One of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood is that Jodie Foster is gay. Kind of falls into the "Who cares?" department. Nevertheless it prompted an entire CNN discussion when Foster openly thanked her long-time partner when she accepted an award recently.
And all I can think is that somewhere John Hinckley is shouting, "Son of a BITCH!" I mean, jeez...discovering that you're the guy who embarked on a failed attempt to assassinate a president in order to romantically impress a lesbian. That's gotta hurt.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at December 14, 2007 07:19 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingSaw that at work and had the same reaction that I had when I'd heard someone came out at our high school reunion.
She was IN?
I've had the experience of having a friend "come out" when, truth be told, most of his friends have been wondering when the hell HE was going to figure it out. But you can't say that--you have to act surprised. "What? Really? Wow, I don't know what to say! You? Gay?"
Anyway, best of luck to Ms. Foster. Gosh, who's next--Lily Tomlin?
Yeah, because Hinckley had a chance before that.
I was thinking "who cares?" when George Takei came out. It seemed to me that coming out at this point was like having a press conference to announce that you are left handed. I was surprised it got as much press as it did.
I think everybody has a story like Mulligan’s. Part of why I’ve never subscribed to the idea of being gay by choice was because of a guy that was a part of my social circle back in high school. By senior year, it was obvious to everyone but him that he was pitching for the other team. A few years into college, he came home for the Christmas break and was surprised by us not being surprised by his revelation.
Whatchya gonna do?
As for stars “coming out” as it were, I’m with Sean on this. She was in still? I have no idea what the deal is with stars that come out, but I’m almost always sure that I’ve heard about them coming out before. The only “outing” that’s caught me by surprise in the last twenty years was Neil Patrick Harris and, looking back on it, I don’t know why it did.
When I mentioned this news to my mom and made the same joke as PAD, she just rolled her eyes and said he probably thinks he could turn her straight.
She's got a point.
Neil Patrick Harris coming out was awesome because of that scene in "Harold and Kumar go to White Castle" where he was all about hookers and coke. He's going to be in the sequel, so I'd love it if he came out in the movie, then got some male hookers and coke. Just to show that the character hadn't actually changed.
Now that I think about it, Scrubs already did that with the Todd.
Everybody and their dog know that lots and lots of past and present big name Hollywood actors and actresses are gay, lesbian, or bisexual (wuth some crossdressers thrown in for good measure). And what makes me majorly pissed off, as a gay person, is that most of these people keep hiding behind flimsy facades, fake marriages, and all that cowardly shit.
If everyone of these famous people were 100% open about their orientation, setting examples, they could make a difference.
And yeah, I can understand better than anybody the social pressures to stay in the closet, the fear of rejection, all of that awful stuff, but somehow I think that most of the famous, rich people who stay in the closet don't do it out of excusable personal insecurity that affects us poor mortals, it seems to me that they do it because the bigshot execs told them that coming out completely could limit their appeal with the public.
In general, I am not particularly interested in how someone I do not know intimately orgasms. In Jodie Foster's case, I have a prurient interest mainly because she is an attractive lady. But I digress. Regarding Takei's coming out, I've noticed he's become a more comical character. His appearance on Malcolm in the Middle had me laughing out loud, and his response to the Hardaway thing (I'm a Star Trek and comics geek. I don't follow sports. If I have it wrong, I apologize.) was hilarious as well as a stunningly brilliant response. Why isn't he doing a sitcom? Besides the strike, I mean.
Rene wrote: "seems to me that they do it because the bigshot execs told them that coming out completely could limit their appeal with the public."
I don't think the problem happens when their career is far enough along to be talking to big time execs. I think it's probably something they all start doing when they start out. The things I've read about Hollywood make it sound like most of the superstars had to fight and claw and work their asses off to get where they are. Even when they look like they got lucky and everything came to them easily, there was usually a lot of hard work to make sure they beat the other 10,000 people who wanted their job.
So it's not really a matter of the famous stars massaging their image. It's more a matter of the people fighting their way up trying to conceal anything that anyone could have a problem with. When 100 people have veto power over you getting a role, there's almost always go to be one bigot who can sink you. Then the few that become big stars have to wonder if it's worth admitting that they've been lying all these years.
But that's largely based on conjecture.
While I'm not surprised by this, I'm glad. The gay rights movement is largely still in its infantry, facing tremendous obstacles (mainly from convervatives and certain religious groups), and in dire need of people willing to stand up and say "I'm gay and I'm not going to hide it!" And if there's one thing that would advance gay rights (besides meaningful legislation, like allowing gay people to get married or serve in the infantry), it's role models. A lot of out celebrities seem to wait until they're well established and largely set in their careers (sorry, but George Takei seems to fall into this category; and David Hyde Pierce remained in the closet for the whole run of FRASIER). I'm impressed with Neil Patrick Harris for coming out while starring in a big sitcom, not waiting 5 or 10 years after it's done and then revealing himself. (Incidentally, I loved the episode where Barney revealed he had a gay brother -- who was also black -- and freaked Barney out not for his homosexuality, but for his getting a significant other.) Jodie Foster may not be a surprise, but at least she's being open. Finally.
Now when's she going to do some better movies?
Some years ago, i was at the Book Nook here in Atlanta talking to Dave Lindsay, longtime Atlanta music/movie journo, and the subject drifted to an interview with the Indigo Girls that had recently been published in which the interviewer did virtually everything short of waterboarding to get Amy (who had not, at that time, talked one way or the other about the matter) to cop to being gay. (This was *some* years ago.)
I said "Who cares?"
Dave said "The only reason I ever cared was that she always dated prettier girls than I did..."
A lot of out celebrities seem to wait until they're well established and largely set in their careers
Well, duh.
Acting careers are hard enough to establish, with sometimes trivial things like not being liked by a network suit knocking it entirely off the rails. Make enough friend in the biz who don't care if you're gay, and you CAN come out of the closet without bollixing up what you're making a living at.
sorry, but George Takei seems to fall into this category
Before you go judging Mr Takei or those of his generation too harshly, please keep in mind the way society was when they were young and starting out. If you think our current times can be restrictive, it was much worse back then. It would've been career suicide.
In this day and age of poparatzi (sp?), is it even possible to hide a gay partner for a big name star like Jodie Foster.
Also, as someone else who has tried to date a lesbian, thanks for making me identify with a failed presidential assassin.
Brian, the paparazzi don't care about Jodie Foster. Have you EVER seen a paparazzi photo of Jodie? I honestly cannot recall ANY photo of her that seemed to be a paparazzi shot.
I mean, look at her track record. She's never really been involved in a major-league relationship with a high-profile star (Ben Affleck/J Lo; Brad Pitt/Jennifer Aniston) nor has she been "responsible" for breaking up a high-profile relationship (think Angelina Jolie). She apparently doesn't do the "party" scene (Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton) nor does she make a "living" off her name (Paris Hilton) and, it's pretty safe to say that she doesn't indulge in "private" sex tapes (Pam and Tommy Lee, Paris Hilton--again).
Basically, she's "dull" as far as the paparazzi are concerned. A lot of celebrities don't show up on the paparazzi's radar because they simply don't do what the paparazzi want to see.
I didn't know Jodie Foster was gay, though I agree about the "who cares" part. Though now I'm wondering if there's a Wikipedia page for "List of publicly homosexual Tv/Movie stars"
The gay rights movement is largely still in its infantry . . .
I thought the military was "don't ask, don't tell." ?
The gay rights movement is largely still in its infantry . . .
And led by Militia Ethridge.
And led by Militia Ethridge.
Ow. Ow ow OW.
As for me, I apparently subscribe to the "who cares?" mindset to such a degree that I really DON'T notice before someone smacks me on the head. Jodie Foster is one thing, but I've had several friends or colleagues mention that they were gay (not even coming out so much as mentioning it in an everybody-knows-this sense) and I've been taken totally by surprise. (I suppose the only really "Tim, you're an idiot" moment in that regard was when my previous school's drama teacher mentioned something -- in hindsight, he's so stereotypically gay that it was really obvious, but I'd been there a year and a half before I realized anything.)
At any rate ... better luck next time, Mr. Hinckley. (In terms of objects of affection, that is, not assassination attempts!)
TWL
Hmmm...I wonder if, in the ensuing CNN discussion, any mention was made of CNN's Anderson Cooper... :)
I have a phrase for the people who didn't really seem to be "in" before they came out. It's "in the phone booth." They *think* they're in the closet, but everybody can see them in there.
Here I'm mostly thinking of a guy I went to high school with. I couldn't care less about which way Jodie Foster swings, except where it applies to John Hinckley jokes.
Posted by Jason M. Bryant
I was thinking "who cares?" when George Takei came out. It seemed to me that coming out at this point was like having a press conference to announce that you are left handed.
=====
D00D, be polite. I've heard that Peter David is left handed. ;)
Alan Coil: D00D, be polite. I've heard that Peter David is left handed. ;)
If that's true, then he sickens me. Left handed people are a plague on American decency.
You know what's worst about lefties? Their virulent recruitment efforts. Have you ever been to a lefty's house and asked to borrow some scissors? Guess what kind of scissors those sons of bitches hand you. That's right, left handed scissors! They're constantly imposing their agenda on others.
"D00D, be polite. I've heard that Peter David is left handed. ;)"
Yeah, but he's taking steroids for that...
Rene makes an interesting point:
" And what makes me majorly pissed off, as a gay person, is that most of these people keep hiding behind flimsy facades, fake marriages, and all that cowardly shit. If every one of these famous people were 100% open about their orientation, setting examples, they could make a difference.
"
I think I can see where you're coming from, but at the end of the day I have to disagree.
For me, it's down to every individual to decide how public they want to be about their preferences, regardless of their motivation.
Other people might be disappointed by the choice they make, but it's still their choice.
Personally, FWIW, I don't think we get to be "pissed off" at their "cowardice" without getting ourselves to an uncomfortable level of judgementalism...
Cheers.
" That's right, left handed scissors!"
Come on, a little sensitivity, please. That should read "That's CORRECT, left handed scissors."
(Okay, PC cloak of, I'm ambidextrous but my wife and my son are both left handed! Someone save me!)
"Personally, FWIW, I don't think we get to be "pissed off" at their "cowardice" without getting ourselves to an uncomfortable level of judgementalism..."
Yes, I know I'm being judgmental. But if we can apply Stan Lee's immortal words to gay rights, "With Great Power..."
I don't like it much when an ordinary person stays in the closet (and yes, I'm aware that I've been cowardly and hypocritical in the past myself, and I don't like that about myself either), but I tend to have more sympathy for the little guy.
Now, a famous, powerful, influential person... actually a sizable group of such powerful persons, what a waste that most of them don't try to make their sexual orientation more visible.
I think there is a lot of (justified) gripe about the conservatives, the religious fanatics, the bigots that make our lives harder, but we have to pull our own weight too, and consider how personal weakness in the part of many of us GLBT people contribute to the state of things.
I agree with the comment about George Takei being one very funny guy.
The reason you don't see a lot of paprazzi stuff with Jodie Foster is pretty simple, unlike the most of the celebrities we hear about, Jodie
Foster is a responsible adult with brains and talent- not much interest in someone who's not likely to stage their own public meltdown anytime soon.
This whole "Jodie Foster is a lesbian" thread is completely useless without pictures.
Jodie Foaster's gay????
What's next? Is Halle Berry going to come out as black?
But Rene, why should anyone have any right to tell others how to live their lives. What is "The closet" to you might be "keeping my own damn business my own damn business" to someone else. You admit that even when an "ordinary person" stays in the closet so it's not exactly true to say it's a matter of "With great power..."
It's true that actors and actresses have influence and power way beyond their worth but that isn't their fault and not all of them even want it--they just want to do their jobs (pretend to be someone they aren't) and don't see any particular need to share their private lives with the world. By what right do we tell them otherwise?
there are times when some out gays act amazingly like people who have converted to some religion and feel the need to convince others to join up as well. I always think that this behavior indicates a certain amount of insecurity of belief.
I'm not saying that this is true in your case but I think that some gays see a person who is closeted and maybe getting less grief than they are for being gay and want to out him or her so they can share the pain. That's understandable but hardly noble.
I think I'm in-between Rene and Bill. I do think that it's a good thing for prominent gays to come out and be role models. I also have respect for gay actors like Guillermo Díaz who are out from the start even though they're not big yet.
But I wouldn't condem those who don't come out. Considering that Jodie Foster started getting adult-ish roles in the mid 70s, she might never have *become* a prominent star if she had been out from the beginning. Then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
There is one odd thing. In the course of this conversation I decided to look up Jodie Foster's IMDB page. There I found a quote from her about the movie adaptation of Sin City. Based on that quote, I've decided that she's completely insane.
Wow, I had no idea she was/is gay. -Does this mean that I am now a narrow minded bigot for thinking that "Flight Plan" sucked?
Quoth Rene:
"Yes, I know I'm being judgmental. But if we can apply Stan Lee's immortal words to gay rights, "With Great Power..."
I don't like it much when an ordinary person stays in the closet (and yes, I'm aware that I've been cowardly and hypocritical in the past myself, and I don't like that about myself either), but I tend to have more sympathy for the little guy.
Now, a famous, powerful, influential person... actually a sizable group of such powerful persons, what a waste that most of them don't try to make their sexual orientation more visible."
I don't know.. does being famous constitute 'great power' these days? (The depressing thought occurs that "Yes" it quite possibly does...)
Agreeing that film folk do have influence, is telling a 100% dyed in the wool bigot that their favourite film star is gay going to change their whole outlook? Only in an incredibly small percentage of cases methinks.
Also, if these people have high enough profiles that they can draw more attention to their sexuality than Joe/Jo Shmoe from down the street, it follows that coming out will draw down a damn site more flak and furore than the average person gets...
I'm not saying that keeping their heads down is a courageous choice, or the right choice, but I do still maintain that it's their choice.
Cheers.
(Okay, PC cloak of, I'm ambidextrous but my wife and my son are both left handed! Someone save me!)
To quote MST3K, "Boy, I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous."
TWL
Ah, MST3K...is there nothing they didn't say right? God how I miss it.
I think there is a legitimate fear among gay actors and actresses that studios will avoid putting them in romantic roles if the public knows they are gay. Romantic comedies are sold at least in part on the titillating premise that maybe there is some actual chemistry going on between the leads--witness the many stories, some planted, of on set romances. I know of a few such stories that HAD to be publicity stunts since people who were on set talked about how much the leads despised one another.
Note that Jodie Foster's recent roles have avoided romance to a large degree...I think the last two killed off her husband/boyfriend early on (The poor guy in FLIGHTPLAN apparently died before we even took our seats.)
Now, in retrospect, watching Rock Hudson and Doris Day is WAY more interesting knowing what we know and his performance in SECONDS is searingly brilliant in current context but I think audiences would have laughed those movies off the screen. I'm trying to think of a current gay actor/actress who's made a romantic movie in a hetero role...Ellen DeGeneres in MR WRONG? (or as one wag renamed it, MR WRONG-GENDER).
I mean, Rupert Everett is as good looking as they come and he's a good enough actor to still get roles but since his coming out I've only seen him in gay roles, historical roles and as a voice actor for cartoons.
I just don't think we should judge these folks. A Hollywood career can be measured in months and the slightest misstep can be disaster (For some. Others are teflon. Go figure.). Actors are some of the most insecure people I've ever met but there may be good reasons for that.
"I'm not saying that this is true in your case but I think that some gays see a person who is closeted and maybe getting less grief than they are for being gay and want to out him or her so they can share the pain. That's understandable but hardly noble."
Bill, I sufferd a lot more when I was in the closet, I can assure you. Leading a double life is a lot easier in the comics book than in real life, and also the anguish of trying to act like something you're not, it was something that caused me pain. So, no, I don't envy anyone that is in the closet.
As for what constitutes the closet and what is just minding your own business, I think that is the difference between being discreet and lying through your teeth. Keanu Reeves is discreet (won't talk about his personal life with reporters, won't confirm or deny whether he is gay), while Tom Cruise is lying through his teeth with his fake marriages and his desperate "I'm not gay" shouts.
I see the same sorts of situations among my friends, non-famous people. The lesbian that recruits a gay friend to pose as her boyfriend, the gay guy that flirts endlessly with women to appear macho to his straight friends. This is not being discreet. This is lying.
I don't know whether it would change a bigot's oppinion that lots and lots of entertainers are GLBT, but certainly it would make GLBT people more visible, and that is almost certainly a good thing. Deception is never noble, and exposure can be painful at first, but it eventually leads to acceptance in the long-term.
"Everybody lies about sex" is, allegedly, one of the half dozen eternal truths.
I don't think I'm actually arguing with you Rene, other than that you're "pissed off" at how you interpret some peoples behaviour and I'm - by and large - happy enough to let people screw themselves up any which way they want to...
Hmmm.. How do you stand on deliberately outing someone in the public eye that you knew to be gay?
Cheers.
Didn't Jodie Foster brother tried to sell the whole lesbian story to the tabloids a few years ago? At least I kind of remember that.
Anyway, here the media is talking about Foster's "crystal closet" (similar to that phone booth concept), but more in the way that she didnt try to hide her relationship but didnt made it public, and that american media never really tried to dig that hole out of respect for Foster. Journalists beign respectful and minding for someone's personal life? yeah right.
What does coppertone say about this? did she lose their endorsement deal? >;)
Bill, I sufferd a lot more when I was in the closet, I can assure you. Leading a double life is a lot easier in the comics book than in real life, and also the anguish of trying to act like something you're not, it was something that caused me pain. So, no, I don't envy anyone that is in the closet.
I can well believe it. But is it possible that others have made it work for them? And who are we to make that choice for them?
And how can you even say for sure that Tom Cruise is gay and his marriage a sham? Isn't it possible he is bisexual and able to enjoy sex with his wife?
That's assuming he not straight. I've heard the many rumors though I have to say I'm surprised that he's be able to keep it a secret given the fact that there are probably several photographers following him around at all hours of the day. He's had good luck suing anyone who claims they have proof that he's gay (then again, so did Liberace!). Not that I care one way or another, it bothers me more that he seems to be a bit nuts.
"Hmmm.. How do you stand on deliberately outing someone in the public eye that you knew to be gay?"
As much as people being in the closet pisses me off, I think that outing someone against their will is pretty vile, and definitely too extreme for me.
Though I have to wonder if, in the long term, the forcefully outed person wouldn't come to see the episode in a good light, I still think it's a decision that is their own to make.
"And how can you even say for sure that Tom Cruise is gay and his marriage a sham? Isn't it possible he is bisexual and able to enjoy sex with his wife?"
What, you won't take my gaydar as hard evidence? :) Okay, he could be bisexual (though personally I doubt it), and he would still be lying when he angrily denies ever being with the many men rumour has linked him with throughout the years.
Though you make a good point. I have to wonder whether having someone like Tom Cruise in the out would help or hinder the GLBT rights movement. :)
The gay rights movement is largely still in its infantry . . .
Say what you want about their infantry, but their cavalry, artillery and their light armored divisions are quite formidable.
I don't know if this is reopening an ugly wound, but do you remember when Ellen DeGeneris came out? It was right when her sitcom (which had only so-so ratings) had been renewed for half a season. During the summer hiatus, in fact.
There was some belief that she chose that moment to come out because it would boost the ratings for what was then a tepid, slightly annoying sitcom. And in fact that happened; when the character she played came out, the sitcom lasted approximately one season more.
Although I will say she's a more entertaining performer on her talk show now (not even bringing in her situation with the writer's strike). Her humor seems more grounded in reality than in elaborate non-sequitur constructions. She's grown from the performer she once was, and I can't help but wonder if her coming out helped that.
And yes, George Takei SHOULD get a sitcom role. Although I think he has too much fun as Howard Stern's announcer, as well as too much freedom to indulge in obviously sexual humor.
George Takei has been doing little comedy bits for awhile. I've seen him in several cameoes where he was a bit of a queen before he came out. Exagerated for comedy, I'm sure, but it still seemed a little odd before I knew more about him.
Not that he always did it that way. Here's my favorite George Takei comedy bit ever: BLOW'D UP.
Bah, so she's gay. I never had a shot at her before so it's not like this badly kept secret ruins my romantic plans or something.
Still, she remains a perfect woman to me.
I'm a huge fan, and remain so.
Makes sense she's gay. I seem to have a thing for lesbians, even before I know they're lesbian. (or maybe they're just lesbians after they meet me...hmmm...)
Anyway, while I do not in any way shape or form endorse the assassination (attempted or otherwise) of a President I gotta say that if you're a guy trying to impress a lesbian, you pretty much gotta go big, right?
Makes sense.
Girl flirts with you: Buy her flowers.
Girl ignores you: Buy her jewelry.
Girl is physically incapable of being attracted to you and has never met you: Assasinate a world leader.
Girl makes fun of the tiny scar on your cheek: Take over a small country and devote you life to killing Reed Richards.
I just wish a straight guy could make me understand why they have such a fascination for lesbians. :p
That is one of life's mysteries to me. It has always caused me much bafflement.
"I just wish a straight guy could make me understand why they have such a fascination for lesbians. :p"
It actually has very little to do with lesbians themselves. It's mainly about numbers.
One beer = good. Two beers = better. One steak = good. Two steaks = better. One woman = good. Two women = better.
Plus (as explained in the brilliant British show Coupling), there's no chance of eye slippage. As a general rule, straight men really don't want to see other men when they look at porn. If all the participants in the porn are women, then there's no chance of accidentally looking at something you didn't want to see.
Strangely enough, there's actually science to back that up. I saw something on TV a couple years ago where a doctor was putting people in MRIs with a monitor they could look at. He measured their brain activity as he showed them various images. Whenever men saw half naked men on the monitor, the areas of the brain that control aggression flared up a little. Even if the men didn't notice any feelings of aggression, there was at least a little activity in the aggression centers.
I just wish a straight guy could make me understand why they have such a fascination for lesbians.
Well, not all of us do.
On a personal level I've had a few great friends who were lesbians but it would never occur to me to pursue them romantically. It seems pretty stupid to go after a woman who has a perfectly valid hard to argue with reason for rejecting you.
In movies, I know I'm in the minority here but most sex scenes stop the movie dead in its tracks, getting in the way of me seeing things I can't see on my own time, like zombies and giant robot gorillas.
Furthermore, this phenomenon is not limited to men--most of the writers of slash fiction are women and in Japan there's a genre of manga for girls that deals with gay boys. Go figure.
People are fundamentally strange, which is cool.
I think what Jason says is perfectly true.
There's also, if we're being embarrassingly honest, at least some small percentage of kidding ourselves that we are 'the one' who could change their minds. It's the same irrational R-brain response that let's us find shy girls incredibly sexy...
Cheers.
Good point, Peter.
Rene, if you really don't understand why men like lesbians, you're probably overthinking it. Just go on a few binge drinking weekends until you've killed most of your brain cells. Then you'll be thinking like a man. That will actually help you with understanding how men think in general.
I skimmed the thread, so forgive me if this was mentioned above.
I've seen articles about Foster in the past (and was probably also written after this latest story) that the whole Hinkley thing may have "nudged" her in the direction of lesbian.
Not trying to stir up the "nature/nuture" argument (my view is "however you got there is how you got there"), but it's a theory I wanted to throw out for discussion.
In general, celebrity gossip doesn't interest me. There is something to be said about being a high-powered role model, facing certain challenges, and to come clean about them.
The important thing is that she's an actress. She happens to be a good one, and has been out there working for a very long time. She deserves the respect of someone who's been in her field for a long time, perfecting her craft, and earning recognition for it.
Does personal life come into it?
It's possible.
Must she step up to represent a closeted minority?
It's possible.
Why?
To inspire other young lesbians, to tell them that it is possible, with hard work, to achieve in a world that doesn't want you to. I would have found such an image great if Tom Cruise ever came out, I'm sure. Though, he publicly represents a different significant oppressed minority now.
Role models are important. Heroes are important. It would have been great for me to look up to someone.
Still, that's the choice of the role model to be, not the outcrying public.
On Hinkley: She could very well be bisexual. There's always a chance. Guy can always dream.
J-mo
"I've seen articles about Foster in the past (and was probably also written after this latest story) that the whole Hinkley thing may have "nudged" her in the direction of lesbian."
Is that something she said herself? If it's just people speculating, then it doesn't really mean anything. That's like people without telescopes guessing the distance from Jupiter to the Sun.
"Rene, if you really don't understand why men like lesbians, you're probably overthinking it. Just go on a few binge drinking weekends until you've killed most of your brain cells. Then you'll be thinking like a man. That will actually help you with understanding how men think in general."
LOL.
I've been in drinking binges, but I suppose I didn't kill enough cells. :p
Heh, I have many touchy gay friends who would've been insulted by the remark, you know? I can hear they saying: "What, think like a man? I already do! I'm gay, but I'm also a man, dude."
But no, not me, I sorta like when people say I'm not a man. I'm ladylike like that. :D
I don't see why they would be insulted. A gay man is still a man. Whatever he does in his sex life, he's still not going to stop and ask for directions.
I think one of the reasons why Tom Cruise is vehemently denying he is gay is because Scientology says they can cure gay people and that they are against nature
so him even acknowledging this would cause him to lose his status in the church and probably completely ruin his career also.
a lot of people think that a gay person can't play a straight person which is pretty ludacris considering how many straight people we have playing gay parts.
Am I alone in finding it sad (that's sad as in vaguely depressing, not sad as in lame) that a persons sexuality becomes the single defining label we apply to them? Or that they apply to themselves.
I mean "yes" I can understand that it's important, especially when there's a lot of associated personal crap all balled up with an individuals sexuality, but please God it's not ALL the person is, or is about...
Cheers.
Posted by: Pariah at December 21, 2007 02:24 AM
"I think one of the reasons why Tom Cruise is vehemently denying he is gay.."
Could possibly be that he's actually not gay?
Or are we totally discounting that option?
Cheers.
"Am I alone in finding it sad (that's sad as in vaguely depressing, not sad as in lame) that a persons sexuality becomes the single defining label we apply to them? Or that they apply to themselves."
I think that's actually becoming less the case. There are a lot of posts in this thread of people saying that that Jodie Foster coming out isn't that big of a deal.
And Ellen declaring she was gay didn't make that her biggest trait. Her biggest trait is that she's almost-but-never-quite-funny. Well, to me, anyway.
I agree that it still gets way more emphasis than other arbitrary facts about a person.
I agree with Peter J Poole. At the risk (certainty?) of disrespecting our glorious leader, I find nothing humorous or noteworthy in Jodie Foster's sexuality. We should be past "Oooh, she's a LESBIAN! Cool!!" Up to this point, Ms. Foster has been quite circumspect about her sexuality: Her privacy and dignity are as important as anyone else's. PAD discourages conversation about areas of his own life he considers private, and closes strings when that rule is flouted. Snickering about someone else's private life is inconsistent.
"I agree with Peter J Poole. At the risk (certainty?) of disrespecting our glorious leader"
The very first post in this whole thread is PAD saying, "Kind of falls into the "Who cares?" department."
The very first post is PAD bringing up the subject. Apparently he cares enough for that.
I just wish a straight guy could make me understand why they have such a fascination for lesbians.
American men are taught to be ashamed of our penises. Lesbians are our proxy for indulging in our gender-preference penis-free.
The disgust I've witnessed here at the prospect of indulging in hedonistic sex after the fall of civilization seems to surrender to this shame of owning a penis. I don't see how it isn't rooted in an inherent self-disgust in owning a penis.
At the risk (certainty?) of disrespecting our glorious leader
Are you now working to get every other active & semi-active thread shut down as well?
Craig wrote: Are you now working to get every other active & semi-active thread shut down as well?
Heh, I was just wondering the same thing.
Jeffrey, I believe the point of the original post was more of a "can you believe CNN decided to focus on that" rather than a criticism of Ms Foster.
Rather than getting into a long, fruitless (and aggravating) debate, may I suggest we all agree to disagree.
Jeff,
I really think that you should re-read the initial post by Peter. The post was less about Jodie Foster's sexuality then it was about the fact that CNN did a major discussion piece on it as though it were some great secret that had just been revealed and the fact that, if it was a secret at this point, it was a pretty poorly kept secret. And the only "snickering" wasn't really about her sexuality at all. It was an ironic observation directed at the idiot who shot Reagan in order to woo her and win her love.
I know you're likely peeved at being too dense to take several warnings and then getting the last thread shut down, but trying to bring that subject up here and grind a new axe over the thread closer is just stupid. And, besides that, you'd really have to stretch the concept that you're now putting forward to molecularly thin levels to even begin to almost make it fit here. Why be Mike?
Craig J. Ries - Do you think PAD is quite that hypersensitive? Although I disagree with him about many things, I think he is more forbearing than that. I do not disagree with his stricture that his family is off limits - This would be a much uglier place if it were not. In light of his understanding that certain things should be respected, I just expected he should extend similar respect to other people's privacy. Jodie Foster has spent more than three decades in the public eye, largely successful at maintaining the privacy of her private life. Mr. David's lifestyle has (to the best of my knowledge) followed fairly traditional lines - the sort that has never engendered the risk of prison or mental institution - but he is entitled to keep his family and affections his own private affair - his business, and not ours. Ms. Foster, on the other hand, has had to deal with inborn desires which until recently were held to constitute a felony or evidence of mental disease. That she has never chosen to proclaim her sexuality is even more understandable than PAD's own insistence on privacy.
Mike - I share your bemusement (if it is that) at the tendency of so many purportedly heterosexual men to salivate at the idea of lesbian sex, but I don't agree with your notion that American men are taught to be ashamed of our penises: Protective, perhaps, or even fearful of its loss sometimes, but not ashamed. Some may see it as a badge of authority - perhaps like a Marshal's baton (but generally with less decoration and engraving). The only way I can understand the common fascination with lesbianism and degradation of male homosexuality is this: There is a very strong visual aspect to male sexuality, and the image of two naked women revealing themselves and engaging in sex is titillating to some men; On the other hand, because sexual identity is more complex than a simple yes/no, straight/gay dichotomy, and because there is still a very common teaching that homosexuality and sodomy are evil, many men fear and are disgusted by any fleeting thought that such things might interest THEM. They reject in others what they fear is in themselves.
And, besides that, you'd really have to stretch the concept that you're now putting forward to molecularly thin levels to even begin to almost make it fit here. Why be Mike?
Concepts are not measured in molecules, and I'm not even sure how they can be said to stretch. Given those qualifications, I don't see how this sentence isn't nonsense. Thank you for not challenging the analysis of my last post, since the disgust I referred to included yours.
Since you and Jeffrey have shutting down a thread in common, I guess there's no point in warning him to not be like you.
Mike - I share your bemusement (if it is that) at the tendency of so many purportedly heterosexual men to salivate at the idea of lesbian sex, but I don't agree with your notion that American men are taught to be ashamed of our penises: Protective, perhaps, or even fearful of its loss sometimes, but not ashamed.
I think the pc-scare is overblown, which makes me glad you aren't aware of any pc-intolerance attributed to feminism at all.
I think one of the reasons why Tom Cruise is vehemently denying he is gay is because Scientology says they can cure gay people and that they are against nature
so him even acknowledging this would cause him to lose his status in the church and probably completely ruin his career also.
Assuming he is gay--I know that's supposedly common knowledge but I've never seen any evidence to support it (not that I give a rat's ass)--one would then have to wonder why he chose Scientology as a religion. It's not like he was born into it.
And Ellen declaring she was gay didn't make that her biggest trait. Her biggest trait is that she's almost-but-never-quite-funny. Well, to me, anyway.
She used to be pretty funny but her act is now more of her mannerisms then material. Still, she was great in FINDING NEMO (a case where I'd be astonished if the writers did not tailor the script to fit the voice actor)
The very first post is PAD bringing up the subject. Apparently he cares enough for that.
Jesus, Jeffrey. Why are you picking fights with PAD? His blog, his choice of topics. It was all over the news so it isn't like he was digging for dirt. The joke was at the expense of Hinkley, which should only upset those who themselves suffer from severe mental disease.
The disgust I've witnessed here at the prospect of indulging in hedonistic sex after the fall of civilization seems to surrender to this shame of owning a penis. I don't see how it isn't rooted in an inherent self-disgust in owning a penis.
As if on cue...
In light of his understanding that certain things should be respected, I just expected he should extend similar respect to other people's privacy.>/i>
Assuming we are correctly interpreting Ms Foster's comments as a coming out statement, this is no longer a matter of privacy.
Look, you can talk about PAD and his family all you want but if you do it here there are reasonable consequences. It's his blog! If someone wants to display their total lack of intelligence, class, common human decency and full set of chromosomes by insulting one of my kids, hey, it's a free country. But do it in my house and be prepared to be tossed out on your ear. BTW-I'm not saying you are that bad a guy, though you have a streak of stubbornness that does not serve you well, IMO.
(I mention the possibility that Ms. Foster did not mean for this to be an official "Yep, I'm gay" moment because the actual transcript of her words was just thanking her partner for being there in good times and bad...nothing really dramatic or anything.)
Assuming he is gay--I know that's supposedly common knowledge but I've never seen any evidence to support it (not that I give a rat's ass)--one would then have to wonder why he chose Scientology as a religion.
Larry Craig is an outed gay man who is also an anti-gay republican, and Mark Foley text-messaged seductive emails to teen-aged boys living away from home while convening in congressional committees to protect children from internet pederasts. They're hypocrites.
Hypocrites? They both seem disgusted by their own feelings--at least Craig clearly does. Since he hates what he himself is he is being consistent in being anti-gay. not that this makes it any less destructive.
And I suspect that both Craig and Foley were born into their religions, as most people are. Cruise chose Scientology.
Hypocrites? They both seem disgusted by their own feelings--at least Craig clearly does. Since he hates what he himself is he is being consistent in being anti-gay
You make it sound like Craig has had some kind of Jimmy Swaggart "I have sinned!" moment admitting he didn't really need to spread his feet trans-stall to take a dump in a public restroom. You are denying someone holding others to standards he refuses to be held to qualifies as hypocrisy. I don't see how that isn't goofy.
Craig is clearly gay and is just as clearly disgusted with that aspect of himself. It's truly sad to see such self-loathing but at his age it will probably be very hard to overcome it. Sad, but there you are. Just as your inability to believe that anyone who does not buy into your worldview can do so for anything other than the worst possible reasons, such attitudes will keep him from ever being the man he could be. Think about it.
Craig's hatred of his own homosexuality also makes him anti-gay in his role as a leader. So no, I don't see him as much of a hypocrite. Not that it matters. Unlike you, what I object to is that he is anti-gay. Were it suddenly revealed that he was, to everyone's surprise, actually 100% heterosexual, that he really was just tapping his feet in a stall and everyone who has claimed an encounter with him was flat out lying...it would not change my opinion of him 1 iota.
I think a person's bad actions are bad. You seem to put greater weight on whether or not their bad actions are consistent with their stated beliefs. Interesting. I won't say they are goofy, since I could see where a truly awful person could talk themself into believing that their awfulness was somehow mitigated by the sheer consistency of their awfulness. Know what I mean? Of course you do!
But, as much fun as it always is to have a conversation with you, alas!--I have 3 birthdays to celebrate this week so I will have to leave you to your comments and hearty bowl of Campbells Soup For One.
Happy Holidays!
(Bill Mulligan) "The joke was at the expense of Hinkley, which should only upset those who themselves suffer from severe mental disease."
I fear you are showing unwarranted optimism in thinking that eliminates very many of the posters here. More seriously, I think you are correct about Craig and Foley, and that Mike misreads you. As I read your post, you make a good argument that Craig and Foley are self-loathing homosexuals (or in Foley's case, nearly a self-loathing pedophile/ephebophile, which may be a different thing) who have overreacted in their pretense they are not. I suppose Mike disapproves of you not using the magic words "They are both hypocrites," but I don't see anything in your post which claims they are not. The fact that they do not acknowledge their homosexuality in no way prevents them from being anti-homosexual, self-hating hypocrites.
Bill, you suggest that Ms. Foster's sorta kinda coming out eliminates any privacy issue. I'm not convinced she has quite come out, but even if she has, I do not find anything humorous about either her lesbianism or John Hinkley's activities on March 30, 1981. Lesbianism, attempted assassination and grievous wounding are none of them particularly funny, and if PAD or you think they are, I disagree.
It appears we agree about the facts, but interpret them differently. A joke cannot be redeemed to someone who isn't amused.
Just as your inability to believe that anyone who does not buy into your worldview can do so for anything other than the worst possible reasons...
"Worst" implies a comparison to other explanations of what's going. All you've provided are explanations that are only plausible if non-hypocritical confessions that haven't taken place had taken place. I have provided the only plausible explanation of what's going on that demonstrates any fidelity to events as they have been reported. "Worst" ain't got nuthin' to do with it.
Craig is clearly gay...
Craig's hatred of his own homosexuality also makes him anti-gay in his role as a leader. So no, I don't see him as much of a hypocrite.
Thank you for not denying Craig is gay. As such, his continued assertions he isn't gay -- to reserve the privilege that goes hand-in-hand with his homophobia -- embodies hypocrisy as well as any other example of hypocrisy. This is not rocket surgery.
Not that it matters.
Yeah, it's a wonder you feel the need to deny holding others to a standard you refuse to be held to qualifies as hypocrisy.
I think a person's bad actions are bad. You seem to put greater weight on whether or not their bad actions are consistent with their stated beliefs. Interesting.
Accounts of lying are often offered to juries to demonstrate guilt. No guilt, no need to deceive. The wrong an accused person is demonstrated to have known was wrong is always more wrong than the wrong the accused is demonstrated to have not known was wrong.
But, as much fun as it always is to have a conversation with you, alas!--I have 3 birthdays to celebrate this week so I will have to leave you to your comments and hearty bowl of Campbells Soup For One.
Don't let me keep you from your enablers.
Jeffrey, I would have to disagree that Hinkley is beyond humor. Now, you may not think PAD's joke was funny, which is fine; humor is a funny thing. Lesbianism, attempted assassination and grievous wounding may not be inherently funny concepts but one can find some pretty funny examples that have used one or more of them.
Again, the joke may have fallen flat for you, that's cool, but you can't say assassination can't be funny--for one thing, I'll never be able to watch LOVE & DEATH again, and that's just not cool.
Thank you for not denying Craig is gay.
No, thank you for not denying Craig is gay!
No, you're Don Francisco's sister!
(Somewhere, Tim Lynch laughs.)
But, as much fun as it always is to have a conversation with you, alas!--I have 3 birthdays to celebrate this week so I will have to leave you to your comments and hearty bowl of Campbells Soup For One.
Don't let me keep you from your enablers.
I've felt so sorry for you as I do this moment. Sorry about the Soup For One crack. Take care.
Bill Mulligan - Then I'll have to disappoint you again. I did not find "Love and Death" funny or interesting. Philistine that I am, I have enjoyed perhaps three Woody Allen films, and found perhaps two amusing (I'm not sure there are any laughs in "Manhattan," but I like it anyway). For the most part, urban, neurotic humor doesn't amuse me. Certain aspects of Allen's public persona increase my dislike of his work. Obviously you find (attempted) assassination appropriate subject matter for humor, but I do not - at least not those within my own lifetime. Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, Ray, Bremer, Moore, Fromme and Hinkley's actions are too recent to seem amusing - particularly those which left currently living victims and bereaved. (Ask Jim Brady if he's quite over Hinkley's little aberration.)
"Obviously you find (attempted) assassination appropriate subject matter for humor, but I do not - at least not those within my own lifetime. Oswald... "
Another sad, sad case of a non-fan of Red Dwarf it seems.
" (Ask Jim Brady if he's quite over Hinkley's little aberration.)"
I don't know about that. Reagan sure had a few chuckles over it in the years after the attempt.
I guess this would be a bad time to joke about Sirhan Sirhan changing his name to just Sirhan.
Well, someone (I think it was Mel Brooks) oce said; The difference between comedy and tragedy is that when I stub my toe it's tragedy. When you fall down a manhole and die it's comedy.
But not liking LOVE & DEATH. Wow, man, that's pure gold. Well, to each his own. I was about the only one laughing during WALK HARD (granted, it was just me and my kids in the theater).
Jerry Chandler - Yes, but Reagan's injury could be healed, while Brady lost a good chunk of brain - not really very funny, depending on your perspective. I have watched and often enjoyed Red Dwarf, but it hasn't formed my tastes for me.
The point is, Reagan did joke about the assassination attempt, so it's not like the topic was off limits. true, he didn't joke about jim Brady but then again, neither did PAD.
I guess you could argue that only reagan could joke about it because he went through it...but it just seems pointless to argue what or who is allowed to be funny. You risk falling into the PC That's Not Funny trap--what movie can possibly be used as an example of being both A-funny and B- not possibly offensive to anyone?
I guess this would be a bad time to joke about Sirhan Sirhan changing his name to just Sirhan.
Actually, the joke goes--if I'm recalling correctly, it was a Chevy Chase "Weekend Update" gag--"Assassin Sirhan Sirhan has legally changed his name to Sirhan Sirhan Sirhan. No explanation was given for the change."
PAD
But, as much fun as it always is to have a conversation with you, alas!--I have 3 birthdays to celebrate this week so I will have to leave you to your comments and hearty bowl of Campbells Soup For One.
Don't let me keep you from your enablers.I've felt so sorry for you as I do this moment. Sorry about the Soup For One crack. Take care.
Ok. Thank you for relenting in denying Larry Craig qualifies as a hypocrite. It's a wonder you felt the need to deny it in the first place.
When one jokes about John Hinckley, Jr., (sorry, I've been spelling it wrong all along) one automatically is joking about what he did - shooting James Brady in the head, Thomas Delahanty in the neck, Timothy McCarthy in the chest and Ronald Reagan also in the chest (by a ricochet, rather than a direct shot). While I can admire Mr. Reagan for being able to joke about his own injury, he had no standing to minimize the suffering of three other men.
None of this stuff is funny, and I don't give a damn about anyone here thinking it is. Here's something to consider - Who wants to make a joke about the following series of facts?
There was this guy. He was an Austrian, but he thought Germany was really neat. In World War I, he joined the German Imperial Army, became a corporal, and was decorated for bravery under fire. He grew a big mustache that looked sort of like Field Marshal Kitchener's although he really didn't like the guy all that much. After the war, he couldn't get a job as a painter, because his work was really pretty banal - you know, not too bad, but nothing special. He got involved in right wing politics, went to jail, cut his mustache so it looked sort of like Charlie Chaplin's (really funny guy, that Chaplin!), became Chancellor of Germany and killed tens of millions of people. Oh, boy, what nasty guy!
I don't think it's very funny to make a joke about an evil SOB. What do you think?
There was this guy. He was an Austrian, but he thought Germany was really neat. In World War I, he joined the German Imperial Army, became a corporal, and was decorated for bravery under fire. He grew a big mustache that looked sort of like Field Marshal Kitchener's although he really didn't like the guy all that much. After the war, he couldn't get a job as a painter, because his work was really pretty banal - you know, not too bad, but nothing special. He got involved in right wing politics, went to jail, cut his mustache so it looked sort of like Charlie Chaplin's (really funny guy, that Chaplin!), became Chancellor of Germany and killed tens of millions of people. Oh, boy, what nasty guy!
I don't think it's very funny to make a joke about an evil SOB. What do you think?
Everybody sing!
Springtime for Hitler and Germany
Deutschland is happy and gay!
We're marching to a faster pace
Look out, here comes the master race!
Sorry, while there are crass and tasteless jokes of course, I don't think that subjects like the above are by their very nature crass and tasteless.
I think you should avoid at all costs THE GREAT DICTATOR, TO BE OR NOT TO BE, HOGANS HEROES, a whole mess of Warner Bros cartoons and 3 Stooges shorts, THE PRODUCERS, TOP SECRET, ALL THROUGH THE NIGHT, DER FUEHRER'S FACE, LITTLE NICKY (no great loss there) and WHICH WAY TO THE FRONT (ditto) among others.
Since war is unfunny and kills children you should also avoid DUCK SOUP and DR STRANGELOVE.
And hey--you have every right to do so. If it ain't funny to you it ain't funny. To you. I make no judgment. I'm just glad I don't see it that way since it would deprive me of a lot of laughs from just the ones listed above.
Ok. Thank you for relenting in denying Larry Craig qualifies as a hypocrite. It's a wonder you felt the need to deny it in the first place.
Since you have been unwilling and/or unable to respond to the points I made why should I keep on making them? Repetition doesn't make an argument better. Think about it.
...but I do. The saving grace of "The Producers" is that the humor is used to mock and demean Hitler and neo-nazism, rather than to recognize him as a great springboard for gags.
...well, that's conjecture, but if I don't look at it that way it just looks like a colossal crap taken in the faces of millions of victims - not just the victims of the Holocaust, but many million more in addition. Call me humorless (I know that's not very hard) but I think it takes more than the few generations that have passed to make the greatest known crime against humanity funny. When it's as remote as Kublai Khan, perhaps that will have changed.
Bill, you left out the "Time Slides" episode of Red Dwarf. Damned red Dwarf haters!!!!!!
"And he's only got one testicle!!!"
Jeff... Get a f'n life for Christ's sake. Or, barring that, a sense of humor.
Bill Mulligan: to be truthful, here's what I think about those movies and shows.
1. The Great Dictator: Its purpose is to mock and demean Hitler - and it succeeds. Also, the extent of Hitler's crimes was not entirely understood in 1940 when the film was made.
2. To Be or Not to Be: I don't think it succeeded as completely as the Great Dictator, but its intentions were the same. Also, the Nazis in this picture were more monstrous than funny.
3. Hogan's Heroes: Yes - It's a load of crap, and not funny, either.
4. Warner Brothers Cartoons and Three Stooges shorts: Most of them succeeded at demeaning the Nazis, rather than taking good natured jabs.
5. The Producers: I don't like it very much, but its intentions are clear: Nazis are degenerate idiots.
6. Top Secret - Well, I think it stinks, and that's reason enough for me not to watch it again.
7. All Through the Night: The filmmakers didn't understand the depth of Nazi depravity, but still, the Nazis are the bad guys. It was made before Pearl Harbor, when most Americans ignored what was going on in Europe.
8. Der Fuehrer's Face: The whole concept was that it would be hellish to be under Hitler's thumb. That's about right.
9. Little Nicky: Yeah. It stinks. So what?
10. Which Way to the Front?: I was unlucky enough to see it. It's pathetic and stupid (and deadly unfunny). I agree that I shouldn't see it.
Jerry, there's no point in telling someone that something is funny if they don't find it so. There are people who like beets but no amount of convincing will make them taste good to me.
If Jeffrey were trying to claim some moral high ground in his lack of fondness for humor based on tragedy that would be one thing but I am not getting that vibe. Though I do wonder, Jeffrey, what ARE a few examples of movies you find hilarious?
(My keyboard started malfunctioning, and I had to close that last post off prematurely.)
11. Duck Soup: It's a brilliant exposure of the idiocy of world politics and militarism, and has nothing to say, good or bad, about Nazis.
12. Dr. Strangelove: The world is destroyed by a pack of idiots. That's more a cautionary tale than a joke.
The fact that several people here are amused by Red Dwarf is their own affair. I didn't see the Nazi-featuring episodes these people love so much, but I don't feel deprived.
Since you have been unwilling and/or unable to respond to the points I made why should I keep on making them?
My response to you insisting Larry Craig is contrite about being gay is that he has persisted in denying he's gay. You should abstain from persisting in making your point because, by even the thinnest fidelity to the truth, you are simply Wrong.™
Repetition doesn't make an argument better. Think about it.
By the standards of debating as its known to western civilization, that which is accurate is not diminished by repetition.
Since you've turned your back to your dinner companions to come back here:
Just as your inability to believe that anyone who does not buy into your worldview can do so for anything other than the worst possible reasons, such attitudes will keep him from ever being the man he could be. Think about it....
I think a person's bad actions are bad. You seem to put greater weight on whether or not their bad actions are consistent with their stated beliefs. Interesting.
How can hypocrisy be the "worst possible [reason]" and be irrelevant to the severity of a transgression at the same time. Do you require instruction on use of the word "worst?"
Bill Mulligan - It is interesting that you do not get the vibe of me insisting on a moral high ground in my lack of fondness for humor based on tragedy. I wouldn't characterize it exactly that way - I can see humor in "tragedy," but not in "atrocity" or "obscenity." A man falling down a manhole and dying (tragedy, if played right) can be the basis of good humor, but there's nothing funny about, say, a maniac abducting that man and drilling his eyes out (atrocity) or another maniac putting all of the people of that man's religion in a death camp (obscenity as well as atrocity). I can't keep you from finding that kind of material amusing, but I do see this as a moral issue. I would feel dirty if I thought jokes about recent assassinations, genocides or crimes against humanity were funny. With few exceptions, I don't think death and degradation are all that amusing. They have a place in serious conversation, but not as the butt of a joke, unless the joke degrades the dignity of the monsters it parodies.
Mike, I don't think anyone here has suggested that Larry Craig is "contrite." The facts appear to be these: He is homosexual/He opposes rights for homosexuals/He speaks disparagingly about homosexuals/He denies that he is homosexual/It stands to reason that he must be a self-loathing, twisted, repressed homosexual. If he were contrite, he would confess to what he perceives as his sins, and nobody claims he has done that. Apparently you are upset that Bill Mulligan has not used your postings as his style sheet, because there is no difference in the substance of your two opinions of Mr. Craig, despite your objections that somehow you are right to say "A" while he is wrong to do the same.
Jeff,
PAD's joke about John Hinckley: Its purpose is to mock and demean John Hinckley - and it succeeds. It's pointing out that the idiot who did a very stupid thing also did it for a reason that is now completely out of the question.
JH: "I love Jodie Foster. If I do this really stupid thing, maybe she'll notice me. After that, who knows? Maybe a date or two."
Fast forward about two decades.
JF: "John, you're a twerp and I'm gay. Drop dead and no chance in hell."
JH: "Son of a BITCH!"
There is a certain level of humorous irony in that scenario.
___________________________________________________
Bill,
"Jerry, there's no point in telling someone that something is funny if they don't find it so."
"If Jeffrey were trying to claim some moral high ground in his lack of fondness for humor based on tragedy that would be one thing but I am not getting that vibe."
I know that humor is subjective and all, but I was responding more to the fact that I am getting that vibe from him. The general tone of his posts has been that's it's wrong to joke about these things because it was sooooo tragic or that these people were soooo evil and good and decent people wouldn't do something like that.
Of course, this is the same guy who seemed to take joy in the deaths of JFK JR and joked about the circumstances of his (and if memory serves without going back to check, his dad's) deaths. I guess Jeff just finds it funny to joke about not-so-evil people's deaths and take joy in those. But I could be wrong.
With few exceptions, I don't think death and degradation are all that amusing. They have a place in serious conversation, but not as the butt of a joke, unless the joke degrades the dignity of the monsters it parodies.
Jeffrey, who's exulting in the exploitation of others? If the answer is "no one" -- then what are you objecting to?
Hypocrites? They both seem disgusted by their own feelings--at least Craig clearly does. Since he hates what he himself is he is being consistent in being anti-gay.
You make it sound like Craig has had some kind of Jimmy Swaggart "I have sinned!" moment admitting he didn't really need to spread his feet trans-stall to take a dump in a public restroom. You are denying someone holding others to standards he refuses to be held to qualifies as hypocrisy. I don't see how that isn't goofy.
Mike, I don't think anyone here has suggested that Larry Craig is "contrite."
The only way Larry Craig's homophobia could be unhypocritical is if he is contrite about his homosexuality -- ie he no longer holds others to a standard he refuses to hold himself to. If you can think of another plausible way to frame Larry Craig's homophobia and closet-homosexuality as unhypocritical, by all means, please don't keep it to yourself.
Since you've turned your back to your dinner companions to come back here:
Yeah, dummy, most folks I know are done with dinner by 7:42.
We had some nice Thai curry dishes; green and red, along with some lovely Pad Thai noodles with a tamarind sauce. I also woked a bunch of sliced chicken in a few different sauces to add to the curries so we could experiment with different combinations of flavor. Except for the chicken cooked in the olive oil with black truffles, which was wayyyyy to strong for my palate, it came out well. Not a traditional Christmas eve meal, but very nice.
Then I digest with some internet typing, as is my wont.
Jeffrey--I guess I missed the point. If it's ok to get laughs at Hitler's expense then what is your objection?
I mean, PAD was mocking Hinkley, wasn't he? If he was mocking Reagan for being shot I could see a reason for someone to be upset (though I'd still defend the joke, if it were funny). But that's not the case.
Duck Soup: It's a brilliant exposure of the idiocy of world politics and militarism, and has nothing to say, good or bad, about Nazis.
Well, yeah, that's why I said it was a funny movie about war.
Apparently you are upset that Bill Mulligan has not used your postings as his style sheet, because there is no difference in the substance of your two opinions of Mr. Craig, despite your objections that somehow you are right to say "A" while he is wrong to do the same.
Well, at least I never have to worry about being on the same page as Mike, since, even if I am, he will insist that I'm not. Which is a relief.
there's nothing funny about, say, a maniac abducting that man and drilling his eyes out
Is it ok if he's a zombie? Because if not you are going to think a lot less of me when you order THE FOREVER DEAD (now available on Amazon.com!) (Makes a great belated Christmas gift!) (only 266 shopping days until NEXT Christmas! Why wait?)
My response to you insisting Larry Craig is contrite about being gay
Liar. Liiiiiar. You're lying, Mike.
Of course, I never said he was contrite about being gay. I don't think he IS contrite about being gay. Ergo my lack of saying that he is contrite about being gay, that is, you see.
I don't think Craig even thinks that he is gay, that's how deep his denial is.
How can hypocrisy be the "worst possible [reason]" and be irrelevant to the severity of a transgression at the same time. Do you require instruction on use of the word "worst?"
Sorry, once again, you lie. I never said that hypocrisy is actually the worst possible reason. YOU claim that your many many many disagreements with people here are because of your brave stand against hypocrisy. I don't think that's the real reason. Neither, so far as I can tell, does anyone else.
As to why you really do what you do...that would require getting to know you better, which does not interest me in the slightest.
Now I must go--a Merry Christmas to all, even Mike Leung! I have to start brining the turkey for tomorrow's dinner, after our traditional Opening of the Presents, Calling of the Relatives, and Catching the Matinee of Alien Vs Predator.
Hm. I'd say to certain folks here...leave the humor to the professionals.
And, by the way...Songheim's ASSASINS.
Since you've turned your back to your dinner companions to come back here:Yeah, dummy, most folks I know are done with dinner by 7:42.
Any later in your company, and they'd have to keep syringes of insulin handy.
Hypocrites? They both seem disgusted by their own feelings--at least Craig clearly does. Since he hates what he himself is he is being consistent in being anti-gay....
Liar. Liiiiiar. You're lying, Mike.
Of course, I never said he was contrite about being gay. I don't think he IS contrite about being gay.
You are so Weak™ you have to portray as a Lie™ a plausible inference from your insistence Larry Craig is not a hypocrite and from your insistence Larry Craig is disgusted at his own homosexuality. And still you have no plausible explanation how Larry Craig's holding others to a standard he refuses to be held by doesn't qualify as hypocrisy.
You should scurry away, and call "liar" behind you. Having no spine, scurrying is your only means of avoiding a question.
Just as your inability to believe that anyone who does not buy into your worldview can do so for anything other than the worst possible reasons, such attitudes will keep him from ever being the man he could be. Think about it....
I think a person's bad actions are bad. You seem to put greater weight on whether or not their bad actions are consistent with their stated beliefs. Interesting.
How can hypocrisy be the "worst possible [reason]" and be irrelevant to the severity of a transgression at the same time. Do you require instruction on use of the word "worst?"Sorry, once again, you lie. I never said that hypocrisy is actually the worst possible reason. YOU claim that your many many many disagreements with people here are because of your brave stand against hypocrisy. I don't think that's the real reason. Neither, so far as I can tell, does anyone else.
You are so Weak™ you have to portray as a Lie™ a plausible inference "worst possible reasons" refers to hypocrisy when it's Larry Craig's hypocrisy you are denying. Scurry, Bill Mulligan, scurry.
Roger Tang: You would be more convincing if you spelled either the composer or his show correctly. Stephen Sondheim's Assassins takes its subject matter from political terrorists, of course, but I wouldn't call it an attempt at humor.
Bill Mulligan: The distinction I see between material such as "The Producers" and PAD's quip about Hinckley is that "The Producers" had the clear intention of showing the stupidity of Nazism, while PAD's joke only used Hinckley as a convenient punchline to "Ooooh, Lesbians!! Hot!" It's fine to laugh at Hitler's expense, but crass to use him as nothing but a wacky guy. Similarly, Hinckley's crimes put him well beyond being a kooky celebrity.
I can't regulate what you find funny. Neither can you make me find humor in trivializing evil.
I know I'm the stupid one for entering this conversation, but I can't help it.
"while PAD's joke only used Hinckley as a convenient punchline to "Ooooh, Lesbians!! Hot!""
That's not even remotely PAD's joke. There is nothing in what PAD wrote that implied anything hot about lesbians. It very clearly said that Hinckley's actions were even dumber than they appeared because they were so futile.
Jeffrey, you want to pick a fight with PAD. We get it. But please, for the sake of better entertainment, wait until you actually disagree with him. Don't just make something up.
Sorry mike, those of us with family and lives have more things to do than help you work out your psychosis. We're just not that into you. You, on the other hand, approach these little tete-e-tetes as though they are the single most important things in your life, which, for all we know, they are.
Plausable inference=lies in Mikespeak. we know, Mike, we know. Keep dancing. And please--think about it. and for gosh sake have a Merry christmas!
Jeffrey, I have to say, Jason makes a good point. This is really looking like just an attempt to goad PAD into a fight.
And when you're the guy who wrote Did Lauren Bessette deserve anything less than the average person because her sister's husband's father is immensely beloved for losing a big piece of his head? and thought a Chappaquidick (sp?) joke was funny it makes it look like you picked a poor issue to fight him on.
Stephen Sondheim's Assassins takes its subject matter from political terrorists, of course, but I wouldn't call it an attempt at humor.
I would.
Black, black humor of the most amusing type. The show wouldn't work without the hunor.
Though, unfortunately, I've seen some attempts....
And really, now....spelling flames? Tsk, tsk....
Jeffrey tries to pick fights with me the way others pick their noses. But it snot going to happen.
PAD
PAD's wit in the last post is below his general standards. He should have outgrown snot jokes around 1965.
Jason M. Bryant believes there was some deeper import to the initial post beyond "Oooh, lesbians!! Hot!" but no such thing is apparent. This string began because PAD felt like mentioning that it looks like Jodie Foster has almost admitted her lesbianism. Then he closed out by joking about Hinckley's disappointment that he isn't going to get any of that sweet stuff. What is this beyond two very base statements? 1. Oooh, she's a LESBIAN!! My God! That's hot!! and 2. Let's kid around about the unwelcome sexual advances of an attempted presidential assassin on a female who was barely 18 at the time. That's really cool. Let's not make anything of the fact that he blew a hole in Jim Brady's head. We're being FUNNY here! Many here disagree with my feeling that there are subjects that are inappropriate fodder for humor. If they are right, PAD still failed to write anything funny this time.
Roger Tang - It may be petty, but your appearance of erudition disappears when you misspell both "Sondheim" and "Assassins" while citing them. A reader might misconstrue that you don't know anything about either.
The Theory:
"Jeffrey tries to pick fights with me the way others pick their noses. But it snot going to happen."
The Proof of the Theory's Veracity:
"PAD's wit in the last post is below his general standards. He should have outgrown snot jokes around 1965."
Whatever, Jeffy....
Anywho... I just swung in to say Merry Christmas to everyone here. Hope the Holiday is treating you well and you're enjoying the day with your friends and family.
Cheers.
Jerry Chandler: If you like snot jokes, that's your own affair. I'm about three years younger than PAD and I thought I gave up on them when I was a kid. When it comes to what you find funny, I can't dis-sputum.
Jeff,
What Bill, PAD, Jerry, etc are too nice to say is that you are a waste of breath, a waste of life, and a waste of time. DIAF already
Bladestar, let me ask you a few serious questions.
1. Why do you think I care what you want?
2. Have you ever gotten good results from telling someone he's a waste of life?
3. Has anyone ever not threatened to kick your ass when you told him to die in a fire? (yes, I had to look that up - I'm old and generally uninterested in current acronyms.) Ask someone you trust how enthusiastic they are about being incinerated.
Of course, you are mistaken in your premise that the people you name have refrained from telling me they didn't welcome my posts.
...and a Merry Christmas to you too, Bladestar.
Hypocrites? They both seem disgusted by their own feelings--at least Craig clearly does. Since he hates what he himself is he is being consistent in being anti-gay....
Since you have been unwilling and/or unable to respond to the points I made [how Larry Craig isn't a hypocrite] why should I keep on making them?
My response to you insisting Larry Craig is contrite about being gay is that he has persisted in denying he's gay. You should abstain from persisting in making your point because, by even the thinnest fidelity to the truth, you are simply Wrong.™Liar. Liiiiiar. You're lying, Mike.
Of course, I never said he was contrite about being gay. I don't think he IS contrite about being gay. Ergo my lack of saying that he is contrite about being gay, that is, you see.
Bill, I don't see how the above doesn't provide an explicit demonstration how you have a severe detachment from reality. To you, anyone who presumed any commitment to reason on your part was subject to you calling them a liar, because your unfaithfullness to reason allows you to deny any inference of what you are saying, regardless of its plausibility.
Forcing everyone to guess what the point is you claim to have made but refuse to repeat demonstrates there is no defense against your sociopathic chicken-shit.
Bill, since you keep inviting me to navel-gaze: eliminating all the fabricated quotes and fabricated agendas attributed to me, there isn't anything in Peter's archive that demonstrates much about me except my sincerity, and a lack of fidelity to a community not much more complex than a dog-pack. That isn't true for you. If your character ever becomes relevant to a judge or jury, most of what I simply observe of your behavior is relevant. Your denials of my observations depend almost entirely on their arbitrariness -- which aren't valid to the standards of debating as it's known to western civilization. This post seems to provide the severest example of your sociopathic detachment from reality. Ask Santa it never falls in the hands of those appointed to question the well-being of children under your professional authority.
Better yet:
Hypocrites? They both seem disgusted by their own feelings--at least Craig clearly does. Since he hates what he himself is he is being consistent in being anti-gay.
contrite: feeling or showing sorrow and remorse for a sin or shortcoming
Liar. Liiiiiar. You're lying, Mike.
Of course, I never said he was contrite about being gay. I don't think he IS contrite about being gay. Ergo my lack of saying that he is contrite about being gay, that is, you see.
Dude, you said he was contrite. Your sniveling is wrong at "hello."
No. You're wrong. As usual. Everyone else who has commented has understood this. The fact that your, as PAD put it, brick wall pathology prevents you from dealing with it is a problem you will have to work on, if you ever hope to matter as much to others as others obviously matter to you.
As for this community being a dogpack, it is doublessly comforting for you to pretend that this is true, since you have proven yourself to be so manifestly unable to achieve anything here other than become the resident fool. But nobody believes that. In your heart, I rather doubt you do either.
Perhaps, like Larry Craig, you dislike many aspects of yourself and put yourself into positions where you get punished for it--for Larry it's mens room stalls, for you it's here. The humiliation must serve some need. neither of you seems terribly contrite though; it's been working for years. You could stop if you really wanted to. Think about it
Your laughable attacks amuse me. If my character ever does come into question I will be indeed fortunate to be able to point out that whatever else my deficiancies, at least I'm a decent enough person to aggravate Mike Leung. Of course, this puts me in excellent company; the list of people who have concluded that you are a nut, a flake, a troll, a liar, and a sorry excuse for a human being is long and ever-growing. Since you are quickly approaching the point in your life where the face you wear is the one you will be stuck with, one might be inclined to feel regret at a life spent to such a sad, small purpose.
I only wish you were an awful person of at least some real note, so that your contempt would be a small badge of honor. Not that one should judge themselves good by merely being opposed by those who are bad. You have to actually be a better person. In your case, that's a bar too low to merit much value. At any rate, it's fine with me if you wish to channel your pathology in my direction. Dealing with bullies is old hat to me and you can't possibly hurt my feelings. You haven't the wit.
As this thread has become yet another Mike Leung Meltdown you may have the last word--until the next thread you hijack with your nuttiness. (set your watches!)
I have gone through all of this string looking for the use of "contrite." Mike claimed that Bill Mulligan said Larry Craig was contrite; I insisted that Bill Mulligan had not done anything of the kind; You repeated your claim a few more times; Bill Mulligan replied that he had never made such a claim; You repeated yourself several times; Bill Mulligan repeated that he had made no claim, and added that you were a liar and insane. Apparently when Mr. Mulligan calls Larry Craig a hypocritical self-loathing homosexual you somehow find the word "contrite" there - but it is not.
Hypocrites? They both seem disgusted by their own feelings--at least Craig clearly does. Since he hates what he himself is he is being consistent in being anti-gay.
contrite: feeling or showing sorrow and remorse for a sin or shortcomingLiar. Liiiiiar. You're lying, Mike.
Of course, I never said he was contrite about being gay. I don't think he IS contrite about being gay. Ergo my lack of saying that he is contrite about being gay, that is, you see.
Dude, you said he was contrite. Your sniveling is wrong at "hello."No. You're wrong. As usual.
Bill, you are denying "feeling... sorrow and remorse for a [homosexuality]" is in any way a subset of "disgusted by their own [homosexuality]." You are demonstrating no denial is too outrageous for you to preserve your pretense of invulnerability.
Since you keep asking me to think about things, and since you've made our personal lives fair game: you've just demonstrated how you flushed away your first marriage. You said you have a child in her twenties, your ex is a doctor, and you're at the end of your fifth decade, so either your love nurtured your partner to becoming a doctor or you became the one-stop-love-shop to someone not yet in the full blossom of her adulthood who had her pick of men. This is the fulfillment of a glorious trust most men would devote their lives to maintaining.
All you do is make it obvious that you put the pretense of invulnerability above such a divine trust. Your detachment from reality was probably more severe to your first wife and, going by the neediness you still demonstrate, you probably still consider her lack of fidelity to your pretense as some form of disloyalty.
We all love the life you threw away. It was wasted on you, and you still demonstrate the damage that prevented you from enjoying it.
Everyone else who has commented has understood this.
Bill, the only confirmation you've received that you haven't said Larry Craig was feeling remorse for being gay seems to be from Jeffrey, who shut down a thread this week, and who you asked for Christ's sake what was wrong with him.
Perhaps, like Larry Craig, you dislike many aspects of yourself and put yourself into positions where you get punished for it--for Larry it's mens room stalls...
You heard it here folks: seeking discreet homosexual sex is a form of sadism. Whatever, hater.
Hypocrites? They both seem disgusted by their own feelings--at least Craig clearly does. Since he hates what he himself is he is being consistent in being anti-gay.Apparently when Mr. Mulligan calls Larry Craig a hypocritical...
Thanks for demonstrating you aren't paying attention, Jeffrey.
Mike, Thanks for demonstrating you can't tell the difference between your delusions and other people's posts. Check up higher on the string and see who wrote about contrition and who did not. I don't think Bill Mulligan would contradict me when I say I'm not a great devotee of his - but you've accused him of positions and statements completely divergent from what is the case. To help you out, contrition is sincere repentance for one's actions. Because Larry Craig has never made any repentance, sincere or not, for his actions, Bill does not make the mistake of saying he has done so. Many of Bill's comments give me the impression he gets along pretty well living in the real world and writing English as it is spoken on Earth (words conforming to their definitions and referring to actual events, rather than the babbling of misfiring synapses). The basis of your disagreement with him must lie elsewhere...
Thank you for not invalidating my last observation.
Your denial is explicit proof you are damaged goods, for as long as you continue to deny your obvious error. Unlike Micha, you've demonstrated that English is your first language, so I don't see how your denial isn't the kind of disconnect from reality I can club you with at every challenge to what I say you issue, going by your history here.
Thank you for not invalidating my last observation.
No, thank YOU for not invalidating our observations.
Your denial is explicit proof you are damaged goods
And thank you for providing all of us a great laugh this morning. Seriously, you should do stand up. I bet you'd be an instant hit.
Craig, your one other post to this thread was a question directed at Jeffrey. You've made no observation in this thread for anyone to confirm or deny.
So if this is some kind of admission you're posting under multiple identities, my best guess is that Craig is the alter ego. As damaged as Jeffrey is, he still seems to be the smarter one. Craig takes things personally, but he has no true presence here for anyone to react to, forcing him to arbitrarily take stuff personally at any opportunity.
Mike: Craig J. Ries was not asking for confirmation or denial of anything. He was simply quoting an idiot whose identity slips your mind. If I must jog your memory, that fellow's name was Mike, and he looks just like you.
I appreciate being called smarter than Mr. Ries, but the truth is that I know him slightly less than I do you, so I cannot judge that matter. Your validation means exceeding little.
[Bill] Hypocrites? They both seem disgusted by their own feelings--at least Craig clearly does. Since he hates what he himself is he is being consistent in being anti-gay.Apparently when Mr. Mulligan calls Larry Craig a hypocritical...
Thanks for demonstrating you aren't paying attention, Jeffrey.He was simply quoting an idiot whose identity slips your mind.
Your denial of that which is easily observable demonstrates you shelter a detachment from reality that disqualifies you from evaluating anyone.
Your validation means exceeding little.
Craig's the one showing gratitude to me for the challenges I abstain from issuing. Your criticism suggests no course of action, and is therefore not my problem.
Mike, I'm pretty sure you don't really want me to suggest a course of action, but here goes.
Take that Thorazine ([tm] - this is one of those times [tm] is appropriate) the nice doctors are giving you. It will make you feel much, much better. You'll be able to tell whether it's you, Craig J. Ries or the demons in your air vents talking.
[Bill] Hypocrites? They both seem disgusted by their own feelings--at least Craig clearly does. Since he hates what he himself is he is being consistent in being anti-gay.Apparently when Mr. Mulligan calls Larry Craig a hypocritical...
Thanks for demonstrating you aren't paying attention, Jeffrey.Take that Thorazine ([tm] - this is one of those times [tm] is appropriate) the nice doctors are giving you.
Stop blaming others for your detachment from reality, Jeffrey.
You've made no observation in this thread for anyone to confirm or deny.
We've made plenty of observations of you in plenty of threads.
Go ahead, I'll give you time to go look them up.
So if this is some kind of admission you're posting under multiple identities
Far from it. The fact that you believe this is the case shows how far off your rocker you truly are... and you're getting further from established reality with each passing day.
But, in the spirit of assuming admissions from others, I'm taking this as an admission on your part that you're in need of a psychiatric evaluation.
Seek help, Mike. And, no, I'm not joking in the least; you really freaking need help.
Thank you for not invalidating my last observation.No, thank YOU for not invalidating our observations.
You've made no observation in this thread for anyone to confirm or deny.We've made plenty of observations of you in plenty of threads.
Go ahead, I'll give you time to go look them up.
I don't take orders from you.
If you don't know what you have against me, how is your hallucination you have something against me my problem?
So if [you're taking credit for accusing me of something or other here] is some kind of admission you're posting under multiple identities, my best guess is that Craig is the alter ego. As damaged as Jeffrey is, he still seems to be the smarter one. Craig takes things personally, but he has no true presence here for anyone to react to, forcing him to arbitrarily take stuff personally at any opportunity.Far from it. The fact that you believe this is the case shows how far off your rocker you truly are... and you're getting further from established reality with each passing day.
If you can't be taken at your word, what business do you have challenging anything anyone says?