Boner for Boner, a new, not safe for work show on Channel 101, deals with common themes of young male sexual angst with a clever catch-22: “Milky McClellehan (Brant Duncan) can only get a boner when he looks at a picture of his own boner.”
Like me when I first heard this, you are probably thinking “What?!?” But it’s the kind of stupid, adolescent humor transposed to a post-pubescent subject matter done well. And it’s actually really hilarious.
When Milky’s roommate, Mocha (James Atkinson), cleans up their apartment for the date he has set up with a couple of easy breezies (named Shampoo and Perfume), he throws out the only picture Milky owns of his member (Which, of course, raises the question, what kind of an idiot would keep only one picture? But anyway…) leaving Milky up a creek without a paddle.
Subscribe for daily Tubefilter Top Stories
This leads to an even more disturbing revelation from Mocha.
I’ve been asked to keep this post as SFW as possible, so you’ll have to go to the Boner for Boner link to see. (Spoiler Alert: Watch it before you read my analysis below.)
While some Internet shorts appear unintentionally homoerotic, Boner for Boner takes it to a new level. We discover that Mocha cannot get a boner without seeing a picture of Milky looking at a picture of his boner.
The twist is both silly and a special kind of genius. I won’t try to give serious analysis, but it’s at least subtly homoerotic, if not explicitly. Before the “Boner Burglar” – a half naked guy in a Lucha Libre mask – steals Milky and Mocha’s precious photo, the two hold each other in delight as they together become aroused. Combined with the fairly unflattering, if brief, portrayal of women in the show (Shampoo’s pepperoni slice is a wonderful touch), B for B appears to favor the camaraderie of masculine sexuality over the more contrived paradigm of heterosexual sex, which is devoid of romance.
It reminds me quite a bit of a slightly more famous (though director Kyle Reiter and Atkinson have been in quite a few Channel 101 shorts) writer of ambiguous homoeroticism: William Shakespeare. While Shakespeare’s canonical works, his dramatic writing, remains the basis of romantic love in narrative media, during his life he was more respected for his poetry, which was implicitly homoerotic.
In any case, the Bard’s work and the English major in me aside, I will be looking forward to what arises in next month’s Boner for Boner.
