Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 49 members and 1663 guests online.
|
Sci-Fi Characters Set Phasers to "Gay," Straight Male Heads Explode
I wasn't quite sure what to make of this recent post over on The Spearhead (an online magazine by and for straight men). At first, I was convinced it was parody, but people tell me the author, and the site, are dead serious in their argument that straight men are now the ultimate victims. The point of the post? The inclusion of women and gay characters in science fiction is destroying the genre, which is "a very male form of fiction."
The author (who goes by the handle Pro-Male) is just as angry about the inclusion of gay characters in sci-fi:
What a buffoon. For the record, Pro-Male, Russell T Davies revitalized Doctor Who and made it an international sensation, and Torchwood was wildly popular with British and U.S. audiences — discounting cavemen still scribbling on walls. I know, I know: waaaaay too much has already been written about the dead-enders who can't quite accept that while women, racial minorities, and gays have always existed, they weren’t allowed to fully participate in society until very, very recently. White men controlled everything — not because they were doing it better: it’s because they wrote the rules and refused to play fair! Affirmative action, indeed.
Still, I find it fascinating that we have — what? Three? Maybe four gay characters in TV science fiction (compared to about 50,000 straight male ones), and you already have a straight guy complaining that it's "destroying" the genre. I get it: some old white men can't quite accept that the world is changing — that it's now at least possible to see some point-of-view other than that of a straight white male. (I'll even allow that, yeah, there's been some joking and stereotyping at the expense of straight white men — though not nearly the amount that is still directed at women and gays.) But the thing is, full participation by minorities isn’t just good for minorities; isn't it good for everyone? At the very, very least, doesn't it make for better, more interesting, more realistic, much more sophisticated science fiction? Honestly, anyone who thinks that the horrible, hackneyed, simple-minded Star Wars knock-off that was the original Battlestar Galactica is better than the rich, complicated, sublime remake … well, that person is either (a) completely blinded by irrational prejudice, or (b) experiencing a different reality than the one I’m living in! I hasten to add: I hate to pit “white men” against “everyone else,” even rhetorically, because I absolutely believe that most straight white men can see that all these social advances are far and away a good thing. It’s only idiots like Glenn Beck and this writer who are intellectually unequipped to see that. And they sense that their old, tired way of looking at the world is quickly ebbing away, which is why they’re so angry.
Submitted by on Tue, 2009-11-03 09:05. |
 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
Think he freaked from the Ohura/Kirk kiss?
Pro-male never brought up Babylon 5 in his "essay".
B5 featured a pretty diverse cast. While there was no gay representation, one of the main characters, Ivanova, developed a same-sex relationship for a while on the show.
Also, many of the female characters played major roles. The show was more male, but the minorities were treated (at least by the main cast) as equals.
And he totally left out Star Trek Voyager where Capt Janeway and Seven of Nine were totally bad ass.
I like it when my sci-fi shows reflect the world, warts and all. Obviously would like more LGBT representation in the shows (like Gaeta), but a mixed cast is a decent step. If it becomes easier for one minority to make a presence (in this case women), then the process of inclusion will be easier for other minorities.
Ivanova
Ivanova & Talia Winters
Ivanova, B5 General Queerness
There was also a scene in which Ivanonova woke up alone, and her look made it clear she was surprised Talia wasn't there. So it was made subtle, but was definitely there. In one scene, in which various characters admitted a well-kept secret to Delenn, Ivanova admitted "I loved Talia." There are certainly other ways to interpret that statement, but none that would qualify as a Big Secret she reveals as part of a formal religious ceremony of rebirth and renewal.
Also, JMS has stated before that at a very early stage of the project, Sinclair and Garibaldi were supposed to have been former lovers, but that it was dropped early on (probably even before the pilot was formally commissioned, but I'm not sure about that.) And of course, the original plan for Delenn was to have the character be male in season one, then become female in her cocoon between seasons one and two, which would have created some interesting permutations in her relationship with Sinclair (had he stuck around past season one.)
On the subject of Talia's abrupt departure, she was ALWAYS supposed to be a Psi-Corps plant. (In the pilot, the original first officer was the plant, that was passed on to Talia when the actress left the show.) From what I understand, the abruptness with which the trigger was pulled on that revelation had more to do with JMS finding her hard to work with than anything else.
Babylon 5 had undercover gay couple
One of my favorite episodes of B5 had Ranger Marcus and Dr. Franklin travel to Mars to meet with the resistance. I still remember the whoops of delight when the Captain said their cover story was that they were a newly married couple on their honeymoon - it was a funny moment, but only because the doctor didn't particularly like Marcus, not because of homophobia.
It was a small moment, but 10 years ago it was a radical and incredibly affirming notion that same-sex couples would be fully equal...at least 300 years in the future.
Pretty much the only mention
That really was a funny B5 episode
Tessa: "For some reason they've booked you into the honeymoon suite."
Babylon 5 tried to go there at a time when it was really, really hard to do so. Given that it wasn't the ratings powerhouse that Star Trek was it was amazing that they were daring enough to make any gay references at all. Certainly I don't ever recall any onscreen confirmation that there is same-sex marriage in the utopian Federation of Star Trek. It's not even clear whether or not there are even gay humans!
Oh, and Ivanova did eventually admit to Delenn that she had loved Talia.
Most of the series was
Have to watch that epsiode when I can.
B5 did push the limits as much as it could. Was ground breaking in using only CGI, filmed in wide screen, and had very big and complex story arcs.
Whatever happened to that gay Star Trek episode that was supposed to be made by fans? Hmm, wonder if the flying moneky can answer this.
Blerg
Sci-fi has always been a primarily progressive and ahead of its time genre, genius.
"I paint objects as I think them, not as I see them." - Pablo Picasso
Probably just has erectile dysfunction
Seriously, this is the kind of whining you generally expect from someone currently suffering from a masculinity identity crisis.
Now, in fairness I also looked askance at the decision to make Starbuck a woman in the new series of Battlestar Galatica, although my take on it was that the show's producers were trying to head off an otherwise inevitable tidal wave of slash fiction that an Apollo/Starbuck bromance would doubtless produce.
But has science fiction always been a male-only domain? I really don't think so. Going all the way back to Things to Come from the 30's there have been strong women in science fiction. Indeed, at the climax of Things to Come the daughter of the leader of the (future) Earth and her boyfriend insist on being the astronauts on humanity's first mission to the moon. For the 1930's the idea of a woman particpating in such an undertaking was truly revolutionary.
Certainly women television and movie science fiction were often screaming sex objects there purely to be rescued by heroic men up until the 60's. But things began to change significantly even then. Doctor Who initially included two female characters, the Doctor's grandaughter Susan and an English schoolteacher Barbara, who often challenged the early Doctor's more dubious decisions. Lost in Space introduced an entire family of space travelers, thus preventing the kind of male-only frat room atmosphere the author seems to imagine has always been a part of sci-fi.
Perhaps he is thinking of Star Trek for a male-centric sci-fi show? The tendency to focus on Kirk, Spock and Bones certainly made it a male-centric show I'll give it that. But I find it humorous that the author complains about Jack's purported tendency to have sex with aliens (something never actually seen onscreen on Torchwood I must point out) yet somehow fails to recall Kirk's penchant for romancing any attractive female, regardless of planetary origin.
But subsequent sci-fi included plenty of female characters. On television shows like Space 1999 and The Bionic Woman (a spinoff of The Six Million Dollar Man) had a heavy female presence. The 70's also brought us the Star Wars franchise, where Princess Leia stepped out of the damsel-in-distress role by snatching up a blaster and shooting.
With the changes in society in the 80's came changes to that sci-fi bellweather, Star Trek. Star Trek: The Next Generation introduced a more gender-balanced cast, with women holding roles like chief-of-security, ship's doctor and counsellor. This continued to be the tone until it culminated in the first female starship captain in Star Trek: Voyager.
The rise of true butt-kicking women goes all the way back to The Avengers, but it has become more prominent in sci-fi with things like the more recent Tomb Raider and Underworld movies. Plus, let us not forget The Matrix movies.
So part of the standing question here is whether this guy really knows any science fiction history. It is possible that he is basing his science fiction assertions on action/sci-fi hybrid movies, especially of the 80's, 90's and 00's where you often do have a single dominant straight male protagonist and few other characters amount to more than extras. Especially the women, who are usually there to be romanced. But this hasn't really been the dominant core of sci-fi in decades. Not since the 50's at least. The expanded role of women has been growing far longer than the ScyFy network has existed.
As to the rise of the gays, this compaint is pretty generic. You hear it across the board. Even as we've got statistical proof that gays are in fact under-represented on TV and in movies you still have the people who think that the mere presence of non-straights on TV at all is "too much". There's no appeasing these people, nor will there ever be. Homophobia compels them to be hostile to any gay presence onscreen at all.
In keeping with the obscure threat to their (probably insecure) manhood, they will complain that the men aren't "manly" enough. They will also cling to a fantasy past that didn't actually exist. If they re-watched a lot of those old shows, such as the original Battlestar Galactica they would find that those men were a lot more sensitive and perhaps not such more of the hard core butt-kickers they think they remember.
Maybe they need to just limit themselves to movies with Vin Diesel or Jason Statham in them?
Your last line is so funny.
It's John Wayne Syndrome
The tendency of some people to naively imagine that actors in action movies really are as badass as the characters that they portray. Although I often wonder if the way some men worship hyper-masculine figures represents underlying homosexual desires.
It was a pity about the Transporter though. If nothing else the mass-hysteria caused by outing him would have entertaining in the extreme.
Females in SciFi
Let's not forget Sarah Connor in the Terminator movies. The first one, not so much, but the sequel was all about Sarah kicking butt.
You're completely right about this guy. He's remembering a past that never existed. Much like those people who idolized the '50's as the best times ever for the American Family. Not so much in reality. I don't know anyone who lived the lives of Ozzie and Harriet. Not even O&H, as it turns out.
He's just a pathetic loser who wants to feel superior to anybody who is different than him.
Every sf character is "omnisexual"
WTF. Half of science fiction is humans having sex with non-human species. Captain Kirk's personal duty was to try to have sex with every alien in the galaxy, provided it somehow magically had breasts even when it shouldn't. The interspecies romances are always heterosexual, but they're so prevalent throughout science fiction and fantasy I don't see how you could possibly act surprised at the idea by this point.
Strange assumptions...
The author makes several strange assumptions:
a) That good science and good relationship drama are mutually exclusive. Out of all the sci-fi shows on television the re-imagined Galactica has one of the more harder approaches to science. While the original Galactica (which the author holds in such high regard) had some of the worst. Anyone remember the scene where the Galactica had just left one galaxy and was making its way to another? During that whole time they could see no stars as if the space between galaxies were some dark tunnel.
b) That the sole or main purpose of gay male relationships on television is to entertain female viewers. So the gay male relationships in Torchwood had nothing to do with the fact that the show was created by a gay man? Or don't gay men count as men?
c) Real science fiction = "(Straight) Male Ego-Pumping Fiction". If that's what it really is about then they should call it that instead. But it's not. It's called "science fiction", a term consisting of the words "science" and "fiction". I don't see the word "male" or even less the words "straight male" there.
d) He talks about feminization, yet all the shows he refers to were created by men (Russell T. Davies, Ron. D Moore and David Eick).
Another funny thing: He compares Torchwood with slash fiction yet defines this type of fiction as "fan fiction written primarily by women where characters in science fiction TV shows are gay and have homosexual relationships completely contrary to the established canon of the show". Both Janto and the relationships between the two captains are canon!
Cherry / Torchwood_Operative
Slash and Canon
Traditional definitions of slash actually would exclude fiction about canon couples. This traditional definition, though, has pretty much fallen by the wayside as a) more actual canon couple exist, and the distinction seems unimportant, and b) the internet has brought in a radically different collection of writers and readers with no roots in traditional organized SF fandom, who couldn't care less about traditional definitions as long as they get their hot, or sad, or whatever their preferred flavor is fiction about two guys.
So, not that anything else he says is right, but his definition isn't really that far off in a traditional sense, and if he compares Torchwood to slash without saying that it IS slash, I don't think it's intrinsically wrong to compare things that are non-identical.
I've certainly seen much more intelligent people than this prat compare Torchwood to slash who would acknowledge that it isn't actually slash.
I wouldn't give it that much importance
I wouldn't give it that much importance to what this guy thinks; it's not like people at SyFy will go "Oh no! Glen Beck doesn't like the new changes on our shows!, lets just kill all of our women and gays!"
These days a show without female representation would hardly get any viewers. And now that it is finally “cool” to “be cool with the gays”, I guess we can expect more gay characters to be created during the next few years than there have ever been. And he will just have to suck it up.
Change happens, but there will always be someone kicking and screaming about it. And he even complains about those "whiny men who were generally unable to find their way out of a wet paper bag", well, who is whining about nothing this time?
I was particularly annoyed
I was particularly annoyed by the notion that adding gay characters to sci-fi shows is gonna bring more drama and less "getting things done." Really? Another stereotype? Gay = whiny little bitch with a high-pitched voice and female clothes? Such narrow-mindedness never ceases to amaze me. Basically, if you're in a mainstream, if you're a part of majority ("supreme creature", white collar, "decider", male, better yet white male, better yet white straight male), then you can get away with just about anything, because you are on the top of the world, because you (or people like you) make the rules to ensure their position on that top of the world [I mentioned that in my comment on gay marriage].
I understand that's the human nature: we all need to feel better about ourselves, putting people into different boxes and grading them from 1 to 10 in a way to find ourselves in a box with a greater number to see that there are so many people behind us, less worthy of our attention and... well... of anything. It's true. It's pointless to argue about it. We all think that way, we all operate that way consciously or subconsciously. But does it mean that we have a right to treat people the way we think about them? After all, it's only our opinion and not the absolute truth (only foolish people deny the very possibility of being wrong from time to time, even about fundamental things). Bottom line: anyone has a right to think anything about anyone else based on their own belief system, but no one has a right to judge anyone else solely based on this system, for it could be faulty.
Well it's an interesting point...
Because a lot of sci-fi writers have claimed that they don't use gay characters because they can't think of any "gay storylines" for them, as if a gay character requires a special and different storyline than straight characters.
I mean let's be frank here, if Ianto on Torchwood had been a woman then Jack's relationship with her wouldn't have raised any eyebrows other than as to the question of why her rather than Gwen. The actual presence of a romantic relationship in sci-fi is not at all unusual and has been present in the genre for as long as it has been around.
The interesting issue I think is that the author would probably be more affronted by a masculine gay action hero than by an effeiminate stereotype. A lot of the mindset in the blog seems to center around a pitiful need for heterosexual male validation that he perceives is missing in a modern sci-fi universe wherein women know how to fight and shoot guns as opposed to just standing around screaming and waiting to be rescued by some studly straight male hero.
This is all just part of a larger trend of straight men whining about being forcibly emasculated by external forces like liberated women and gays. With society no longer enforcing their gender supremacy they're finding it hard to value themselves in a world where only a small minority of men ever actually fight in wars and where physical labor is of decreasing importance to the economy.
But a lot of this is their own fault. I can't tell you how annoyed I get when some overweight lump of a straight guy in a sports bar starts yelling about how some athlete missed a catch. Never mind that he himself would have had a heart attack running down the field! A former boss of mine who was into hunting had a catalog full of items intended to make this classically masculine task easier and more comfortable, from portable heat packs to wear in your clothes to comfortable seats you could hang in trees (complete with a cover to keep the rain off!) so that you could await your prey in comfort.
In this climate of (largely self-imposed) emasculation some of these guys, like this blogger it seems, are turning increasingly to worlds of fantasy to provide them with the sense of masculine identity that they haven't got for themselves. Andhe's angry because his fantasy land is being "contaminated" by the emasculating influences he's trying to escape from.
Gay characters & masculinity issues
Yeah. Why can't someone just be gay and be an ordinary person about everything else? I could never understand that. When we ask for LGBT representation on TV, we don't mean "show them as you think gays are: flamboyant, gleeful, overly dramatic & theatric, effeminate, and so on". Just show them as REAL people: lawyers, computer geeks, whatever... whatever's necessary for the plot. "Gay" is not a definition of the entire lifestyle (at least in terms of sexuality alone), and I'm sure there are lots of homosexual people who just won't adopt for themselves the aforementioned lifestyle full of glitter & fabulous parties. This lifestyle is actually a part of what makes our life look so meaningless in outsiders' eyes. Don't get me wrong: there's nothing wrong about partying and whatnot. But there's more to it! There's more going on in our lives (if we're lucky enough to be out & proud)! And I'm getting back to my point: there has to be an equality between straight and gay characters (not in numbers, of course), equality that we don't have, because somebody said straight people are better than gay ones. And that's what we have to fight for: simple equality. Won't go there any further.
Good points! Exactly what I meant: they lose power, so they want to restore it. But why fight for power? Why not just be happy? Some people just can't live without power. They need to be in control, they need to make rules for others — that's the source of their happiness. And that's sad. It all goes back to our animal instincts when we sought leadership and someone just had to step up. But in our society it becomes less relevant. We don't need so many leaders, we need to be equal instead. But some people just won't let it go. And since males were most likely to be those leaders, especially straight masculine males, they are the ones who want power and feel threatened by women and gays.
Getting things done
Yeah, it's tough getting anything done when you're gay, because obviously you can't possibly do anything physical or practical. I'm a forester and the amount of time I waste sitting around waiting for a straight guy to walk by and chop a tree down for me is beyond belief!
Forester
Oh Logan
Bwa ha ha
If a tree fell in a forest....
Did the straight man cut it down?
Logan! Log-an! Great handle!
Aime-mois moins, mais aime-moi longtemps
Gay muscles just for kicks
Thinking about that comment
Thinking about that comment will keep me laughing for a long, long time
Ah, to envision a meeting between Logan and "pro-male"....
Meeting 'pro-male'
Well, now you mention it, there's been a guy wearing spock ears and and angry expression hanging around outside my house recently. Should I be worried?
BTW, this has got to be the best recieved comment I've ever made. Finally my karma rating has recovered from that Torchwood discussion!
It's a classic
But has Spock seen your axe?
But has Spock seen your axe?
My axe?
Oh dear,
he's clinging so desperately to his privilege that his fingers might fall off.
"Go, or go ahead and surprise me." -- Rufus Wainwright
Quote:As we know, science
This made me laugh so hard. . . This author has a very low opinion of straight men's natural motivation to excell in their field of choice! Without enough manly tv shows, they'll probably all give up and be nurses. (Oh well. If there were more men nurses, maybe nurses would get decent wages/benefits/respect/etc.)
Actually, it's the macho mentality....
Actually, it's the macho mentality that has been fuelling a drop in male participation in fields such as the sciences. Or has the author failed to notice how often words like "nerd" and "geek" get thrown around in schools by young boys?
The modern definition of "masculinity" is actually substantially different than it was at the dawn of this country. Things like reading for it's own sake, culture and intellectualism are derided as "soft" by "real" men who love to watch (if not actually participate in) physical activities.
Bizarrely, the UK Dail Mail, usually a bastion of right-wing thinking, nonetheless had an article recently wherein the (female) author was explicitly complaining about out-of-shape straight men idolizing fast cars, becoming as she put it snails in their metal shells. She also commented that only gay men seem to think they need to stay in shape to win a mate.
Being inspired by science fiction is wonderful. But becoming a scientist or engineer requires years of intense study and commitment to education. But in an increasingly masculinity-obsessed culture men are a declining percentage of college admissions not because women all want to become Captain Janeway, but because men increasingly think that scholarly pursuits are "girly".
This is nobody's fault but their own. I think that recent science fiction continues to promote the idea of hyper-capable men, even if some of these men like Ianto Jones are not entirely heterosexual. The issue is that these slugs don't want to actually put in the work to become such men. It's not a lack of inspiration so much as a lack of will.
Hunky forester? No way!
... and that's the only reason to stay in shape, as for cutting trees we have straight lumps to save the day :)
yes, you're very correct
Anything intellectual is sadly considered unmanly these days, and since women have been let out of the kitchen, they're naturally going to try carreers various fields including hard sciences.
What's funny is the fact that that articles on that website have comments about "alpha males" which, as far as I can tell, are men who go around trying to one-up other males. To me, a true "alpha" man is somebody like Martin Luther King. He knew his own worth, but he didn't need to grandstand to prove it. He had humility, and he approached people with kindness, not bravado. The definition of masculinity promoted by the hyper macho cultures is so lacking.
Star Trek: The Next Generation
Weren't there a couple of episodes of STNG, where an old flame (a Trill in a male body) of Beverly Crusher's shows up in a female body and tries to reignite their affair? Or Will Ryker's affair with a sexually ambiguous alien?
As for the "whining" claim by this loser....he seems to know what he speaks of since he whines consistently through the excerpt. And the bit about "a lot of relationship drama" just proves to me that he obviously has difficulties in that area as well, since all drama is about relationships. I'm also curious as to what he means when he says that "men actually get things done ". Doesn't his mom get things done? Like wash his diapers and feed him?
Both ST episodes were cop-outs
I mean come on. In the one episode, which was supposed to be TNG's outreach to the gay viewers and an appeal for tolerance an androgynous alien, played by a female actress, violates her society's gender-neutral social norms and has a relationship with Ryker, identifying as a female. As a gay metaphor it was a complete flop. The alien was distinctly feminine-looking and so it really came across as promoting the virtues of a society with gender roles (human) against one that rigidly unisex (the aliens).
The DS9 episode with Dax's ex-wife was just as much of a cop out. They beat the audience over the head to make it very clear that Dax and the other trill had been husband and wife in prior hosts and no suggestion was made that Jadzia would have given the other woman a second glance were it not for Dax's marriage to the host of other woman's symbiont.
There was also a very lame attempt at addressing AIDS on Enterprise where T'pol contracted a telepathically-transmitted virus from another Vulcan. The gay metaphor came in the fact that Vulcans of the time were culturally hostile to mind melding and pointed to the disease as proof of why it was wrong that some Vulcans practiced mind melds. T'pol had a lame speech about how some people share thoughts differently. But again it was a flop.
I guess the blogger must not like Star Trek because of all the prominent women in the later series, because there sure isn't much gayness going on there. However, the recent movie was sufficiently testosterone fuelled (and the new Kirk hetero to the point of being comical) that the author should find some release there.
Pro Male should do us all a favor:
What Pro-Male doesn't seem
What Pro-Male doesn't seem to realize is that women are poised to become the dominant consumers, not just in this country but around the world (in many places they are the primary consumers). As female wages continue to go up, we will only gain even more economic power. Advertisers ignore this trend to their peril. Pretty soon the 18-35 (or whatever ages it is) FEMALE demographic will become the Holy Grail of advertising.
If Sci-fi, video games, comic books and all the other "male" industries want to remain relevant, they need to attract female eyeballs. Just look at the success of Nintendo, a company that markets video games to all demographics. And look at how Japanese manga, which even has a separate genre of comics for girls, is trouncing American comic books (when was the last time Superman beat Naruto in the New York Times bestsellers list?). This is the future. And Pro-Male better get used to it and start appeasing his female overlords. XD
He's a virgin....
I don't think it will come as much of a shock to anyone that Pro-Male is a 30 year-old virgin.
From his blog:
http://antifeministtech.blogspot.com/2009/10/experiment-sooner-or-later-tortured.htmlWow...he actually sounds
Oh.My.GOD...
This is HILLARIOUS!!!
"Remember that what I'm actually testing is whether I'm attractive to women. In that case, yes I'm kind of assuming I will be successful since that's the basis of this test. Anything beyond that is secondary."
So, going waaaaaaay out on a limb here, our author may just possibly harbor some animosity towards women (and presumably gay men) due to the fact that they have not pro-actively demonstrated sexual interest in him thus requiring him to initiate these sorts of "experiments".
Yes, one of the things straight men hate the most about "feminism" is that it resulted in women having just too much power in determining when and with whom to have sex...
HAH! XD
This guy's blog is insane and hilarious!!! XD
"How technology will lead to men being liberated from feminism and related issues"
WHAT?! Are they building some kind of robot army to destroy feminists? And what are related issues?
Over on the side: "gay men:accomplices to feminism" and "how to propose like an alpha male". The person who wrote the 'acomplices to feminism' article also has some other great ones like "are women naturally amoral" and "why women should not be policemen or vote for the politicians who control police and soldiers".
If you ever need to feel better about yourself and your intelligence, head on over to this site. I swear, some people are just sad. At least we can laugh at them. XD
Libertarian Lesbian
UGH
Just goes to show that no group of people has a monopoly on stupid.
(I have to confess, as a lesbian this revelation makes my stomach burn just a little.)
And really...you are a woman and you are attracted to women...and you hate women? What a sad little existence.
Nice quote from Haldane, btw.
and a virgin he will remain
and a virgin he will remain
Oh puh-leeze
Virgin is so judgemental
I prefer the classic Simpson's Comic book guy description, "My masculinity is mint in package."
Sadly we are all mocking someone who may well be socially retarded or have a personality disorder from what you have described of his writing. It's hard to kick a loser even if he's spewing hateful nonsense.
Nous Sommes Tous Sauvages.
Generalization Much?
While I agree completely with most of this article, this just made me laugh:
"Honestly, anyone who thinks that the horrible, hackneyed, simple-minded Star Wars knock-off that was the original Battlestar Galactica is better than the rich, complicated, sublime remake … well, that person is either (a) completely blinded by irrational prejudice, or (b) experiencing a different reality than the one I’m living in!"
Um, dude, I'm a bisexual female and I hated the new BG and loved the old one. I guess that makes me blinded by irrational prejudice. Hehehe. I guess I can accept that. I'm prejudiced in that the new one sucked ass...and not in a good way. :D