to ask before: do gay men and straight men dream differently? The researchers polled over a hundred men about their inner lives while asleep, and the results were, on the whole, reassuringly unremarkable — nightmares, anxiety dreams, the ordinary furniture of a sleeping mind, distributed about the same regardless of who a man loved awake. But a few differences did surface. Gay men reported more sexual dreams. A higher ratio of men to women populating the dreams themselves. More romantic content generally, more of it involving other men.

Which is, on reflection, not remarkable at all. It would only be surprising if the desiring mind clocked out the moment the eyes closed — if orientation were something a person could set down at bedtime the way you set down a phone. It isn’t. The dreaming brain, it turns out, is simply continuing the same conversation the waking one was already having, just without the editor on duty. No closet operates at three in the morning. No audience to perform correctness for. Whatever a man actually wants surfaces on its own schedule, unsupervised, the moment consciousness stops managing the story.

That’s the real subject of this collage, more than any single figure in it. A fever dream isn’t a hallucination out of nowhere — it’s ordinary desire running at a higher temperature than the waking hours allow, all the fragments a life doesn’t have room to arrange neatly stacking on top of each other instead: an athlete’s leg, a stranger’s face, a hockey jersey glimpsed on a phone screen, a UFO drifting past all of it as though even the fantasy needed an exit route. The colossus isn’t a person. It’s what accumulates in a mind that has spent its waking hours being careful, the moment the carefulness finally goes off duty.

— Behan

Source: study on sexual orientation and dream content, Journal of Homosexuality, cited via Happening Out Television Network, “New Study Considers If Gay & Straight Men Dream Differently,” January 2025.

Pinned

Pinned | The Closet | The Subdivision | Digital Photocollage | 2026

It is 1951; the second half of the twentieth century has begun. America is preeminent in the world — having come through the Second World War as the dominant economic and military power on earth, standing at the start of what will be called its own new age. Into that new dawn, Broadway stages Seventeen — a musical built from small-town American nostalgia, a boy meets girl fantasy of falling sweetly, correctly in love. It is, on its surface, a celebration of heteronormative American life exactly as the culture wanted to picture itself at midcentury. And inside that production, playing the roles the show requires of them, are two young men for whom none of it is true.

Kenneth Nelson plays the lead. Serious and controlled, he carries the discipline that will define his career, including his turn as the original Michael in The Boys in the Band, a role that will place him at the center of American theater’s first major mainstream reckoning with gay life. That performance will become the defining one of his life, but it will not open the doors it should have. By 1971 he settles permanently in England, where he will spend the rest of his career on the West End and in television roles he later described, pointedly, as a “useful American type.”

Dick Kallman understudies him —a character actor if not a lead, looser, comedic, vaudevillian in his instincts, a performer built for a different kind of attention than Nelson’s. He is talented and visible early: film roles opposite two of the era’s biggest stars, Susan Hayward in Back Street and Sandra Dee in Doctor, You’ve Got to Be Kidding!, along with his own network sitcom, Hank, in 1965. This is a promising career. But by the 1970s the roles have largely dried up, and he moves into the world of antique dealing. His home and business are featured in New York Magazine.

Both men are handsome, gay, gifted, and closeted — performing a love story neither of them were allowed to have for themselves. And both, in this moment, are standing at the beginning of something that looks like pure promise — two young actors on a Broadway stage, careers ahead of them, everything still possible. Neither can see the shape of what’s coming. That is the particular cruelty of this story: the triumph and the tragedy belonged to both of them from the very start, folded into the same beginning, long before either man had any way of knowing it.

The play itself was fiction upon fiction upon fiction. Despite being a very popular production in its time, Tarkington’s script presented its few characters of color in an insensitive fashion and, also typical for its time, had no representation of gay or queer people at all.

Nelson and Kallman knew exactly what was happening, and accepted it, and played their parts as they were required to — because they were playing two roles at once, the one Tarkington had written and the one the culture had written, neither role being an honest representation of the new American century.

It is inside all of that manufactured unreality that one small, real thing seems to have happened. Kallman offers Nelson a gift — a diamond pin, the plainest gesture of affection available to him in a world that gave him almost no others. Sadly, the gift was refused. They go their own ways.

Tragic outcomes are all too common for a community that had been suppressed, forced into unstable and hidden lives with nowhere safe to turn. Kallman was murdered during a robbery of his home and business in 1980, and Nelson died of AIDS-related complications in 1993, before the drugs existed that might have granted him more time. Two men cut short in their prime, thirteen years apart, brought back together thru violence and virus.

In looking at these two tragedies, one is reminded of that original gift, refused: the diamond pin. On one end, the diamond — the promise offered in 1951. On the other, the point, sharp enough to draw blood — the violence and the virus that would overwhelm both men.

In a very real way, the pin becomes a representation of both the triumph and the tragedy that belonged to these two men from the very beginning — the same triumph and tragedy too many gay men in the second half of the twentieth century encountered in their own journeys.

The collage names these two men, and honors their promise and their success. At its center sits a representation of the pin — a small object built, like the men it commemorates, from both promise and blood.

It is America’s own triumph and tragedy as well: a nation that opened this era insisting on its own new age, its own clean break from history, and that could not, despite everything it told itself, admit or escape the history it carried forward.

Hard is Good to Find

Sidewinder

A bed, by convention, faces the door. Two sides, two pillows, furniture arranged around a fixed idea of how a room should be used. This one has been turned. It runs the space diagonally now, corner to corner instead of wall to wall, and the whole room reorganizes itself around that single decision the way a sentence changes meaning when you move one word.

The house has always been the largest artwork in this practice — an ongoing installation, reworked the way a canvas gets reworked. This room is the latest revision. Two arched mirrors flank a gold-toned painting of deer moving through underbrush, doubling the room’s depth back at itself. A console holds framed photographs, ceramic figures, lamps lit low and amber. None of it is staged for a rigid, formal use of the space. It’s staged for lounging, reading, actually being in the room — a bedroom that also functions as a den, sleeping space and living space folded into one.

That’s the real logic of the turn. A bed set the conventional way announces a fixed function and nothing else. A bed set at an angle opens the whole room up — it stops being only a place to sleep and becomes a place to simply be, day or night. It moves the way a sidewinder moves: not in the straight line a room is expected to follow, but at its own angle, doing more than one thing at once.

How Divine

Revelation

A triptych has never been a neutral shape. Since the medieval altarpiece, three panels side by side have signaled one thing to a viewer before a single figure is even visible: something sacred is happening here, something large enough that one frame couldn’t hold it. Revelation, conversion, the moment a life turns and becomes visible to itself for the first time — these are triptych events. They arrive in stages. Each panel contains the one before it, nested, the way this piece nests a phone inside a photograph inside a phone again.

What if the moment is this one. A man is married. There may be children. There is certainly a house, a routine, a version of a life that looked, from the outside and very possibly from the inside too, complete. And then, without any single dramatic cause, a recognition arrives — not new information exactly, more like something long buried finally surfacing into a light it can be seen by. He is gay. He has, in some sense, always known. What changes is not the fact. What changes is that the fact becomes visible to him, the way an image only becomes an image once it’s actually looked at.

Panel One — The Ordinary Day

Two men stand back to back inside a phone screen, sunglasses, a ball cap, a UFO drifting overhead as if this were nothing more than an unremarkable afternoon. And it is, on its surface, unremarkable — this is the day recognition arrives, and recognition rarely announces itself with any drama at all. It looks exactly like every other day until it doesn’t.

Panel Two — The Witness

The same two men now stand beside a car, sun-drenched, gold light replacing blue. But inside the phone this time, one of the men has become a priest — collar, black, watching. This is the panel where judgment enters the frame, the third party every revelation eventually has to answer to, whether that third party is a church, a spouse, a congregation, or simply the internal voice that was raised inside all three. The priest doesn’t act in this panel. He only watches. That’s often the most dangerous part of the process — not the confrontation, but the period of simply being watched, or fearing that one is.

Panel Three — The Return

And then the shirt. A patterned, domestic, unmistakably married-man’s shirt, buttoned, ordinary, worn by a body reaching a hand toward its own chest. Inside the phone held against it, the two men are close now, foreheads touching, no distance left between them at all. This is the panel where the revelation stops being external — no priest, no witness, no UFO — and becomes something the man is simply holding, quietly, against his own chest, inside the very domestic uniform that once concealed it.

Revelation, in scripture, was never a single blinding moment. It was a slow unveiling, apocalypse in its original sense — not catastrophe, but disclosure. What was hidden becomes visible. That is what these three panels track, one recognition at a time: the ordinary day it starts, the imagined judgment that follows, and the private, unspectacular moment a man finally lets himself hold what he’s known all along.

— Behan

Volumetric

Into the Clouds

Every day, the world takes roughly 5.3 billion photographs. Fourteen billion images move across social platforms in that same twenty-four hours — shared, reposted, transformed into something else, scattered further than any single photographer intended. Somewhere inside that flood, a small and specific tributary: images of men kissing, men touching, men simply existing beside each other without apology, captured on a phone, held up inside another photograph, folded into itself like a mirror catching a mirror. That folding — the phone within the frame, the image reflecting the act of making the image — isn’t a formal trick for its own sake. It’s the actual subject. The phone is the portal. What passes through it becomes, whether anyone intended permanence or not, evidence.

The window this essay is named for is not metaphorical in the abstract, disaster-proof way these arguments sometimes get made. It is a specific, measurable, currently-narrowing window. As of this year, watchdog groups are tracking well over five hundred active anti-LGBTQ bills moving through American state legislatures — a number that has climbed essentially every year since 2015, the year marriage equality passed and the backlash organized in response. Meta itself has rolled back protections it once offered, loosening its own hate-speech policy in ways that now permit language once banned outright, and quietly removing LGBTQ-specific features from its own products. Roughly nine in ten of these bills fail in any given year — the advocates fighting them are winning far more often than losing — but the volume itself is the story. This is not paranoia. It’s documentation of a trend line, and the line points toward more restriction, not less.

Against that backdrop, an iPhone in a man’s hand is a small, almost absurdly modest piece of technology to be carrying this much weight. But it is currently the mechanism by which a kiss between two men becomes something other than a private, disposable moment. It becomes a file. The file gets backed up automatically, without anyone deciding to preserve it — Google alone now holds more than nine trillion photos and videos in its cloud storage, an archive scaled beyond what any single institution, censor, or legislature could plausibly comb through and erase entirely. This is the argument the images in this piece keep making formally, frame after frame: the phone-within-the-photo isn’t just documenting the moment, it’s documenting the act of the moment entering permanence. Once uploaded, once backed up, once shared even once, a photograph becomes extraordinarily difficult to fully delete — copies fork off into other people’s devices, other clouds, other countries’ jurisdictions, faster than any single authority could plausibly chase them all down.

That is the bet underneath this whole series: that the sheer scale of what gets uploaded daily works, paradoxically, as a form of protection. A culture cannot easily un-happen five billion photographs. It can restrict Pride flags on government buildings, ban books, defund clinics, pass law after law — and still not touch the trillions of images already scattered across a thousand clouds, backed up on servers in a dozen countries, held on devices belonging to people no legislature can subpoena all at once. The volume itself becomes a kind of witness protection program for the images inside it.

None of this is guaranteed to last. That’s the honest, uncomfortable center of the piece, and probably the reason it needed making now rather than later. The window is open. It has been open for roughly two decades, since smartphones put a camera and a broadcast tool in the same object, and it is narrowing at the legislative level even as it widens at the technical one — more storage, more bandwidth, more places for an image to hide, set directly against more laws attempting to make the thing being photographed illegal to display at all. Whether the technical trend outpaces the legal one is not something this essay can answer. What it can do is add to the volume. One more file. One more kiss, one more mirror, one more hand holding a phone up to a moon. Whatever happens next, these images are already in the clouds.

Epilogue

Some notes on process, since the numbers in this piece aren’t only cultural, they’re personal.

This practice began in January 2024. As of this writing, that’s roughly a thousand days. At a pace of about ten collages a day — focused, always, on gay positivity, gay presence, the simple insistence of two men existing in frame together without apology — that arithmetic comes out to somewhere near ten thousand images. Ten thousand small, specific additions to the flood this essay just spent several paragraphs describing.

There are days that volume feels like too much. Days it seems smarter to make less and make it better — fewer images, sharper ones, more time spent on each. But this piece, in the writing of it, clarified something about why the pace has stayed what it is. This was never only about any single image being perfect. It’s about volume. It’s about the fact that a culture cannot easily un-happen ten thousand photographs, any more than it can un-happen the trillions the rest of the world produces every year. Each one is just one small output of what amounts to an insurgency — quiet, cumulative, running almost entirely on repetition rather than any single decisive strike.

Every one of those ten thousand images is something to be proud of, not because each is a masterpiece, but because each is now, permanently, somewhere in the clouds. Whatever happens next — to the laws, to the platforms, to the culture’s current willingness to look — that record already exists. It cannot be legislated back out of existence.

— Behan

Into the Clouds is a nine-piece set of digital photo collages, made in 2026, part of The Gay Gaze within The Subdivision. Available individually, or as diptychs and triptychs per the collector’s preference. For availability, reply by email or DM.

Sources: Photutorial, “Photo Statistics 2026.” Google, cloud storage figures, 2025. ISD Global, “Five-Year Overview of the Online and Offline Anti-LGBTQ+ Landscape,” 2025. ACLU / GLAAD, 2026 legislative tracking.

Natural

On Ambience and Captured Natural Light

Light in these two triptychs is never simply available. It has to be caught. A phone screen holds a moon inside itself, a second smaller moon nested in the first, light captured and re-displayed rather than simply fallen on a scene. A gilded mirror frame catches a second version of the same man, his back turned, light bending around a doorway that leads nowhere the viewer can follow. Even the magazine covers are a kind of trapped light — glossy paper manufactured specifically to hold a shine that a real body, in a real room, could never quite hold onto for long.

This is the throughline between the two assemblies. Neither is really about the marching suits, though the suits are in both, indifferent and endless, walking through frame after frame without once looking down. The suits are ambient. They are the room’s weather, not its subject. What claims the space instead is smaller and brighter — a kiss lit warm against cool teal, a swan’s neck catching gold exactly where the light gathers, two men in identical shirts photographed so close together the second man reads as an echo of the first rather than a separate person. Ambience is what the culture leaves running in the background. Claiming space means finding the one bright, specific thing inside that background and refusing to let it stay ambient.

Two diptychs, one goal, as the title says: identifying and claiming gay space inside a visual field built mostly out of other people’s indifference. The marching men never stop marching. They don’t need to. The work isn’t to make them stop. The work is to keep adding chairs to the table anyway — another kiss, another mirror, another magazine cover repurposed until it says something its editors never intended — until the table is full regardless of who’s still walking past it.

— Behan

Enter Armageddon

This is not about gay, straight, or bi. This is about the male form in transition.

Behind three men, a mushroom cloud rises over Bikini Atoll.

In 1946, days after the atomic tests there made the atoll’s name synonymous with annihilation, the shock of the bomb moved into culture almost immediately and never left. The fallout includes an ever-evolving understanding of the male form as best suited to responding to the events of its day — call it the mod bod. This is a formal analysis of that form, tracked across seventy years, the way an art historian might track sculpture’s handling of the male body from the Renaissance into the Baroque and on into the neoclassical. Three mod bods, seventy years, each a different answer to a question the bomb first asked and has never stopped asking: what shape, what armor, what strategy does a man need to survive what’s coming?

1950s

The mod bod of the fifties is the jet fighter. Smooth, untoned, unbothered by definition — power carried not in the body but in the sleek, disciplined image projected outward. The suit is the fighter’s fuselage, giving nothing away about the machinery inside. This is the triumph of American democracy on the surface, and underneath it, the low hum of the duck-and-cover drill — a generation of children folded under classroom desks, living inside the jet age’s promise that the next war would be fast, airborne, and over before anyone had time to brace. The form performs readiness. It assumes the position.

1970s

The mod bod of the seventies is the aircraft carrier. Brutalist architecture is all the rage; in May 1975, the USS Nimitz is commissioned — nuclear-powered, over a thousand feet long, the largest warship ever built, able to run for decades without refueling. That same decade, the male form stops being worn and starts being built on the same principle: overwhelming scale, overwhelming endurance, a body designed to dominate by being too large to challenge directly. Call it the brutalist body — heavy, fortress-like, all visible structure. Like the carrier, it could not simply happen. It had to be commissioned, fueled — steroids were everywhere in the decade’s bodybuilding culture, more than ten years before any law regulated them. The carrier body moves slowly, then stands its ground. It projects power by simply being present.

2020s

The mod bod of the twenty-first century is the drone. Call it Twinky Abs: a lean, defined midsection built by stripping away rather than adding — high-intensity circuit work trading the carrier’s mass for something smaller, faster, harder to hit. It’s also a real workout routine many young American men are actively following. Agility is now the governing value, the same logic reshaping actual warfare: a carrier costs a decade and billions to build and can be threatened by a drone costing a few thousand dollars, too fast and light to catch. The current mod bod follows that doctrine — built for a fight that no longer rewards standing still and absorbing the hit.

The Atomic Jacket

A jet fighter. An aircraft carrier. An unmanned drone. Three vehicles of survival, descended from one unbroken thread — a species that has spent seventy years, after two thousand years of a far more static male form, redesigning the male body against a threat that never resolves and never leaves. This isn’t about who or how a man loves. It’s about what his own form has been asked to become.

A bomb dropped once. The male body has been absorbing its shockwave ever since.

— Behan

The Penn Dutch Furniture Co Tragedy

PART ONE: JUNE 20, 1922

Dear reader,

There are tragedies that time forgives, and tragedies it cannot. What happened in the cedar-scented showroom of Philadelphia’s Penn-Dutch Furniture Company that sweltering afternoon was of the second and darker kind — a tale the neighborhood still will not speak above a whisper.

The papers printed it simply. Edmund “Eddie” Boyd, a brooding young clerk, had watched with a curdling heart as his oldest friend and fellow employee, Raymond “Ray” Castle, rose above him — a coveted promotion, and crueler still, the devoted heart of Margaret “Mags” Sanders, a plain but exceptionally sweet neighborhood girl both men had once courted.

Driven half mad, so the story went, Eddie tracked his rival to Mags’s doorstep. Harsh words were exchanged. The gentle Mags fled indoors, while brave Ray stepped forward to calm his friend, walking him back — foolishly, fatally — to the empty showroom. There, among the unfinished cabinets, the curtain fell. One shot into a friend’s heart. One shot, self-delivered, to close the account.

The coroner’s report set the order down plainly: Eddie killed Ray first, then turned the gun on himself. It made a tidier kind of horror. The town wept for the sweet girl left behind. Two young men were buried in a quiet cemetery, their story fixed forever in stone.

History, though, only records what it is permitted to see.

PART TWO: JUNE 19, 1922 — The Day Before

The scent of cedar shavings and linseed oil hung heavy in the back room of Penn-Dutch Furniture. The storefront was locked, the gas lamps turned low, casting long, amber shadows across the floorboards.

Ray stood by the shipping desk, his collar loosened against the oppressive summer heat. He wasn’t looking at the ledgers. His eyes were fixed on Eddie, handsome and tall, who stood just inches away, his knuckles white as he gripped the edge of a drafting table. Four years they had stood like this in this same back room, after closing, when the gas lamps burned low enough that no one on the street could see two shapes standing closer than friendship required.

“Say it again,” Eddie whispered. His voice wasn’t angry yet. It was hollow, trembling with a fragile, desperate hope. “Look at me and say it.”

Ray swallowed hard, pulling his gaze away. He hated himself for the cowardice, but the fear was a physical weight in his chest. Just last week, a man in South Philadelphia had been arrested, his name dragged through the papers, his life ruined for the crime of who he loved. Ray couldn’t live in the dark anymore.

“I’m going straight, Eddie,” Ray said, his voice barely louder than the hum of the city outside. “It’s over. We have to stop.”

“Because of her?” Eddie’s voice cracked on the question, small and stunned.

Ray looked out the grimy window, his jaw tight. “Fairies don’t marry pretty girls,” he said quietly, the raw truth hanging heavy between them. “No, the girl is always plain but sweet. Mags is plain, simple… she won’t expect much. Neither will anyone else.”

Eddie reached out, his hand hovering near Ray’s jacket, a familiar gesture that had brought comfort in a hundred secret midnights. But this time, Ray stepped back, letting the distance stretch between them like a chasm.

“I love you,” Eddie choked out, a hot tear finally cutting through the dust on his cheek. “Four years, Ray. In the shadows, sure, but it was ours. You think you can just step out of the dark and leave me behind?”

“It’s not that I don’t love you,” Ray said. “It’s that I can’t love you. Can’t you see that? There’s no place for us.”

“Ray, please don’t do this,” Eddie pleaded, his voice breaking as the weight of the moment pressed down on them both. “We can leave. I can get money; I swear I’ll get it.”

“And go where?” Ray’s laugh was sharp, jagged with despair. “Where can we go where we won’t be a freak show?”

Eddie held his hands up, looking at the only man he had ever truly wanted, terrified of the unraveling silence in the shop. “Please don’t do this.”

“It’s done,” Ray said, hardening his posture even as his eyes filled with tears. “I’m asking Mags to marry me tomorrow. She’ll say yes. I’m a catch.” He tried to smile, but the weak joke fell flat.

“Please don’t do this,” Eddie whispered one last time, the words a final, dying plea.

Ray turned his back to lock the ledger. He didn’t see the dangerous, quiet shift in Eddie’s eyes. He didn’t see the despair hardening into a terrifying resolve. If he wouldn’t choose him in this life, Eddie would make sure he never had to choose her, either.

The next afternoon, when Eddie burst onto Mags’s porch, it wasn’t out of passion for her. It was a crazed, desperate attempt to tell her the truth — to scream that he and Ray were in love, that she was being used. But Ray stepped out to stop him, desperate to keep the secret buried. In the quiet showroom moments later, Eddie fired first into his own heart, a horrific, tragic proof of a love that had never been allowed to say its own name — and only then, weeping, turned the gun on the man who could not follow him into the dark.

The coroner would write it down the other way around. It was, perhaps, the only order the world was prepared to believe.