Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 62 members and 1500 guests online.
|
Ask the Flying Monkey! (November 02, 2009)Then there’s British soul singer Dusty Springfield, who was one of Britain’s most popular singers through the 1960s. Then in 1970 (!),she “admitted” to the press she was bisexual, which lead to a looooong period of career decline that lasted until her unexpected “come back” with the Pet Shop Boys in 1987. Oh, and don’t forget Liberace, the highest-paid entertainer in the world in the 1950s, who spent his life publicly denying his sexuality while battling a private sex addiction.
Liberace sued Confidential for libel over this story — and won. Q: I loved the romance between Michael and Ben in Queer As Folk and was wondering if you could recommend any other movies or books portraying or featuring sero-divergent relationships? -- Victor A: The Lord of the Rings. If you’ll recall in The Fellowship of the Ring, Frodo is stabbed atop of the hill of Weathertop by the Witch-King of Angmar. Part of the knife stays in him, slowly poisoning him. Sam, of course, is unaffected – which means the two hobbit lovers are sero-divergent, at least until Rivendell, where Elrond (mostly) heals him. Frodo and Sam weren’t lovers, you say? Um, have you watched those movies? And no, I’m not a geek, why do you ask?
Frodo and Sam try to make it work Or were you talking about specifically HIV sero-divergent relationships? Truthfully, nothing comes to mind, but I suspect my readers will know! Have a question about gay male entertainment? Send it to aftereltonflyingmonkey@yahoo.com! (Please include your city and state and/or country.) Submitted by on Mon, 2009-11-02 08:00. |
 Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
by 
Johnny Ray
In your list of '50s singers that were gay/bisexual, don't forget Johnny Ray, who had a massive hit in 1951 with "Cry" (11 weeks at #1); several other hits followed and he co-starred in 1954's There's No Business Like Show Business.
Ray had a long-term relationship with his manager, Bill Franklin, and was arrested twice for soliciting an undercover policeman for sex; the first occurred in 1951, just before "Cry" was released--he was quickly married off to Marilyn Morrison, the daughter of a Los Angeles nightclub owner, but they divorced in 1954. His second arrest occurred in 1959, by which time his popularity had waned. Ray drowned his sorrows in alcohol and died of liver failure in 1990.
Johnnie Ray was a great performer
I was lucky enough to see him live a few years before he passed. Teriffic guy
As for Liberace, do not forget how he won that libel suit again Confidential, plus anohter suit in England. Both related to technicalities, not Truth. (Insert plug for my book Open Secret: Gay Hollywood 1928-2000 which has the whole story.)
I am SHOCKED beyond measure to hear that Jim Parsons is straight! Especially after what he said a week or so ago about The Big Bang Theory being the "little black dress" of sitcoms.
Jim Parsons
I know this site isn't really into outing actors, but I would say Jim Parsons is a bit more than queer supportive, although the opinions of fans vary on this subject. From what I read and saw I’m pretty sure he brought his boyfriend to the Emmys as his date and he was snapped with him on other occasions. There’s a thread about this on imdb with pictures
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1433588/board/thread/149186961Thanks. So my gaydar doesn't
i will condemn Carrie Prejean all i want...
Um, I think I was pretty annoyed by Carrie Prejean only because her answer was pretty much stupid
first of all, what was that "in my country.." stuff? YOUR country? um, what? maybe she meant 'this country' and no, not everyone in the country believes what she believes.
and second of all, her argument is old and tired. I am damn sick of the whole "well, the bible says this..." crap.
I don't really care about her in general, but i care when anyone dare tries to tell me i am wrong because of "God's word."
I think the majority of lgbt people are sick of it. as for condemning her....how weird, seeing as SHE is condemning ALL OF US.
has carrie ever been judged or punished for loving a man? i can't recall a whole society damning straight people for loving the opposite sex. do correct me if i am wrong.
and didn't Obama just sign a bill/law (whatever the term) that basically is there to protect us from...oh, people who judge us and then act on such judgement aka bashing the crap out of us?
...and all this time, SHE has repeatedly said that SHE is being punished and we're not being tolerant of HER.
Thanks
(Now all this said, I do think Carrie's behavior post-beauty pageant has been insulting and insufferable — all that moralizing and playing the victim — and frankly, I think it's fine to criticize her for that.)
Check out my new fantasy website: TheTorchOnline.com. It's like AfterElton.com for fantasy geeks! And I Twitter
it's tricky though...
I do wish Perez Hilton hadn't called her a Bitch. that's how the controversy started.
if he had stayed silent and not called her out, maybe she wouldnt feel the need to attack back and everyone would've been a bit more happy. we all would've moved on and not cared so much
Her answer, as i said, was dumb. i was willing to let it go and move on. it was only til she did the victim thing where i was finally like "um...hell no"
btw, i wasn't ranting at you or your answer. that was my response to the question that was asked.
Yeah, she could legitimately claim...
Check out my new fantasy website: TheTorchOnline.com. It's like AfterElton.com for fantasy geeks! And I Twitter
Perez Hilton
Perez called her a rude
Perez called her a rude name. She stood up on a stage and told him along with millions of other Americans that she has no problem with the fact that we are not equal to her under the law. She might as well have told us that we are not fully human. Calling someone a rude name is obviously immature and inappropriate, but telling people that they don't deserve to be treated the same? That they don't deserve to have the same legal protections as everyone else? Why do we allow people like her to don the mantle of 'victim'? Why do we allow such casual bigotry to pass as 'her opinion'?
In your article you said:
That’s what true tolerance is, and frankly, like you, I was disappointed that more GLBT people couldn’t see that.
If only it were that simple. The fact of the matter is, as long as people see LGBT citizens as less than human they will vote to take our rights away. Never forget that there are people in this country that would be more than glad to reinstate the death penalty for all of us. It is because of 'opinions' like this that we effectively DO have to care what others think.
This is where the idea of 'tolerance' starts to break down. If we have to tolerate all ideas equally, it effectively means that we have to tolerate intolerance. But tolerance is only meaningful if it is reciprocal. And that is why I get tired of this game whereby those who criticize the bigotry of others are immediately accused of intolerance themselves. Tolerating intolerance defeats the whole point of the exercise. It is like pacifism--while the pacifists sit around and refuse to fight, the belligerent tyrants take over the world. In the same way, while we stand around and 'tolerate' this kind of bigotry, we allow it to flourish. There is nothing hypocritical about demanding the same respect that I would gladly afford to the other side if they would stop trying to take my rights away! We need to be intolerant of intolerance.
We are simply doing what other minority groups have already done--making it clear that bigotry is no longer acceptable in society. If she had stood up there and recommended separate drinking fountains for whites and 'colored people' we would have never heard from this woman again because that kind of bigotry is no longer acceptable in society. Society no longer tolerates that kind of intolerance and the world is a better place for it. And remember, people used to justify racial bigotry with the Bible too. For them, keeping black people as slaves and then later just keeping them 'separate' was a religious opinion. But people rightfully recognized that as long as that kind of opinion ruled the land, there would be no justice. Nowadays, how many people do you hear touting the Hamite theory of racial origins as a justification for anything? The same thing needs to happen to Sodom and Leviticus.
Of course she is entitled to her crummy views. That is the law of the land. But we are never going to make any progress in this country unless we are bold enough to challenge those views wherever we find them. Unfortunately, Perez Hilton was exactly the wrong person for this job--but at the end of the day this isn't about him. This is about challenging the anti-gay bigotry that is still far too common in this world wherever we find it. And THAT is why people got so worked up over this.
And because he called her a rude name
I'm defending Carrie Prejean! I can't believe it.
"Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I think I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman."
Obviously, I disagree with her. But as political opinions that I disagree with go, this is actually pretty respectful and tolerant. She's talking about her personal belief. She doesn't really talk about the politics of it -- she's talking about her personal family's values. Again, I obviously strenuously disagree, but what is your version of tolerance? She's not allowed to have this personal view? It's fine to disagree with her, and to respond to her. But, again, I say: she was unfairly forced to express an opinion. No one else on the stage was put in that position -- it's not like this was a political forum. She didn't join the pageant to debate politics, she wasn't prepared for it, and it wasn't fair to ask her to anyway.
Despite all this, she answered honestly and truthfully and, dare I say it, pretty respectfully. For that, she was responded to by Perez with nasty, mean-spirited, decidedly intolerant vitriol. At this point, I actually she her as the victim.
I agree that "bigotry" should be responded to forcefully and in no uncertain terms. But her "bigotry" is pretty darn low-level, if you ask me. I just don't see her as the poster girl for everything that's evil in right-wing America, at least not when she was still a contestant on that stage. What she did later, yeah. But then she'd been burned, and maybe that changed her. It would me.Check out my new fantasy website: TheTorchOnline.com. It's like AfterElton.com for fantasy geeks! And I Twitter
Sigh. I wrote a really
Sigh. I wrote a really long and thoughtful response to your post and I lost it. I mainly wanted to apologize to you--I read over my post and it sounded so much more hostile than I intended it. I think the whole thing came off sounding like an angry response to you when I mainly just wanted to respond to one thing you said. In your article you said that you didn't care what people's personal religious beliefs were and I simply wanted to point out that sometimes we have to care because those private beliefs are often consulted when making public decisions (such as voting on the issue of gay marriage). This is also why I brought up the point of not tolerating intolerance. My point was simply that if we don't challenge private beliefs we won't make any progress. I actually think that we are in agreement about the importance of pointing out and fighting against bigotry. I wasn't trying to advocate anything more radical than the idea that we should challenge bigotry wherever we find it and make an effort to change ours into a society that doesn't tolerate the kind of casual bigotry that is uttered so carelessly by so many people. I want hateful speech about gays to be treated the same way racist and misogynistic speech is. That is all I meant.
I had other points too... I think we may have interpreted what Prejean originally said differently. Based on the "in my country, in my family, I think I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman" I thought she was saying that the law of the land ("in my country") should be marriage=one man and one woman. However, I can see that it is also possible to interpret her as saying that this is what she personally believes for her family. It is hard to know what she meant. So I think some of our 'disagreements' may have come from reading her differently.
As far as my comment about her being a victim. What I was trying to say was that although Perez used more hurtful language, his comments were ultimately empty and childish, whereas her comments had a very hateful message at their core. However, I did not give enough consideration to the fact that Perez meant to be mean and hurtful whereas her comments were not meant to hurt anyone. In this sense you were correct to call her a victim. I was thinking too much about the content and missed an important point about intent.
There is only one final point I will make. The fact that Prejean's words were politely and respectfully spoken should not put us at ease. In fact, I think it is that kind of bigotry, so innocently and politely articuated, that we should really be afraid of. It is easy to identify bigotry when it comes out of the mouth of somone unpleasant like Bill Donohue (Catholic League). But when it comes out of the mouth of someone like Prejean, it seems so much less threatening. The same message can be viewed very differently depending on the messenger. Again, I am sure that she intended to be polite with her remarks but we should be careful about letting our guard down around people who seem to be well-intentioned. Ironically, the ranting, frothing bigots who concoct insane conspiracy theories about us ("they're after our children!") may actually help us more than they hurt us. Prejean pulls anti-gay bigotry into the mainstream.
So that is it. I'm going to post this before I lose it again. I never thought I would enjoy discussing the whole miss California thing but here I am enjoying it. This is why I love this site so much. And again, I hope I didn't offend you with my original post. I really did not mean to sound so hostile.
No, I understand
Check out my new fantasy website: TheTorchOnline.com. It's like AfterElton.com for fantasy geeks! And I Twitter
It's her post-pageant shenanigans that are the point
Had she said nothing more after the Perez Hilton query that would have been it. But Maggie Gallagher took over, and Carrie"Went Rogue." She refused to do any number of things required in her pageant contract and started appearing at sundry Fundie/Phobe events.
And then acted the "victim" when criticized for doing so.
I can see her starring in The Anita Bryant Story -- a new musical at the Andy Williams Theater in Bramson.
Yes...and no
Check out my new fantasy website: TheTorchOnline.com. It's like AfterElton.com for fantasy geeks! And I Twitter
Amen, Preach it sista!
Carrie Prejean should most definitely be criticized for her post-pageant behavior. Her pretending to be a marytr....oh ppppooooor Carrie! She could only have played the martyr card if someone had dumped a bucket of pigs blood on her while on stage....unfortunately that never happened.
The worse part, she feels like HER first amendment rights are being infringed. What she does not realize is that the 1st amendment is in place to protect US from her God. She can pray to her Sky friend all she wants, as long as she doesn't harm anyone else. And that is exactly what her and NOM are doing.
What she said at the pageant we could have let slide, I mean how many stupid, bigoted arguments haven't we heard already, but she decided to stretch her 15 minutes in the spotlight by joining an anti-gay cause. That is where most of the animosity lies, not what she said at the pageant, but what she did afterwards.
Quote:The worse part, she
EXACTLY!!! This is what drives me crazy about this whole stupid affair. Immediately after people started criticizing Prejean for her remarks, she and her supporters accused her critics of trying to 'silence' her and 'take away her 1st amendment rights'. I'm sorry, the 1st amendment does not exist to protect you from criticism. It simply guarantees that the government cannot pass any laws restricting your right to speak freely. That's it. You are free to say whatever you want. But all speech has consequences, both good and bad. And the 1st amendment has no bearing whatsoever on those consequences. Because if you have the right to say whatever you please, then surely everyone else has the right to speak out against your speech. Critics have freeom of speech too! Bottom line: the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of speech not freedom from the CONSEQUENCES of speech.
I am sick of hearing people say that they don't like what Prejean said but they "will defend to the death her right to say it." NOBODY IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY HER FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Name one law that has been passed to prevent this woman from speaking. Name one group that has bound and gagged her and thrown her into a basement where she will never be heard from again. I was in a bookstore just a couple of hours ago and saw what I assume is her memoir on the shelf. Yeah, the scary gays TOTALLY stole her freedom of speech. What utter crap.
oh man, her freedom of speech.....
oh man, her freedom of speech thing....i remember kind of hating even having such a freedom....and it wasn't even that, it was that "she has a right to have her opinions..."
i don't remember anyone saying she couldn't have an opinion. nobody seemed to understand why some were so annoyed with her. they all just jumped to this dumbass conclusion that "oh the gays are mad because she doesnt support same sex marriage.."
it may of started that way, at least with perez hilton, but as she kept opening her mouth, she said more dumb and insulting things (that the press ignored) that to me, it became wayyyy more than just not liking the idea of same sex marriage.
The other thing i loved was the hypocrisy of it all. people get so angry and riled up when someone simply says "I dont like obama. i dont like his policies. he's a socialist, yadda yadda.."
one thing i never hear? "they have the right to say that. it's their opinion. freedom of speech."
what i do hear is "Omg, this is gonna turn dangerous! these people are nutjobs! the president shouldn't have to deal with this! this is racist!"
so in this day and age, you can't be a racist. can't even disagree with the president. you insult him, and you're a racist. people don't want to be associated with you
in this day and age, you can say 'faggot' and maybe oh, sit out for a game or two...or say that gay people are unnatural....or basically, anything else that could possibly insult us...and when WE get mad....suddenly, we're seen as cry babies. we're attacking freedoms. attacking rights.
i sometimes feel like our society is slowly going backwards in time. sheesh
Frodo and Sam
This is going to sound very bitchy, so I'm sorry, I don't mean it to be.
I'll respect your right to interpret Frodo and Sam how you will, but I'm going to make the case that they aren't lovers, just best friends. They come from a world (and were written in a time period that influenced that world) where close male friendships were not scrutinized the way they are today. Surely it would have been unlikely that Frodo and Sam would come out in such a world, but I still think they were just friends, because in Middle Earth you can be close friends like that and not have people wonder if you are gay. Just look at Aragorn! Clearly not gay, but certainly had close ties with his comrades, most notably Legolas.
It really irks me when people make these speculation on characters. If a character is ambigous, fine, that's one thing, but if a character is portrayed as heterosexual, then I'll believe that until the creator says otherwise. I think the idea of coded characters is rooted in the same emphasis on stereotypes that gaydar is.
Now, to be fair these heterosexually portrayed characters like Sam and Aragorn could be bisexual, as that aspect is not addressed.
And I wouldn't care if Frodo or Sam were actually gay, but I don't think it's fair to make that assumption based on their closeness. Sam is seen in a heterosexual relationship, so I'm at least going to say he's not gay (maybe bisexual). Frodo isn't seen in a relationship, so yeah, maybe he's gay, though personally I don't think so but I'll be fair and say no one knows. But I think it's certainly a presumptuous stretch to call them lovers.
I remember when I saw "Return of the King" in theatres, during the last scene when Frodo is leaving Middle Earth he kisses Sam goodbye on the forehead. I'm sitting there bawling at this heartbreaking moment, and the boys behind me are laughing at this "gay" moment. I almost tore their heads off.
You too can be saved by the blog! www.savedbytheblog14.blogspot.com
I may be straight, but I'm not narrow.
I've always seen frodo and sam being gay as a joke....
I've always seen frodo and sam being gay as a joke. I don't think anyone really thinks they are gay, but because of how close they are, people joke about it....make sense?
it's not in a mean spirited way...at least, i haven't seen it in such a way.
haha yea....
I don't think anyone is actually serious about Frodo and Sam as a legitimate couple. If anything that only exists in Slash FanFics. Ha not really a big deal.
Although we don't know much about Hobbit sexuality now do we......maybe they are hobbosexuals....
but slash is fun
Now I don't know how to quite word this next part: I sort of disagree with your statement: "I think the idea of coded characters is rooted in the same emphasis on stereotypes that gaydar is." Your statement is true enough (thus I don't disagree with it), but it overlooks some history. Gay through subtext, or coding characters, has its roots in sneaking around censorship. Writers couldn't write gay characters, so they used markers (stereotypes) to code a character as gay, or a couple as a couple, so that audiences could see it if they wanted to (and then some audience members ran with it and slash was born).
I guess it's just because I'm a fan of slash, but I just don't see anything wrong with filling in the subtext with some slashiness. Maybe it's not cannon, but good slash is never that far out of character.
Slash
Just the way he phrased it seemed like he saw it as legitimate. Maybe I read that wrong, but I thought I would at least clarify for people who didn't see it as slash.
As for your point about coding, I do agree, and I considered including that in my point but felt it was going to complicate my post too much. But yeah, I totally get why coded characters are used, and I'm not trying to deny that they exist. I just think it's hard to draw the line between a character being coded, and an audience wanting them to be coded. I respect that some people (maybe?) will legitimately see Frodo and Sam as coded characters, but I don't see them that way and wanted to make that argument.
As for slash, my thoughts on that are mixed. I don't have anything against it, I just can't connect with it. Like I hate Harry Potter slashers. No matter how fun slash is, Harry and Draco are not a couple!! But I have had fun with slash with Dante's Cove characters, mostly because I don't take that show seriously.
Anyway, I hope no one saw my post as angry, or taking things to seriously, I realize it came off that way, but I'm not mad, just providing my thoughts.
You too can be saved by the blog! www.savedbytheblog14.blogspot.com
I may be straight, but I'm not narrow.
Part of what makes coding thrive is a lack of uncoded characters
To paraphrase the Incredibles, when every character is straight no one is.
Some slash is fanwank, some is creator-driven in genres still resistant to non-codind, and some is even a cynical attempt to have their cake and eat it too *koff*ryanevans*koff* Not to mention the ocassional accident:
http://www.timemachinego.com/linkmachinego/images/batmantouchofdoom.jpg
That said, I can't see Frodo and Sam as mutual. Unrequited from Frodo's end, perhaps (honestly, I see a bit of it in Elijah Wood's performance towards the end), but it's depressing to ponder.
Harry and Draco is total pretty-boy fantasy drivel... and I simply don't think Harry would go after Draco if he were gay. He went after girls who actually earned their spots on Quidditch teams. That said, I think it's likely Colin Creevey had a crush on Harry.. and from time to time I do mull over writing that very special Christmas dinner where grown-up Albus Severus and Scorpius have their families over together for the first time.
*big sad puppy eyes* You
*big sad puppy eyes* You hate me?
(Don't ship Harry/Draco, though - Sirius/Remus.)
Oh dear..
I don't hate YOU, not as a person, but I hate what you do to the characters I love.
You too can be saved by the blog! www.savedbytheblog14.blogspot.com
I may be straight, but I'm not narrow.
It really irks me when
It really irks me when people say you can't have your own interpretation of novels, movies or whatever piece of art is put out in the world. If everything I feel and think about something has to measure up against the creator's intentions I'd never read a book again.
I have always read the books whilst bringing my own baggage and interpretation. And in that particular interpretation the relationship between Frodo and Sam goes beyond a close male friendship. I have very simple reasons for interpreting it like that, I have always read the books as an analogy for World War I and since Tolkien himself fought in the first worldwar it's wasn't a stretch to imagine him witnessing all sorts of bonds between men. The male friendships in The Lord of the Rings are all different and all have their own complexities. I'd like to think I would be allowed to interpret them as I like.
Also: Frodo kissing Sam on his forehead is heartbreaking, whether you view their relationship as a friendship or as something more. That it makes some men uncomfortable is their own loss.
subtext verse canon
Read my post again. I never
Read my post again. I never said you weren't free to interpret books, etc how you want. I said I RESPECT that.
But Dean's words for me below were true, I was making the argument that your interpretation, should not be taken as truth, how ever much you firmly believe it. And I was simply providing the counter argument that Frodo and Sam are just close friends.
And as much as you are free to interpret things as you wish, the author did have an intention in mind, and it isn't fair to state the truth of an interpretation if it counters what the author actually wrote...Tolkien clearly intended Sam to be straight (or at least attracted to women), and I think (though you may disagree) that any interpretation beyond that is simply speculation and fantasy.
You too can be saved by the blog! www.savedbytheblog14.blogspot.com
I may be straight, but I'm not narrow.
I read your post a couple of
I read your post a couple of times. I just dissagree with the importance you place on the author's interpretation. While technically and for the purpose of literary discussion the author's intent is important (meaning that I would not present my interpretation as truth while discussing this book and it's handy to have common ground) when I'm on my couch reading I can think whatever I want about the characters and story.
I personally felt you were pressing your point a bit too strong and though stating you respect the interpretations of others made it clear that you think those interpretations are really based on nothing. So my buttons were definitely pushed :)
I'm sorry
I didn't mean to push any buttons. And I do realize that I'm not being very nice, as like you said, it's clear that I don't agree with your interpretations, though I respect your right to have them.
But I can't give you more than that. I can't bring myself to agree with you, and I do believe your interpretations are merely your own fantasy. All I can give you is my respect for your right to free interpretation, and I hope you can at least respect my right to argue my own views.
I don't mind having my
I don't mind having my buttons pushed :) It's invigorating to feel passionately about something, isn't it?
My husband found it very amusing, he's specializing in Tolkien. He thinks you and I are both wrong by the way :)
What are his thoughts on it?
What are his thoughts on it?
You too can be saved by the blog! www.savedbytheblog14.blogspot.com
I may be straight, but I'm not narrow.
Frodo & Sam
I will defend my geekiness!
The secret LOTR diaries reveal all
There is no need to speculate on the sexuality of the various members of the Fellowship and other key players in the Lord of the Rings since the discovery of the secret diaries maintained by the various individuals. They were all gay or bisexual, everyone wanted to bag Frodo, but they were all afraid Sam would kill them if they made a move on Baggins.
The diaries also reveal why the Balrog was so angry with Gandalf (crazy ex), Aragorn is a pervy hobbit-fancier, Legolas is into cross-dressing, and there is a surprising relationship between Boromir and Pippin that is doomed by a jealous Merry.
The complete secret diaries and their astounding revelations are collected at www.ealasaid.com/misc/vsd/
Uh oh...
"I’d list all the outrageous things that Scientology has done over the years, but the “church” has a history of maliciously harassing journalists who write truthfully about them, and, frankly, I don’t need that kind of headache."
The Cult...uh...Scam...uh...let's say "Church" of Scientology is totally going to start a file on you. Just wait until they start calling people from your past attempting to dig up dirt on you. Then they'll call your man, boss, parents, etc smearing you into oblivion.
Oh shit! Now they're gonna come after me. Let me rephrase...
Yay Scientology! They wouldn't hurt a fly. They love the gays and the homophobes! Free cookies for everyone!
We cool now Zenu?
The Cult of Scientology
I've read up on some of the wierdness that goes on in Scientology, partly because they keep trying to recruit me. They apparently try to convert people who are depressed, claiming they can fix their lives and neuroses. The CoS canvassers who used to hang out by New Street Station in Birmingham, England always pegged me because I habitually wore a long black coat (I stopped wearing it because it made me look distressingly like a school shooter.)
What's interesting is the fact that they didn't advertise as Scientologists: perhaps because they were aware of the reputation they were getting, they instead said they represented "Dianetics" (the psuedo-scientific psychological therapy process invented by L Ron Hubbard that underpins the Churchs' teachings): You had to read the small print on their leaflets to learn they were produced by the Church of Scientology.
Anyway, there used to be a website called Operation Clambake http://www.xenu.net/ which was dedicated to cataloguing instances of Cult like activity within Scientology. It might be defunct now (I seem to recall something about their message boards being quite unpleasantly spammed with images of child porn and animal torture, probably by members of the church), but its' archives are still functional, if you want to read more.
Scientology Recruitment
That's really funny--I used to live just up from Hollywood Blvd., everytime I walked past their center there was this guy who would get in front of me and ask me in a monotone--"Would you like to take a free personality test?"
Finally I started answering in a hyper-chipper way "No need to test it thanks!" He stopped bugging me.
Sheldon is asexual.... :D
Or just still naive. I hope one day when he does find love, it will be with a man. It will MAJORLY complicate things, especially with his mom. You hear that Chuck Lore? I just gave you a juicy storyline! :D
He did get a phone number from an interested hot, young male scientist but alas, Sheldon got it for Penny (season 2 i think). Poor guy, he eyed Sheldon with hope... :D
This following fan art sums it up just right on what Sheldon feels about intimacy... http://irrel.deviantart.com/art/The-Big-Bang-Theory-Fuss-105623525 :D
Sheldon
Thanks for answering the question Brent.
I would love to see Sheldon completely and totally flustered and bamboozled by the illogicality of finally falling for someone. There are so many comic opportunities in the situation.
Self-righteous boob(s)
The Miss USA pageant was held on Sunday April 19, 2009 so she breaks the Sabbath by working in a commercial endeavor to get that prize money and show off her fake boobs all while invoking her god to condemn gay people, the same god that calls for death for Sabbath-breakers (Exodus 35) because breaking the Sabbath is breaking one of the ten commandments. What a hypocrite! I hope she has to give back her boobs - that would be poetic justice. Apparently by being in a pageant she was loaned the money for the breast implants and now they want the money back (a literal case of tit for tat). :P
Sero-divergent relationships
There's a French film called
Youtube
It was released by "Picture This!"
Jeffrey
And don't forget Jeffrey with Steven Weber and Michael T. Weiss (swoon) about a sero-divergent couple who are just taking the first tentative steps of a new relationship.
I know many on this site hated the screen adaptation but I had never seen the play when I saw the movie and thought it was charming.
I have to say it again: Michael T. Weiss (swoon).
I would also mention
Young love, first love
In addition to being a teen idol, Tab Hunter had a number one hit ("Young Love") in the 1950s. A couple of his other songs charted as well. As to the death of Stephen Gately, I agree that what he and his husband did in the bedroom should stay in the bedroom. However, if there is anything to be learned from Gately's death, we should not turn a blind eye to it. There have been too many such unnecessary deaths. I am not so much suspicious as sad.
"The mountain has wings."