 by snicks
Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Navigation |
UK personality Steve Jones has "Brokeback" dreams
UK "television presenter" Steve Jones appears in the September issue of Attitude, and the notorious womanizer opens up about a number of things, including his jealousy of gay sex lives: “I’ll be sitting in BKB on (London’s) Old Compton Street opposite G-A-Y and see those guys coming out with a different man every night, and I’m just like ‘You lucky b******s,’ I would give anything to have that kind of lifestyle – but the girls just won’t have it.” The Welsh himbo, who's "romanced" Pamela Anderson, among other female celebrities, also talks about plans to further his acting career, and the lengths he would go to prove how serious he is, like appearing in a gay romance, ala Brokeback Mountain. “I would have done them (gay sex scenes). I would have acted them out." “Jake and Heath did it and look at those results – yummy!” Steve Jones is Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter in "Dowsing my Wand"
He has a headstart in preparing for his gay role, as he snogged one of his male friends during a drunken game of "spin the bottle". Unfortunately, he says it was like "kissing a corpse", and wants his female fans to know, "“I wish I had it in me to give it a go, but I’m just a girl man through and through." After the break, you can see Steve in the trailer for the upcoming Angus, Thongs, and the Perfect Snogging. You can't miss him, he's wearing a tool belt ... and little else. Submitted by on Mon, 2008-08-11 12:02. |
User login Recent comments
Recent blog posts
New forum topics |
UK Nick and what to make of Jones
OT, but that trailer looks adorable and exemplifies one of my favorite things about UK TV: the "plain" girl is actually plain but she still gets to be the hero of her own story! I was watching an early ep of Angel the other night, and they kept refering to a character as plain, and she was freakin' gorgeous. As a plain girl, it was really annoying.
To the matter at hand, I'm not entirely sure what to make of Jones's comments, but it is quite amusing to think that he's basically saying, "Ladies, look how gay I can be! Doesn't it make you want me more?" XD
People on UK TV look human
One of the things that has long impressed me about British TV is that they really do use a lot of normal looking actors and actresses, as opposed to here in the U.S. where there seems to be a minimum acceptable standard of beauty to even get on TV as anything other than a joke character.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a great example. The "nerdy" Willow was played by Alyson Hannigan, who is a very beautiful woman. I wonder how many nerdy high school girls fantasized about looking that great?
As for Jones, these kinds of articles annoy the living Hell out of me! I absolutely hate when they trot out these straight actors who make lame attempts tocome across as gay-friendly and talk about being willing to play gay roles. Then, of course, they feel the need emphasize about how they've kissed a man in the past and it was like kissing a dog, or a corpse or something else repulsive. Just to reassure anyone reading that they haven't got the slightest bit of bi tendencies.
Or, as in Jones' case, they just come right out and state how they're purely a ladies' man so that there's no ambiguity about the matter. Loser.
BTW Jones: Heath and Jake got kudos for Brokeback because of their awesome performances, not just because they were able to kiss without vomiting! Acting talent is still important, even if you're willing to play gay.
Actually...
Had you seen Jones on English Television (as a Presenter) you would know he actually is quite gay friendly, from flirting with most men on the show, to the most perfect interview of Scissor Sisters (really big here) and no fear of dressing in drag, I don't think this is a "lame attempt" I just think it's difficult to send LBGT friendly messages across to the states from the UK.
That said, he is fit. :)
Is it really necessary...
to refer to Jones as a loser? I'm fairly certain that as a gay man yourself, you don't appreciate it when someone...anyone, would call you a fag or homo etc or even other name calling such as a**hole or loser etc. Whether you know someone personally or not it's just not right. As a (worldwide) LBGT community, we are continually/constantly striving and preaching to educate the "haters" to understand, tolerate, and accept us as equals and not inferiors right? The pot calling the kettle black perhaps? I find that you are very critical in many of your posts, almost like an in-your-face attitude. Why the bitterness? What has Jones ever done to you personally? Perhaps you have issues of your own and that's why you feel the need to unnecessarily lash out? Negative breeds negative. You are entitled to your opinion of course just like the rest of us, but all you have to do is just state that you don't agree with Jones' statements/actions. He stated that he in fact DID kiss another man, yet you seem to forget that the true homophobes wouldn't even ENTERTAIN the thought of kissing another man. You should also be aware that you are pulling a reversal, that is, you're coming across as "heterophobic." Sorry, but from this point on I will be skipping over your posts. My intention is not to offend you, I'm just making an observation and I hope that you take all this in as "food for thought." Like you, it's just my opinion and I'm just saying. :)
dgd417
Exploitation
I tend to take exception to overly-pretty straight men who take advantage of their looks to try and cultivate a gay audience purely as a means of career advancement. It was also disturbing the somewhat superfical statement that it was merely Heath's and Jake's willingness to lock lips, as opposed to the quality of their performances, that got them such mileage from Brokeback Mountain. The implication is that you could just swap in any two straight actors of any level of talent and the result would be the same purely based on raciness of the subject matter.
Personally I find the whole thing rather manipulative and not praiseworthy. Also, I freely admit that I am a harsh critic (of myself as well as others) and I don't believe in couching my opinions in PC terms just because we should try and gain greater validation of our "goodness" by being artificially nice.
Just my opinion.
Nice
Not when it's unwarranted
Synonyms
I didn't realize that "gushy" and "nice" were synonyms. I guess it's back to remedial English for me!
Any objective reading of his comments simply can't result in a conclusion that he's pandering to anyone, or that he's simply trying to advance his career. Any such thoughts represent a purely speculative attempt to read his mind. And, interestingly, it's a speculation that chooses the most negative interpretation possible.
The quote isn't at all flattering
“I’ll be sitting in BKB on (London’s) Old Compton Street opposite G-A-Y and see those guys coming out with a different man every night, and I’m just like ‘You lucky b******s,’ I would give anything to have that kind of lifestyle – but the girls just won’t have it.”
Setting aside the question of what, exactly, he's doing sitting in the same pub every night watching the gay bar across the street and taking note of who comes out every night and with whom they leave...
Two things are kind of going on here. One he's basically validating long-held claims touted by many people that the gay "lifestyle" is all about sex. Lots of sex. With different people every night.
This is before we get into comparisons between kissing a man and kissing a corpse, and the obligatory affirmation that he himself is 100% heterosexual, so don't get any ideas boys.
Honestly, I'm not feeling the gay friendliness here. I'm feeling the "it's hip to act like you're gay friendly" thing instead. Which is really something else entirely.
I don't believe that a real actor should be praised just because, in 2008, they say they'd be willing to play a gay role if it included actual gay stuff. That's just doing his job quite frankly. At this point the list of A-list actors that have played gay is sufficient that worries about it harming one's career are essentially groundless. Jake Gyllenhaal is not wanting for work because his character took it up the @$$ in Brokeback Mountain. So for someone on the D-list to say they'd do it just to make a good movie is a ho-hum kind of notion.
And I have to wonder if he'd be so vigorously adored if he were less attractive.
Personally, I'm not
Personally, I'm not attracted to him at all. I like thin guys, I don't like hairy chests, and his face does nothing for me. And I don't know where you're getting this "vigorously adored" vibe. I don't adore him in the slightest, and don't share any of his enthusiasm for the promiscuous life. ALL I'm saying is that he's gay friendly, and it's a hyper-sensitive overreaction to see all sorts of pandering and self-serving attitudes and phoniness in his comments. And I reiterate that.
It's valid to be put off by his own acceptance of promiscuous sex, or the fact that he's apparently sitting in the same bar night after night. But it's not valid to say he's "validating" the idea that the gay lifestyle is "all about sex". Read it again. He's simply not doing that. He's referring to the gay bar across the street, and the promiscuous guys he sees there. Are you denying that such a lifestyle exists in the gay world, and that you wouldn't observe that if you did observe the goings on at a typical gay bar? "Queer As Folk" was built entirely around the idea of this type of sex and lifestyle. I don't remotely live like that, but I loved the show because intriguing characters and riveting stories can be crafted about people who DO live that lifestyle. Neither "Queer As Folk" nor Steve Jones are saying that "gay people" live like that, only that SOME gay people live like that. The show found characters and stories within that limited but real world, and Steve Jones finds a lifestyle he'd like to share within that limited but real world. That doesn't lend legitimacy to reading into his psyche things that are in no way revealed in his comments.
And why not?
Why is a negative interpretation of him less valid than a positive one?
Certainly people are judged all the time on things they say or do, as well as things they seem to say or appear to do. That's just life. Like or leave it.
My interpretation here is negative. I don't see anything especially gay-friendly in this guy justifying putting him on the cover of Attitude beyond his looks. You see, I have a long-standing scorn of gay magazines putting pretty straight guys on their covers and then trying to come up with a rationale for it by touting how "gay-friendly" they are. Especially when the "gay-friendliness" seems marginal at best.
People here are touting that he voluntarily kissed Jake Shears as if that were some kind of great accomplishment. Fine, I've also kissed women. That make me more "straight-friendly" somehow? But wait, I'm still 100% gay and freely admit that kissing women does absolutely nothing for me. Just like Jones feels compelled to make it completely clear that he's not at all attracted to men. Thus kissing Shears is just a stunt and nothing more.
While I realize that performers play to their audiences that doesn't mean I think it should be inflated to become something other than what it is: a performance.
It was my impression that this was an open forum, not a fan club. Therefore I am discussing my opinion. I don't expect that everyone will agree with it or like it.
Again, I am in no way a
Again, I am in no way a fan.
Yes, people are judged constantly on what they do or say. That's a given, as is your right to hold whatever interpretation you desire. Of course, I then have the right to assert that your judgment was based on seeing things that aren't there. As I said before, there is simply nothing in his WORDS that imply pandering or stunts or a feeling that kissing Jake was an "accomplishment". Those are things you are reading into the situation that simply aren't in the words. Sure, you can extrapolate past experience with str8 people, but I can then point out that that's what your judgment is based on. But you're a very smart guy. Do you really feel comfortable making conclusions about a guy you've never previously been exposed to on the basis of extrapolation from others? Is it possible some biases are feeding into it? Such as your distaste for str8 guys on gay magazine covers. Perhaps your distaste for that trend is feeding your perception of the man?
Europe
I don't know who this Steve Jones dude is, but I like him already. It seems like everytime I cross paths with someone from the UK, or Germany, or Sweden, there's a warmth there that I miss here in the States. Of course I live in Los Angeles, which couldn't be more shallow and sadly vapid place to live as a gay man (and that's not EVERYBODY, but you get where I'm coming from, I hope...).
I'd surely vacation abroad to see what gay life abroad is like, but that whole Euro vs. the dollar thing is keeping that dream on hold for now.
In the meantime, I'm gonna look up some of Steve Jones work. Seems like good people.
Good intentions, annoying results
What bugs me so much about comments like Jones's is this assumption that all gay men are sex machines, out night after night at the bars, different man every night. I mean, I know he thinks he's trying to be "supportive" (while at the same time propping himself up as a stud-master) but how insuting! Just as he reduces Heath and Jake's powerful performances to simple (gutsy) willingess to snog another man on screen, he reduces gay men to walking libdios.
Yes, I know, some gay men are like he describes. But stereotyping is stereotyping. Ugh.
He said kissing his friend
He said kissing his friend was like kissing a corpse, but he also said that Heath and Jake snogging in BM was 'yummy'. Therefore he just needs to find a guy that is just as yummy as those two and show him how to properly kiss a man. I'm sure the friend he was on about was probably straight, which is why it was like kissing a corpse! I'll have to make my way to BKB in London one of the nights and seduce him ;).
I see what you mean Psionycx, but Steve Jones is one of the better straight gay-friendly famous people, I mean there are some who try their best to swallow their uncomfortableness about gayness to appear gay-friendly. At least we know Steve seems a very comfortable cheeky chappy.
He found that guy already...
Here's a clip of him snogging Jake Shears:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGe50mgf2zo
I don't expect him to lick
I don't expect him to lick his lips after kissing another man, but wiping his lips right afterwards doesn't give him brownie points either.
Technically he said
Technically he said: "...look at the results. Yummy!"
I'm sure Oscar nominations are "yummy" in the eyes of actors. Not seeing all that much "gay-friendly" here. Just seeing a straight guy trying to latch onto the gay thing to 1) add to his audience and 2) add to his "edginess". After all, playing gay is not really bad for one's career if done in the proper roles. Besides Heath and Jake such luminaries as Tom Hanks, Will Smith and Antonio Banderas have all done it. They're all also very publicly straight.
Jones seems to be going for the same effect here. He seems to really be beating the drum that he's straight, Straight STRAIGHT...but willing to play gay roles if it will boost his career profile.
"Kissing a corpse" - Seriously?
To me, the statement sounds kind of a lame and not even entirely believable unless the friend was truly in a comatose state. Just playing Encyclopedia Brown/Ally McBeal here. Hopefully the guy is more than the sum of that statement and his reminding all the chicks that he's all about them. The publicity machines, celebrities and reporters need new shtick when it comes to these types of interviews.
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
I went to Angus a few weeks
Wait...he's not gay?
Sadly there aren't enough gay people...
Oh my god, I say yet again
Whaa?!? Talk about putting words in his mouth.
Whaa? How can wiping his lips after a kiss automatically mean something negative?
Sheesh. Lately, I never fail to be flabergasted at some of the comments on this site.
Hyper-sensitivity
Jason - I'm with you all the way on this one. I read the article above, and saw a gay-friendly guy. Then I read it about six more times when people started being negative, and I still saw a gay-friendly guy. Then I read it about four more times, intentionally trying to step outside myself and LOOK for negativity. I still don't get it.
I think a lot of us have a tendency to parse every word, every gesture, every nuance, seeking with our microscopes for anything we can jump on in anything a str8 person might say. Then we CHOOSE to interpret everything in the most negative, most damning way possible. Is it any wonder that so many str8 people, including gay-friendly str8 people, see us as whiny, complaining drama queens?
So he thought kissing a guy was like kissing a corpse. That's a slur?!?!? If the guy wasn't giving him anything back that's exactly what it would be like. If he's totally at the far end of the Kinsey scale that's exactly what it would be like. I'd guess I'd find kissing a woman to be like kissing a corpse (unless it was Dana Scully come to life!!!), and I've never done it because I have literally no interest. That doesn't mean I'm prejudiced against str8 people. And so what if he says he'd like to have a different woman every night, like the lucky b*****ds he sees coming out of the gay bar? He's not saying that to focus on a stereotype, but because that's what he sees at the nearby gay bar, and he wants to be like that. There is a LOT of promiscuity in the gay world, and he's not saying that's what it means to be gay. He's just saying that as a "notorious womanizer" he'd like to do himself what he sees some gay people doing.
This is a guy who went out of his way to kiss a guy, who would happily do gay sex scenes in a movie, who found the sex scenes in BBM "yummy" (it wasn't the Oscars he found yummy - sheesh), and who obviously has no problem with gay people at all. And we want to go out of our way to criticize him? I don't get it....
This sort of thing always reminds me of my mother's reaction to temperature. She has a comfort level of about a half degree. Anything warmer and she's hot; anything cooler and she's cold. On the other hand, I have a wide comfort level. Guess who's the happier person, and more in tune with the environment?
Reverse Hyper-sensitivity
1. It seems to me that you're just as guilty of "looking for negativity" and "choosing to interpret everything in the most negative, most damning way possible." NO ONE said that he said anything to indicate that he has a problem w/ gays. Some of us just don't think he is deserving of the level of praise that he's being given, especially considering that many who post here have a tendency to overlook anything questionable a straight guy does as long as he is physically attractive.
2. I can't read Jones' mind. Neither can you. All we have to go by are his actions, including his words. And a person's choice of words give you an idea of that person's true feelings/attitudes.
As such, Jones states that our "lifestyle" is a promiscuous one. Is there promiscuity in the "gay world"? Sure, but it's also present in the straight world. And, most importantly, the straight "lifestyle" is NOT defined by promiscuity, whereas homosexuality is. Therein lies the rub - he's perpetuating a negative stereotype of us.
Next there's the "kissing a corpse" comment. I totally understand why a straight guy wouldn't get anything out of kissing another guy. If he had said something like, "Yeah, I've kissed a guy, but it didn't do anything for me," I don't think anyone would be up in arms. But to liken a same-sex kiss to kissing a rotting human? Sorry, but combined w/ Jones' need to reaffirm us that he's no 'mo, I don't see how he's as gay-friendly as many are giving him credit for.
So is Steve Jones comfortable around gays? Seems that way.
But is he as gay-positive as many are giving him credit for? Many of us simply disagree.
3. Have you seen "An Inconvenient Truth"? There was a cartoon where a frog that's been in a pot that is slowly brought up to a boil won't feel that anything is wrong. You might have a "wide comfort level," but you might also find yourself figuratively in boiling water & not know it.
Frog in the water
I loved "An Inconvenient Truth", and I like the frog analogy. It doesn't apply to me, however. For better or worse (and believe me, it's both) I tend to over-analyze and critique my own perceptions and opinions. It's unwise to characterize people who are overly sensitive or negative about gay issues as secretly self-loathing (and I've certainly never done that), and it's equally unwise to characterize less sensitive/negative people as frogs in the water.
Actually, I'm not seeing negativity where it doesn't exist here. Psionycx called him a "loser", and accused him of all sorts of negative things and motivations. Guillermo was also quite negative. More than one other poster noticed and commented on the negativity.
Jones does NOT state that our lifestyle is promiscuous. Read it again. He states that there are guys coming out of the bar who hook up with different guys all the time. That's it. Not gays in general, but gays in that bar. PERHAPS he thinks that way about all gays, but his words do not reflect that. You CAN argue that his words inadvertently pepertuate the stereotype because people predisposed to see that stereotype will jump to conclusions. But he himself, solely as expressed in the actual words quoted, does NOT perpetuate the stereotype. Again, he's talking about one bar, and one bar only, in his quote.
My perception of the "kissing a corpse" comment is that the analogy was based on the fact that a corpse gives nothing back, and provides no spark, no sensuousness. Not that it is a rotting thing. Your interpretation strikes me as being that "parsing" that I've talked about. I'd guess most people think of corpses in terms of their lifelessness, not in terms of rotting.
Lastly, I don't find him attractive, so that has nothing to do with my opinion. And I'm not saying he's gay positive to an extent that he deserves any extra credit. I'm just saying he's gay friendly, and his words simply don't lead to valid accusations of being a "loser", or perpetuating stereotypes.
Great academic post, but did you examine the raw data......
and/or other motivations that may have reduced the span your perceived general comfort with regard to this bolg entry and subsequent posts?
I wander why you did not respond to snicks' blog entry as in my opinion it already set a tone that I would assume you'd coin as "negative"? Did you step back before labeling the sum of the posts? I see most as "positive" and/or asking some great questions, esp, the first post. There are 2 or 3 opinions/questions regarding what they see as part of a marketing pattern. Whether Jones fits that label is certainly debatable.
Might this be more about general differences of opinion with Psisionycx and giving his opinion more weight than the sum of the posts? We are all human, so I am putting it out there as all this negativity/positivity dialogue is pushing me to look deeper at the driving forces of some of my responses. It's not easy.
Are some like your mom when it comes to temperature? While her cooling/heating system may not be as adaptable as yours, you seem to be drawing some rather all-encompassing conclusions about her level "happiness" and projecting that perception of to others who don't write like you. Might the "negativity" label reflect you possibly not being as tolerant of others as you'd like to think, or strive to be. This question applies to all of us as I know that I am not.
Some of the "happiest" people tend not to get bogged down by the "negativity" of others by focusing what works for them. Others possibly like to rant/critique as that is part of what makes them tick. Neither is wrong to me. I prefer a nice diet, but fail to comply with my militant self-imposed standards. Without the ability to truly embrace your wide comfort or re-think what you perceive as negative, I am guessing that you'll continue to find yourself being surprised on a daily basis as that is part of what some of us come here for. Sometines the quality of the critique might suck, but if it bothers you sufficiently to have to label it, you also have to consider that some may see your contribution as being negative and/or critical as critique of critique...
One of the most effective/thought-provoking elements of your post for me is that it brings up a huge issue that many ignore: the interpretation factor of what is presented. We all do it as we are hit with information. Sometimes we are not very good/eloquent at saying how we got from point A to point C or may not even know how it happened. The upside is that the quality of the general dialogue (in my mind) is almost second to few when compared to other sites.
Key (albeit leading) question that requires no response. Do you still see the majority of the posts on this particular thread as "negative"?
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
Well, I actually went
Well, I actually went through the thread and rated the posts by negativity vs. positivity! (I guess I'm bored tonight.) Not counting myself, there are four posters being negative, five posters being positive, and four posters being neutral. One of the positive posts is recent, so at the time of my posting it was four to four. I suppose you're trying to say that the negativity was mild, and my own reaction to THAT was too sensitive. My basic response is two-fold: first, I was replying to express my agreement with Jason, who expressed the same sentiments as I; second, a 50/50 split on a set of comments where my considered perceptions see nothing to complain about (from a gay perspective) is worthy of comment.
You raise a lot of issues, so I'll answer numerically:
1. My post had absolutely nothing to do with a general reaction to Psionycx. Sometimes I disagree with him, sometimes I'm in hearty agreement.
2. I did not consider Snicks' post itself to be negative. There was one small inference of negativity, but it certainly wasn't worthy of a reply.
3. It's obvious from her complaining about temperature that my mother's comfort range makes her less happy, and I think the analogy is appropriate to my basic point. Yes, I am not particularly tolerant of gay people who see homophobia everywhere, and who seem to parse every word from str8 people as if they're on a treasure hunt for things to which to object. It is my view that such attitudes are extremely detrimental to the overall "gay movement" (though I don't like that term). Those attitudes make us look weak and whiny, they put off otherwise friendly str8 people who want to be our allies, they act as a sort of "cry wolf" phenomenon, making objections to more important things less resonant and impactful, etc.
4. I completely agree that the happiest people are those who don't get bogged down in other people's negativity. Believe me, if I were getting bogged down I wouldn't be coming here. Negativity is posted every day, and most of it I ignore or chuckle at. I only post "critiques of critiques" in rare circumstances, almost always when the negativity is egregiously based on faulty logic or the imputing of motivations or characterizations to someone when the actual facts don't back that up.
5. I also agree that the "interpretation factor" is important and a huge issue. A part of the "quality of the general dialogue" that you extol is the freedom to question the interpretation of others. Everyone has the right to his interpretation, but valid interpretations are based on logic and common sense and a lack of pre-ordained biases. If specious interpretations are not challenged then there really can be no genuine dialogue. Therefore, I don't think your distaste for "critiques of critiques" is valid. That's what your last post was, for example, and it's why we're exchanging thoughts now.
Lastly, I have a question for you: You felt the need to question me about the fact that I occasionally post critiques of critiques, and you have done that previously. But why me? There are those who routinely attack others in an ad hominem and sometimes abusive fashion, without bothering with argumentation. There are those who routinely critique any pro-ATWT posts. There are those who post "rants" that essentially say the same thing over and over. But you have not questioned them. I don't mean that as the challenge it may sound like; I'm genuinely curious.
In my opinion Joey says it best so I won't reinvent the wheel
He responds to you as follows:
"It seems to me that you're just as guilty of "looking for negativity" and "choosing to interpret everything in the most negative, most damning way possible." NO ONE said that he said anything to indicate that he has a problem w/ gays. Some of us just don't think he is deserving of the level of praise that he's being given, especially considering that many who post here have a tendency to overlook anything questionable a straight guy does as long as he is physically attractive."
I won't quote any more of it as all can see it for themselves. I also found his frog analogy is brilliant.
You asked why I wrote to you, so here's my best attempt to asnwer that. I think that I tend to respond to bullies who cross harsh lines with posters (as you have also done so this category does not apply to you), people who write really stupid things (which does not include you as you posts are never lacking food for thought), or good writers (like you) who I perceive as having strong opinions about critique being detrimental/negative as I (possibly just as strongly as you) believe that questions and looking behind possible mirrors are good things. You project that many are jumping the gun/ by reading between the lines and talking about "facts" that are not backed up.
I think that you might be guilty of the same thing as you might be looking at the trees and missing the forest. Many of the posts that you qualify as "negative" have much less to do with Mr. Jones than about gay magazines in general and how many of us see that there is too much show-casing of our straight "allies" or hot guys who seem marginally more enlightened (or just more market savvy) than their straight counterparts. So the thread for some is simply an opportunity to look at another example that COULD ARGUABLY fit a marketing pattern that some of us are kind of over. It's not about Jones or whether you find him attractive, or not or whether anything that he said is evil. Who knows what he said and how he said as these facts you refer to are also presented by a "writer" who framed them in an article which was subsequently repacked here at AE.
If I had to give the most salient reason why I think I responded to you, it's because I have perceived that you've made statements that you sum up quite well in point 3, which reads as follows:
"I am not particularly tolerant of gay people who see homophobia everywhere, and who seem to parse every word from str8 people as if they're on a treasure hunt for things to which to object. It is my view that such attitudes are extremely detrimental to the overall "gay movement" (though I don't like that term). Those attitudes make us look weak and whiny, they put off otherwise friendly str8 people who want to be our allies, they act as a sort of "cry wolf" phenomenon, making objections to more important things less resonant and impactful, etc."
I think that many of your well worded rants about "negativity" might be clouded by your own perceptions as expressing dissatisfaction does not always involve people seeing things that are not there. I won't beat a dead horse, but read your own language as it's quite sweeping in scope and might reflect a very limited number of people here. Your idea what is detrimental the "movement" might be clouding your ability to see where there might be some smoke or real fire. I am not a fan of whiners either, but I see very little "whiny" in fighting words, actions, refusals to go along with certain things, and presenting perspectives that challenge the status quo. There is room from positivity and for what you deem as negative.
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
Agreeing to disagree
Ultimately, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Your perception of things is different from mine. So be it. I have no problem with that.
Also not wanting to beat a dead horse, I'll refer you to my response to Joey.
To be blunt, I think you defeat your own argument when you say that the negativity expressed on this thread could be a reaction to the trend of str8 guys on gay covers, or some sort of marketing strategy behind it. Fair enough, but my point then is: if that's what the point is, then say that. Don't let it spill over into a negative response to the man quoted, when his words don't merit that. Yes, the story is repackaged by an AE writer, but that was part of my point. We don't know if there's more to the story, but why would an unbiased person with no agenda read into the man's words things that aren't there simply because there's a POSSIBILITY that there are more damning words that weren't in the package? Why would people consistently want to assume the negative in all cases like this?
I don't see that you really answered my question about why you chose me to address. You've responded to very few posts that crossed a "harsh line", not even when one poster suggested that another kill himself. There have been all sorts of "stupid" posts, and again no replies. And I'm about the only one who does "critiques of critiques" you have targeted. In fact, just today Nukely critiqued the critique of someone defending ATWT, and you gave him a "5" vote.
Guillermo, you have criticized me several times (which is fine since you're respectful about it), both in overt and veiled ways. I haven't actually criticized you, but I do have a criticizm now. The strong impression you're leaving is that you're really responding to me only because you disagree with my opinions and viewpoints, and that somehow the expression of those opinions is bothersome to you. If you agree with someone, you don't express anything, even if the poster is abusive, uses stupid reasoning, or is critiquing others' critiques. Certainly my posts on this thread come nowhere near the description of being a "rant" in comparison to so many others who regularly post, including yourself. So you're not responding to the fact of my critiques, or to the inherent right of someone on a forum to challenge others, but rather simply to the fact that you disagree with me.
There was a chilling edge to your comment that there might be a "very limited number of people here" that would subscribe to my viewpoints. I don't want to make the mistake I'm criticizing and impute something to you that's not there, but it wouldn't be difficult to read that as you saying that my viewpoints aren't welcome here because "most" fellow posters would disagree with them. I hope that's not what you're implying. As someone pointed out to me privately, there are probably about 30 people who post here with some regularity. That's a tiny group, and certainly can't be taken as representative of the "gay community" as a whole. It's only my opinion, but based on some polls I've seen I'm guessing that my viewpoints come far closer to representing the entire gay community throughout the country than do the viewpoints of what we're calling the "negative" posters here. I would think a diversity of views would be far more desirable than a one-dimensional set of views.
Is this your way of agreeing to disagree?
It stars off short and respectful, but then seems to show that you are as human and vulnerable as the rest of us.
I would have let this go of this as I responded to the best of my ability; however you got down the gutter and made an accusation that is as mean-spirited as it is wrong. This is one is quite surprising coming from you.
You state:
"You've responded to very few posts that crossed a "harsh line", not even when one poster suggested that another kill himself."
Is your memory failing you or do you not recall how I not only took this low-life in a street fight that you (or some one I thought was you) was clearly were observing, and even jumped to support me in on AFTER I tackled him as hard as I've ever tackled any one? You may not know that I also contacted the proper channels here to make sure that this guy would never be able to spew his venom anywhere again. He was cut off within minutes and I'll leave it at that as this is not about self-congratulation, but just to set the record straight. What in heavens would lead you to revise facts with fiction?
The second item I wanted to address has to do with your interpretation of something that I said. Since I too am human, my words are not often crystal clear, but let clarify what I thought was self-evident. I in no way intended to say that people don't subscribe to your view points. I actually think the opposite.
What I tried to say that that I believe that very few people at AE represent those extremes that you describe as harmful to the gay community. In other words, I don't see that AE as full of whiners who are always looking for something to bitch about. I am getting the feeling that the whole "points" and recent disagreements that you've had with recent members are making you feel unwelcome or unpopular.
Have you looked at some of my entries and who they've been directed to? If I were looking for popularity, I know how to do that quite well, but would bore the living crap out of me. My contribution can be irrelevant, snarky, meandering, loooooooooooooooooooooong, silly, an annoying as hell. If some respond favorably to my warts and all authenticity, of course I am going to like that. If not, that is cool too as long as they don't hit below the belt. Also, I have given props to almost every person on here including yourself, way too many times to count.
What's the deal? Every one here wants diversity so let's not makes knots where there aren't any. No one is out to "get you," and especially not me as I like the less didactic dances we've had. You are not the only one who I question. It seems that you are the only one keeping some pretty big score cards out there, but if you are going to use them to try to arrive at some "truths" you are going to have to use all facts and not ignore those that don't suit your thesis of being the picked-on kid.
This too shall pass and I am not going to make any dramatic statements about future interaction as I'll always welcome it. Just not on this subject matter. I am not going to use kid gloves all the time, but I am also never ever going to say things about you that are not true when I know better.
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
Wrong Person
Guillermo - You leaped to the wrong conclusion about whom I was referring to above. It was not Evan, whom you thought I was talking about. That was some time ago. This was more recently and involved a very common poster whom I'd rather not name. I do indeed remember your involvement in that situation. Fitting in with my point, though, Evan was someone you disagreed with in general about basic viewpoints, and this other poster is someone who fits in more with the "mainstream" view here at AE. (BTW, I don't understand why you would characterize me as getting down in the gutter in this circumstance.)
It's unfortunate that you react so sensitively to the first time I ever criticize you in any way. Our earlier exchanges were respectful, but always centered around you questioning me and my motives, or implying I was something other than I appeared, or suggesting I have hidden flaws that I should investigate (or otherwise I wouldn't say what I do). My side of that was always to explain myself, again, respectfully. I would have hoped that you would accept questioning in the same way that I had, instead of generating a diatribe. From my perspective, it is you rather than I who has trouble with looking at himself and his motives. I don't mean that as an attack, just an honest observation.
I did indeed interpret you as saying that few here would subscribe to my viewpoints. You're right, words are often imprecise, and I'm sorry I misinterpreted that. I do disagree with your comment that everyone here wants diversity. There's a generalized and very narrow view among long-time and frequent posters about "how things are and how they should be". In overly broad terms it's based around a general negativity and a general perception of homophobia everywhere, with assumed motives of people being cast in anti-gay or other negative terms. I could list a hundred examples, but two will suffice. The poster who was recently urged to kill himself generated ire from a "long-time and frequent poster" because he had the temerity to try to explain Fred Barnes' recent comments as being political expediency more than overt homophobia. I haven't seen that poster since. (I hope he didn't take the advice!) Second, there seems to be a special attempt to beat back any sort of defense of ATWT, no matter how tepid. Robert faced that when he joined, and he hasn't been back. NewlyObsessed faced that when he joined, and he hasn't been back. If you want to guarantee yourself negative comments and a low karma score, just say something good about ATWT.
Finally, I don't want to be perceived again as going into the gutter, but I think you do have a double standard about these things. You don't like me critiquing other posters, but other people do exactly that all the time. (I realize that you yourself don't usually do that - unless it's me!) I replied awhile back to an article of Brent's, complimenting him, and adding my opinion about why Hancock is not homophobic. That generated a lot of critiques. As I say, any pro-ATWT comment generates critiques. Anything going against what I've described as the "accepted viewpoints" generates critiques. You wouldn't try to squelch those, but you would try to squelch mine. I know you're not intentionally thinking that "gee, I agree with these, and so they're OK, but I don't agree with this, so it's not". But that's how it works out anyway.
So that's my last word on the subject (unless you simply misinterpret something I said, as with the Evan situation). You have the obligation to determine how you see the world, and I have to do the same. If those perceptions are at odds, then we agree to disagree.
I've decided to address this bilaterally......
.....with Dennis as I am uncomfortable with what might be resembling an extended paradody of the Big Brother/Real World/Girls Behaving Badly fights over who left a turd in the hot-tub, puked in the confessional, or who's wearing the cheapest weave....
It's one thing to watch these messes, but want to limit being a participant too often, unless it's about truly funny/sick stuff. I am not making light of the subject matter as it's serious stuff, just finding the humor in the showy dance and taking action by moving it to a private forum. I am off to check the PR recap, which I hope has a HUGE Keith-o-meter after he finally had some major face time and showed that he's more than a hairy hunk.
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
Agreed
We actually should have gone private much sooner. Thanks for the private message. I just replied.
(BTW, that was NOT my turd!)
Wow
I never ceases to amaze me how hard some people try to be offended. Like you seriously might pull a muscle.
"I tend to take exception to overly-pretty straight men who take advantage of their looks to try and cultivate a gay audience purely as a means of career advancement. "
Overly pretty actors and actresses of every stripe take advantage of their looks to try and cultivate any audience they possibly can as a means of career advancement. That's basically what an actor does. If Jessica Alba goes on the cover of Maxim and is mildly flirateous with the interviewer and talks about how she is willing to a hot sex scene in a movie and then mentions she is an a happily committed relationtionship, are you offeneded on behalf of straight guys?