As a gay man, there are few things I find more infuriating than over-generalizations in the context of my sexual orientation. Assumptions by the general public concerning everything from the way I act to how I dress are based on some preconceived notion that homosexual men are merely flamboyant-acting, sexually promiscuous fashion-mongers who concern themselves with little more than getting drunk, getting laid, and getting paid in-between; unfortunately, it is this very image that “Fusion” the self-proclaimed “gay magazine” on Kent campus perpetuates. Contradicting its namesake, “Fusion” does not seem like much of a blend of LGBTQ issues, (and one can certainly sense the deficiency of a “Fusion” of straight-based issues) but rather a crass, and at times, vulgar depiction of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer culture in, what one could argue, is some of the harshest light conceivable. Some of the articles in the latest issue of “Fusion” include a cover story concerned expressly with a gay man who happens to identify with a sub-culture that is known to participate in role-play (in varying degrees of sexual and non-sexual contact) as animal personas. This, along with the publishing of an incredibly offensive “Gay Dictionary,” which includes some of the most socially uncouth phrases I have ever encountered (which are not, on the whole, associated exclusively with the Gay Community) caused me to take pause and reflect on this very question: Does “Fusion” take itself seriously, and if not, why does it exist?

In issues past, “Fusion” has dedicated whole feature articles to bars, mixed-drink menus, sexually promiscuous individuals, and “Fag hags” (to quote a phrase) while neglecting much relevant content. When I first came to Kent State University three years (five issues) ago, I was unimpressed by the content and quality of the publication. To this day, I cannot say much has changed in the way of my opinion. I remarked to a friend of mine that the magazine was a “rag” of a publication; a sensationalized gossip-driven enterprise and, to this day, that statement remains, in my opinion, true.

Colloquially referred to as “that gay magazine” by members of its own staff, no less, “Fusion” already has a reputation for catering solely to a gay readership (albeit a small one), and it is no wonder why; the magazine in all of its digital glory is accessible online at www.thatgaymagazine.com. Even though the decision to put the publication’s web-presence at such a categorical URL was the choice of a party who is no longer with the publication and not the current editorial board, one could argue that the continued misuse of such a potentially effective tool for communication between the LGBTQ community and potential advocacy is irresponsible at best. The interests of the magazine today are negligent of the very concept of “fusing” culture. Instead, it seems that much of the content in the publication is alienating in some way to people who are not already a part of, or advocates to the G (and sometimes LBTQ) community. I hesitantly write LGBTQ because, as expressed, I find the content of “Fusion” to be concerned almost expressly with a very skewed, distorted “version” of the gay community. I have often found that other components of diversity are lacking and/or have not been expressed in a pertinent manner. Needless to say, I have been disappointed, yet again.