It seems to me that gay men are over-represented among horror story writers/authors. James Whale, the director of the original Frankenstein movies, was gay. Bram Stoker was gay. Clive Barker (Hellraiser, Candyman) is gay. The co-authors of the recent excellent horror show, American Horror Story, are both gay. Joel Schumacher, the director of Lost Boys and few other horror flics is gay The gay son of Anne Rice also writes horror. Etc.
Is it because we are monsters? :P
And I already regret unbanning you :bleeding:
Quote from: katmai on April 09, 2012, 03:53:53 PM
And I already regret unbanning you :bleeding:
And you're surprised?
No. Not really. His question is so mind numbingly dumb so it is right up his alley.
Bram Stoker gay? Says who?
Quote from: The Larch on April 09, 2012, 04:08:04 PM
Bram Stoker gay? Says who?
I'm sure Marci was told by someone at some gay soirée.
This thread is already a horror story.
:huh: Is Marty gay?
Quote from: katmai on April 09, 2012, 04:21:21 PM
I'm sure Marci was told by someone at some gay soirée.
More likely a facebook group
Quote from: katmai on April 09, 2012, 04:21:21 PM
Quote from: The Larch on April 09, 2012, 04:08:04 PM
Bram Stoker gay? Says who?
I'm sure Marci was told by someone at some gay soirée.
Come on, the guys name on its own is a dead give away, just change the m to an n. ;)
You know, I think Marty's on to something here.
For instance, I think gays are definitely overrepresented in Tchaikovsky.
I mean, look at the evidence:
1) Pyotr = Peter
2) Ilyich = has same # of syllables as "I like dick"
3) Tchaikovsky = rhymes with TchaiCOCKSky
4) 1812 Overture: The 18 and the 12, when done a certain way as shadow puppets, looks like two guys engaged in missionary anal sex.
And c'mon: The NUTcracker Suite?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 09, 2012, 04:48:17 PM
You know, I think Marty's on to something here.
For instance, I think gays are definitely overrepresented in Tchaikovsky.
I mean, look at the evidence:
1) Pyotr = Peter
2) Ilyich = has same # of syllables as "I like dick"
3) Tchaikovsky = rhymes with TchaiCOCKSky
4) 1812 Overture: The 18 and the 12, when done a certain way as shadow puppets, looks like two guys engaged in missionary anal sex.
And c'mon: The NUTcracker Suite?
Ilyich has two syllables. It's a weakness of transliterating Russian to create extra syllables.
But otherwise, your analysis is tinfoil good. Could I interest you in a copy of
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
Quote from: Scipio on April 09, 2012, 04:51:34 PM
Ilyich has two syllables. It's a weakness of transliterating Russian to create extra syllables.
But otherwise, your analysis is tinfoil good. Could I interest you in a copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
After peer review, I have changed the hypothesis:
2) Ilyich = has same # of syllables as "likes dicks"
Still works.
Why is so many historical figures get pegged as gay? So and So never married so we chalk him up as gay. Couldn't that person by just asexual, or really shy, or into dogs, or a child molester? Why do we always assume gay? There are plenty of forms of Paraphilia, why focus on only this one? Or is this somehow "empowering". An important historical person that gays want to claim as their own.
Anne Rice's son wrote 1 horror book. The rest were murder mysteries. :huh:
Quote from: katmai on April 09, 2012, 03:53:53 PM
And I already regret unbanning you :bleeding:
This is what happens when he is allowed to return early from a ban.
Except it wasn't early.
You can't have it. :blurgh:
Quote from: katmai on April 09, 2012, 07:38:23 PM
You can't have it. :blurgh:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjaypgreene.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F12%2Ffred-thompson-hunt.jpg&hash=797d73588ce659e1345b8b76b81099cc03870ae8)
This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.
This thread is so much worse than anything Tim or Lettow have ever done.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 05:18:36 PM
Why is so many historical figures get pegged as gay? So and So never married so we chalk him up as gay. Couldn't that person by just asexual, or really shy, or into dogs, or a child molester? Why do we always assume gay? There are plenty of forms of Paraphilia, why focus on only this one? Or is this somehow "empowering". An important historical person that gays want to claim as their own.
It is pretty easy since the concept of being heterosexual versus homosexual is a pretty recent invention. Since nobody comes out and says 'I am not gay' or 'I am gay' you just sorta have to guess. Since nobody knew at the time that having sex with men, or not having sex with them, meant you had this profound identity meaning they did not make it very clear to posterity.
I mean it wasn't like Augustus Caesar ever worried when he was banging whoever that someday people would be trying to catagorize him.
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2012, 07:56:57 PM
This thread is so much worse than anything Tim or Lettow have ever done.
Let's not lose our heads and go crazy.
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2012, 09:02:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 05:18:36 PM
Why is so many historical figures get pegged as gay? So and So never married so we chalk him up as gay. Couldn't that person by just asexual, or really shy, or into dogs, or a child molester? Why do we always assume gay? There are plenty of forms of Paraphilia, why focus on only this one? Or is this somehow "empowering". An important historical person that gays want to claim as their own.
It is pretty easy since the concept of being heterosexual versus homosexual is a pretty recent invention. Since nobody comes out and says 'I am not gay' or 'I am gay' you just sorta have to guess. Since nobody knew at the time that having sex with men, or not having sex with them, meant you had this profound identity meaning they did not make it very clear to posterity.
I mean it wasn't like Augustus Caesar ever worried when he was banging whoever that someday people would be trying to catagorize him.
Yes, but why do they get labeled "gay"? Why not a kiddie fucker or something?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 09:04:36 PM
Yes, but why do they get labeled "gay"? Why not a kiddie fucker or something?
Beats me. Marty himself once said you cannot really call anybody "gay" until Oscar Wilde or something like that. But it doesn't stop him :P
He probably just does it to fuck with us.
Marci don't fuck. :contract:
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2012, 09:05:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 09:04:36 PM
Yes, but why do they get labeled "gay"? Why not a kiddie fucker or something?
Beats me. Marty himself once said you cannot really call anybody "gay" until Oscar Wilde or something like that. But it doesn't stop him :P
He probably just does it to fuck with us.
He's not the only one though. When a historical figure has questionable history with women they often get labeled gay. Especially if they are important. People theorize that Issac Newton might have been gay. Nobody theorizes that Issac Newton was a child molester. Or that he was a repressed dog fucker. Seems odd to me.
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2012, 09:05:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 09:04:36 PM
Yes, but why do they get labeled "gay"? Why not a kiddie fucker or something?
Beats me. Marty himself once said you cannot really call anybody "gay" until Oscar Wilde or something like that. But it doesn't stop him :P
He probably just does it to fuck with us.
Or like wilde he loves inconsistency.
Quote from: garbon on April 09, 2012, 09:10:37 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2012, 09:05:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 09:04:36 PM
Yes, but why do they get labeled "gay"? Why not a kiddie fucker or something?
Beats me. Marty himself once said you cannot really call anybody "gay" until Oscar Wilde or something like that. But it doesn't stop him :P
He probably just does it to fuck with us.
Or like wilde he loves inconsistency.
Or that he can't remember what he said from day to day.
Quote from: Martinus on April 09, 2012, 03:50:29 PM
Joel Schumacher, the director of Lost Boys and few other horror flics is gay
:lol:
You left out his most horrific work, Batman & Robin.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 09, 2012, 04:48:17 PM
You know, I think Marty's on to something here.
For instance, I think gays are definitely overrepresented in Tchaikovsky.
I mean, look at the evidence:
1) Pyotr = Peter
2) Ilyich = has same # of syllables as "I like dick"
3) Tchaikovsky = rhymes with TchaiCOCKSky
4) 1812 Overture: The 18 and the 12, when done a certain way as shadow puppets, looks like two guys engaged in missionary anal sex.
And c'mon: The NUTcracker Suite?
And don't forget the Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies, arguably the single gayest name in the cannon of western music.
Gay people are over-represented in the arts in general.
Meh.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 05:18:36 PM
Why is so many historical figures get pegged as gay? So and So never married so we chalk him up as gay. Couldn't that person by just asexual, or really shy, or into dogs, or a child molester? Why do we always assume gay? There are plenty of forms of Paraphilia, why focus on only this one? Or is this somehow "empowering". An important historical person that gays want to claim as their own.
What do you mean by so many?
I think the reason it's made is because there's historical evidence that justifies the suspicion and we know that gayness tends to be a bit more common than bestiality or paedophilia.
It's not empowering or anything like that. It's that for a huge amount of time there was no concept of homosexuality and sodomy was illegal. We know it happened but the ideological structure kept it repressed. There are brief moments where it sort of bubbles to the surface and you get a hint of a history that you don't know about, that was hidden and that was almost impossible to document. That's interesting. The same goes for the position of ethnic minorities and women in various societies.
It attaches to famous people because normally there's some good reason for it to do so, there's a reason that the gay theory exists for James I but not Charles II. There's more evidence around them - in general - and more people researching them. However there's some non-famous research that's fascinating. For example I know there's some work about 'old maids' in the 19th century.
Quote from: Tyr on April 10, 2012, 03:01:53 AM
Gay people are over-represented in the arts in general.
Meh.
disagreed. especially with how many works there are in general. i think they are well within they're right, whatever work it may be
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 03:22:16 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 05:18:36 PM
Why is so many historical figures get pegged as gay? So and So never married so we chalk him up as gay. Couldn't that person by just asexual, or really shy, or into dogs, or a child molester? Why do we always assume gay? There are plenty of forms of Paraphilia, why focus on only this one? Or is this somehow "empowering". An important historical person that gays want to claim as their own.
What do you mean by so many?
I think the reason it's made is because there's historical evidence that justifies the suspicion and we know that gayness tends to be a bit more common than bestiality or paedophilia.
It's not empowering or anything like that. It's that for a huge amount of time there was no concept of homosexuality and sodomy was illegal. We know it happened but the ideological structure kept it repressed. There are brief moments where it sort of bubbles to the surface and you get a hint of a history that you don't know about, that was hidden and that was almost impossible to document. That's interesting. The same goes for the position of ethnic minorities and women in various societies.
It attaches to famous people because normally there's some good reason for it to do so, there's a reason that the gay theory exists for James I but not Charles II. There's more evidence around them - in general - and more people researching them. However there's some non-famous research that's fascinating. For example I know there's some work about 'old maids' in the 19th century.
Every time someone quotes some idiotic post by Raz I am reassured that my decision to put Raz on the ignore list was a correct one. Languish is much more readable when I don't have to look at his shit.
'meh, they just want to see the pretty popular straight couple killed early on.
The other thing I'd add is that gayness isn't necessarily to do with sex but as much to do with love. I see no reason to suggest that Cardinal Newman was shagging Ambrose St. John. But they wrote incredibly loving letters to one another, they lived together for around 40 years, on St. John's death, Newman said he thought his grief was greater than that of a husband or a wife and, on his death, said that his imperative desire in his will was to be buried with St. John. He was until he was exhumed after beatification.
I think if you raise the possibility that he was gay (and in Newman's case that possibility was raised very early in the 20th century) then you're suggesting that, regardless of sex, he lived fulfilled with the man he loved for 40 years. That seems plausible on the facts and compassionate.
The same goes for Hallam and Tennyson, or Newton and that Swiss kid. We can't say whether they had sex or not, but based on their own words our understanding of homosexuality offers the best model for that level of love.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 03:22:16 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 09, 2012, 05:18:36 PM
Why is so many historical figures get pegged as gay? So and So never married so we chalk him up as gay. Couldn't that person by just asexual, or really shy, or into dogs, or a child molester? Why do we always assume gay? There are plenty of forms of Paraphilia, why focus on only this one? Or is this somehow "empowering". An important historical person that gays want to claim as their own.
What do you mean by so many?
I think the reason it's made is because there's historical evidence that justifies the suspicion and we know that gayness tends to be a bit more common than bestiality or paedophilia.
It's not empowering or anything like that. It's that for a huge amount of time there was no concept of homosexuality and sodomy was illegal. We know it happened but the ideological structure kept it repressed. There are brief moments where it sort of bubbles to the surface and you get a hint of a history that you don't know about, that was hidden and that was almost impossible to document. That's interesting. The same goes for the position of ethnic minorities and women in various societies.
It attaches to famous people because normally there's some good reason for it to do so, there's a reason that the gay theory exists for James I but not Charles II. There's more evidence around them - in general - and more people researching them. However there's some non-famous research that's fascinating. For example I know there's some work about 'old maids' in the 19th century.
It's pretty common claim made about historical figures. Often the only good reason is that they never married or showed interest in women. Is homosexuality more common then pedophilia? One is legal and the other isn't. I'd say it's hard to tell. I think more people would admit to homosexual impulses then pedophilic ones. Psychoanalyzing historical figures has been a popular past time for a hundred years at the least, but why is homosexuality the one brought up. There seems to be assumption that if someone isn't interested in women they automatically are gay. Why not other sexual taboos?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 04:23:22 AM
The other thing I'd add is that gayness isn't necessarily to do with sex but as much to do with love. I see no reason to suggest that Cardinal Newman was shagging Ambrose St. John. But they wrote incredibly loving letters to one another, they lived together for around 40 years, on St. John's death, Newman said he thought his grief was greater than that of a husband or a wife and, on his death, said that his imperative desire in his will was to be buried with St. John. He was until he was exhumed after beatification.
I think if you raise the possibility that he was gay (and in Newman's case that possibility was raised very early in the 20th century) then you're suggesting that, regardless of sex, he lived fulfilled with the man he loved for 40 years. That seems plausible on the facts and compassionate.
The same goes for Hallam and Tennyson, or Newton and that Swiss kid. We can't say whether they had sex or not, but based on their own words our understanding of homosexuality offers the best model for that level of love.
A high level of love? Perhaps people in the past divorced love from sex.
Edgar Allan Poe was a much greater horror story writer(and artist in general) than Joel Schumacher btw.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 04:23:22 AM
The other thing I'd add is that gayness isn't necessarily to do with sex but as much to do with love. I see no reason to suggest that Cardinal Newman was shagging Ambrose St. John. But they wrote incredibly loving letters to one another, they lived together for around 40 years, on St. John's death, Newman said he thought his grief was greater than that of a husband or a wife and, on his death, said that his imperative desire in his will was to be buried with St. John. He was until he was exhumed after beatification.
I think if you raise the possibility that he was gay (and in Newman's case that possibility was raised very early in the 20th century) then you're suggesting that, regardless of sex, he lived fulfilled with the man he loved for 40 years. That seems plausible on the facts and compassionate.
The same goes for Hallam and Tennyson, or Newton and that Swiss kid. We can't say whether they had sex or not, but based on their own words our understanding of homosexuality offers the best model for that level of love.
Newton wasn't gay. You people see that shit everywhere. It validates you.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 10, 2012, 06:19:33 AM
Edgar Allan Poe was a much greater horror story writer(and artist in general) than Joel Schumacher btw.
but, Poe was a really piss poor filmmaker
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 06:20:41 AM
Newton wasn't gay. You people see that shit everywhere. It validates you.
That is my suspicion.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 06:07:41 AM
It's pretty common claim made about historical figures. Often the only good reason is that they never married or showed interest in women. ... There seems to be assumption that if someone isn't interested in women they automatically are gay.
Give me some examples. Otherwise I think you've just got a general impression without anything to back it up. I can't think of a single example where the only good reason is that they didn't marry.
QuoteWhy not other sexual taboos?
First of all you need to separate out homosexuality from 'sexual taboos'. If you focus on homosexuality as a series of sexual acts then I think you're criticism is justified. People are going through history announcing that various people are posing sodomtites often with little justification. My argument would be that homosexuality isn't comparable with aberrant sexual behaviour because. It's like heterosexuality in that sense. I think it is highly likely that Cardinal Newman was celibate and gay - that, based on the little I know, would be what I'd understand of Newton too. So heterosexuality and homosexuality aren't about sexual acts but a pattern of attractions and relationships. Incorporating that into your historical view is interesting because it's been suppressed and silenced for so long but also because it casts a new light on the subject. James I become a rather sadder figure, though his devotion to Villiers is more comprehensible if - aside from sex - he loved him. Similarly if you think of Tennyson in a gay way then he becomes, in my view, an incredible love poet - which is rather different from the image we have of him
Secondly you seem to think there's no evidentiary basis and so we should say, well, he was clearly fucking goats because there's no indication otherwise. As I say, on that you're wrong. I can't think of a case that isn't reasonably evidenced. In addition where there is historical evidence of sexually aberrant behaviour then it does go on the record. We know that Byron fucked his sister, we also know that as a young man he fucked a choirboy. That's on the record and I think the general view is that Byron was probably bisexual in addition to those deviances. Similarly Benjamin Britten was the Michael Jackson of his day. There's no evidence from any child that he abused them, but he did sleep (physically) with choirboys and was repeatedly attracted to one type. Again this is something we know based on the evidence.
Perhaps the reason we don't go through history accusing people of being paedos or into bestiality is because those are aberrations that cause right-thinking people to judge them differently, that is - or should be - a world away from homosexuality. All speculation should be based on evidence and it is, but if you're going to trash someone's record by accusing them of sexually abusing children then you should have more of it than is required for suggesting that actually chaste Newman loved chaste St. John.
QuoteA high level of love? Perhaps people in the past divorced love from sex.
I think you need to read that post again and see where I say otherwise.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2012, 07:24:36 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 09, 2012, 03:53:53 PM
And I already regret unbanning you :bleeding:
This is what happens when he is allowed to return early from a ban.
revenge is best served in the form of gay threads :P
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2012, 09:02:21 PM
It is pretty easy since the concept of being heterosexual versus homosexual is a pretty recent invention. Since nobody comes out and says 'I am not gay' or 'I am gay' you just sorta have to guess. Since nobody knew at the time that having sex with men, or not having sex with them, meant you had this profound identity meaning they did not make it very clear to posterity.
You're onto something here. I just finished reading Into The Silence, The Great War, Mallory and the Conquest of Everest (one book, long title). And all those great, and heterosexual, climbers were all boinking each other in their formative years in the British boarding school system, because it was something to do.
I think that, ironically, even though back then gay sex was ostracized and hush-hushed, as opposed to now, more men were freely doing it. Maybe cause women, at a young age, were so hard to get into.
Bill Shakespeare, President Buchanan, Izzy Newton, Ned Lawrence, Bill 2 of England. They are often suspected of being homosexual, though there isn't a lot of evidence for that. Mostly just circumstantial evidence and conjecture. Often the evidence that is used is that people at the time thought they might be gay, often because they weren't married. I don't see any reason to view homosexuality from any other sexual taboos. It simply became more acceptable, while something like pedophilia has not. There is no reason not to see pedophilia as a series of attractions and relationships. It's portrayed as predatory today, but homosexuality was often portrayed as predatory in the past. There is no reason a pedophile might not love the objects of desire. And in cultures where this is considered normal or common the love may be returned, such as in Ancient Greece.
Let us take for instance Leonardo da Vinci. It is not uncommon to claim that Leo was gay, however the most common cited lovers are his pupils who would be underage by our standards. Yet people don't say that da Vinci was a pedophile.
Quote from: Josephus on April 10, 2012, 07:20:04 AM
I think that, ironically, even though back then gay sex was ostracized and hush-hushed, as opposed to now, more men were freely doing it. Maybe cause women, at a young age, were so hard to get into.
The classical concepts of medieval beauty and love, from the Greeks to the medieval ages, simply didn't involve women as much. It wasn't until John Dunne finally smelled some pussy juice that women figured prominently in romantic literature and art, because they were, as usual, marginalized.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 06:20:41 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 04:23:22 AM
The other thing I'd add is that gayness isn't necessarily to do with sex but as much to do with love. I see no reason to suggest that Cardinal Newman was shagging Ambrose St. John. But they wrote incredibly loving letters to one another, they lived together for around 40 years, on St. John's death, Newman said he thought his grief was greater than that of a husband or a wife and, on his death, said that his imperative desire in his will was to be buried with St. John. He was until he was exhumed after beatification.
I think if you raise the possibility that he was gay (and in Newman's case that possibility was raised very early in the 20th century) then you're suggesting that, regardless of sex, he lived fulfilled with the man he loved for 40 years. That seems plausible on the facts and compassionate.
The same goes for Hallam and Tennyson, or Newton and that Swiss kid. We can't say whether they had sex or not, but based on their own words our understanding of homosexuality offers the best model for that level of love.
Newton wasn't gay. You people see that shit everywhere. It validates you.
Trying to jam ancient people into modern identities is silly and gay.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 07:24:27 AMBill Shakespeare, President Buchanan, Izzy Newton, Ned Lawrence, Bill 2 of England.
You know I actually think the problem is there's a lot of scholarship going on, 90% of it doesn't get noticed but any mention of sexuality does and will get reported in the mainstream press.
I can't talk about all of them. I know nothing of Buchanan or William Rufus - I would however note that their inclusion hardly suggests the gays are picking history's greatest to retrospectively claim.
Newton I know little about. From what I gather he exchanged rather intense letters with that Swiss kid that suggested they loved one another.
Lawrence is an odd case. The biography I've read of him does mention homosexuality. There are curious mentions of it in his work, he refers to sodomy as 'perfect love' at one point and in the foreward to the Seven Pillars of Wisdom mentions male Arab 'friends quivering together in the yielding sand with intimate hot limbs in supreme embrace'. The language doesn't indicate repulsion or disgust, but if anything a sort of admiration (I seem to remember him describing it as 'pure' and it's somehow desert-like). However the biography I've read thought his sexuality was far more fucked up than just gay or straight and that he had a deep masochist streak. Different biographers have found different records more or less credible, but he referred to the beating in Deraa in terms of a 'delicious warmth', and, he paid people to beat him up. I don't think you could say he was gay or straight. He was certainly not sexually normal though.
Shakespeare's a more interesting case. There's no way of knowing, of course, and there's a strand of gay fiction writers (including Wilde) who have written fiction based on Shakespeare's possible homosexuality. That's interesting but doesn't matter any more than, say Carol Ann Duffy's wonderful poem about his love with Anne Hathaway (though both are nice explanations of bits of his life). It's also worth remembering that homosexuality is deeply anachronistic when you're talking about that period, so I just mean attraction to the same sex, not an identity or a life, or, as I say, acts.
The suspicion that Shakespeare was possibly a bit gay is based on two things within his work. The first is in the plays. There are very credible interpretations of both Romeo and Juliet and Merchant of Venice that include homosexuality. They're coherent and good readings of Mercutio and Antonio (and to an extent Bassanio - Harold Bloom's big on this) - so much so in the latter case that I think a gay reading of that character is now relatively standard. Again I think the interpretation of Antonio is hardly flattering to the gays.
The second bit is the Sonnets. There are, I think, 154 sonnets and around 125 of them are addressed to the 'fair youth' who is male. The Sonnets were a bit of a blotch on Shakespeare's reputation. As he begins to become the great national writer, during the 17th century, the Sonnets are edited to make the pronouns gender appropriate - so the 'fair youth' becomes female and many editions get changed so that those addressed to the 'fair youth' that make no sense addressed to a woman are removed. The true Sonnets are, like sexual Classical literature, reserved for wealthy, well-educated men. That shifts in the late 18th and early 19th century when the pronouns are allowed to return to their original. But a faint suspicion of them lingers. So Tennyson is warned by well-meaning friends that he should be less open in his admiration of the Sonnets because they're so dangerously 'Hellenistic'. In the late 19th century you have writers like Wilde effectively writing slash fiction based on the Sonnets. So from publication until the period when the word and concept of 'homosexual' was invented the Sonnets cause suspicion.
But this aspect of the Sonnets is more important in understanding Shakespeare than the plays, because the general academic consensus has always been that the Sonnets are the most personal and autobiographical of Shakespeare's works. He could have been attracted to boys and girls. What we can definitively say is that he wrote characters that make far more sense in a queer reading than otherwise - which isn't true of his contemporaries. He wrote the biggest and greatest corpus of love poetry from one man addressed to another, but he also wrote some love poetry to a woman though the 'dark lady' poems are more equivocal than the 'fair youth'. Though I'm perfectly happy saying this is another example of Shakespeare being special and containing everything, but the gay is in the work.
Shakespeare married, Lawrence and Newton didn't. But I hope you can see that in all cases there is more than their marital status that's led to comment.
QuoteMostly just circumstantial evidence and conjecture.
Generally that's true of most biography and literary interpretation. You're generally left with what people wanted the world to know and occasional bits of gossip. From that you try and form a real personality, complete with flaws, foibles and, yeah, sexuality.
QuoteI don't see any reason to view homosexuality from any other sexual taboos. It simply became more acceptable, while something like pedophilia has not. There is no reason not to see pedophilia as a series of attractions and relationships.
Because it's not a taboo. There's no moral judgement in an academic nowadays saying 'there's evidence here that x may have been a bit gay', there is a moral judgement in saying they were a paedophile.
I take your point about paedophilia, but I think Britten as an example where that does exist based on the evidence we have. Similarly Nabokov's being looked at again by academics because I think 'The Original of Laura' is maybe one nymph too far. Martin Amis wrote a bit about this. There are now six Nabokov novels that features the 'sexual despoilation' of young girls. Three of them are masterpieces but we've got to acknowledge this troubling recurring concern in Nabokov's fiction (Amis ultimately argues it's aesthetically, not morally problematic).
So homosexuality isn't the only subject brought up. It's more easy to deal with as just a theory because there's no moral condemnation involved and it's picked up in the popular press.
QuoteLet us take for instance Leonardo da Vinci. It is not uncommon to claim that Leo was gay, however the most common cited lovers are his pupils who would be underage by our standards. Yet people don't say that da Vinci was a pedophile.
But by that standard almost everyone in the Renaissance world was a paedophile. Marriage to and between 13-14 year olds was standard.
QuoteThe classical concepts of medieval beauty and love, from the Greeks to the medieval ages, simply didn't involve women as much. It wasn't until John Dunne finally smelled some pussy juice that women figured prominently in romantic literature and art, because they were, as usual, marginalized.
This is pretty true. There's a big theory among many feminist and queer critics of Medieval literature that it's all about homosocial bonding. The female characters in Medieval literature are often unimportant and superfluous, their purpose within the text is to do with the relationship of the men associated with them. I think the Morte d'Arthur's normally an example of this. The important relationship is Arthur-Lancelot. That relationship is defined and they relate to one another with reference to Guinevere, but that's all her role is in the text.
Edit: To develop the academic vs popular line I remember discussing in a tutorial the strange sexuality of Wilfred Owen's poems. They're interesting because he's poetically inspired by the Decadents and so they're written in a very 'gay' way and a lot of his lesser known poems linger over the beautiful lips of a beautifully dead boy. There's no saying that he was gay, far less necrophiliac but that's certainly present in his work and if nothing else hints towards an unusual sexuality.
Bros before hoes Shelf.
Why is this thread continuing? :bleeding:
Because you homos always have to have the spotlight on you.
Quote from: katmai on April 10, 2012, 08:44:31 AM
Because you homos always have to have the spotlight on you.
I'm not even participating. <_<
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 08:32:01 AM
I take your point about paedophilia, but I think Britten as an example where that does exist based on the evidence we have. Similarly Nabokov's being looked at again by academics because I think 'The Original of Laura' is maybe one nymph too far. Martin Amis wrote a bit about this. There are now six Nabokov novels that features the 'sexual despoilation' of young girls. Three of them are masterpieces but we've got to acknowledge this troubling recurring concern in Nabokov's fiction (Amis ultimately argues it's aesthetically, not morally problematic).
Interesting. Course, Pale Fire was about a homo.
I think Shelf is bring up good points. That's a decent enough reason to continue. I think his point that it gets picked up by the media is pretty good. The press loves good old gossip.
I admit I'm rehashing two of my pet peeves. The attempt to draw a bright line between homosexuality and other paraphilic disorders and compulsion to diagnose historical figures with a variety of personality disorders or whatever.
When I was in the mental hospital last, there was poster that showed pictures of various important historical figures had the caption that they all had mental illness. The idea seemed to be to empower people who suffered from mental illness. These people are like you, they had severe mental problems and look what they accomplished. I see the attempts to put historical figures in the "gay" category as similar or perhaps in Marty's case to put them in the "us" catergory. Marty frequently goes on about how "We" as gays feel about something, something I find absurd.
Why is it important to identify sexuality of historical figures?
In the context of the political reality of Vancouver and Canada probably not at all. We have gotten to the point that nobody looks twice if they see a gay or lesbian couple on the street and our laws now recognize those unions.
But then again we still have crimes where people still get beat up simply because they are gay. We still have kids getting bullied in school because they are gay and we still have professional sports which must have gay athletes who are still in the closet.
So why is it important to identify the sexuality of historical figures? So that one day it wont matter at all.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 10, 2012, 11:35:53 AM
So why is it important to identify the sexuality of historical figures? So that one day it wont matter at all.
It's not in itself - this is where I think Raz is wrong. There's not a series of crack gays combing through history trying to out people - like doctors look for people who perhaps suffered mental illness.
But, if you're writing a biography of a person you have to be able to present a credible and coherent person. Generally that requires sexuality and sometimes in the evidence it looks like it could be homosexuality. In the example of Shakespeare Coleridge went out of his way to explicitly say Shakespeare wasn't a sodomite - based on the Sonnets - given that our society lacks that shame I think the current trend of saying 'maybe he was' is more accurate and fairer.
I only know from studying literature that unless you're interested in biography it doesn't matter. Biographical readings are pretty unfashionable and there are many texts by resolutely straight authors that do contain credible gay readings ('Jane Austen and the masturbating girl' is a magnificent piece of queer criticism). But occasionally it can be useful or interesting, for example I do think that if you consider it likely that Tennyson was romantically in love with Hallam then that changes the way you read In Memoriam.
That is a literary approach. I had in mind the normalizing effect that idenfitying historical figures are varying sexuality can have.
Now it may be that gays today do not want to be identified as normal - iirc that was a theme that arose during the same sex marriage debate - but that is a separate issue.
I think the main point that troubles me about it is that people then have a tendency to project backwards and assume modern gay culture applied to people back then once they get classifed.
Same thing with standards of heterosexual society. For example that part in one of Plato's where all the Greek dudes are falling over themselves to sit by the pretty guy was slapstick comedy and regarded as what a "normal" man would do at the time. And doubtlessly some of those guys would identify as heterosexual today but no such catagory existed at the time.
But I find things like 'Braveheart's' portrayal of Edward II and his lover as effeminate gays stereotypes pretty annoying. Because both men absolutely conformed to their time's standards of masculinity.
But generally things like identity are really problematic in general. Nationalism has a similar annoying impact.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 12:40:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 10, 2012, 11:35:53 AM
So why is it important to identify the sexuality of historical figures? So that one day it wont matter at all.
It's not in itself - this is where I think Raz is wrong. There's not a series of crack gays combing through history trying to out people - like doctors look for people who perhaps suffered mental illness.
Yeah, there is. You're doing it now.
QuoteBut, if you're writing a biography of a person you have to be able to present a credible and coherent person. Generally that requires sexuality and sometimes in the evidence it looks like it could be homosexuality. In the example of Shakespeare Coleridge went out of his way to explicitly say Shakespeare wasn't a sodomite - based on the Sonnets - given that our society lacks that shame I think the current trend of saying 'maybe he was' is more accurate and fairer.
I only know from studying literature that unless you're interested in biography it doesn't matter. Biographical readings are pretty unfashionable and there are many texts by resolutely straight authors that do contain credible gay readings ('Jane Austen and the masturbating girl' is a magnificent piece of queer criticism). But occasionally it can be useful or interesting, for example I do think that if you consider it likely that Tennyson was romantically in love with Hallam then that changes the way you read In Memoriam.
Like I said before, you gays want to see gayed-up gayness in everything. It's due to your relentless pursuit of validation in a world that doesn't validate your gayed-up gayness, even though most of the world really doesn't give a shit what you put in your mouth.
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2012, 12:48:51 PM
But I find things like 'Braveheart's' portrayal of Edward II and his lover as effeminate gays stereotypes pretty annoying. Because both men absolutely conformed to their time's standards of masculinity.
Oh please, even Marlowe knew Eddie the Duece was a leatherboy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 12:53:00 PM
Oh please, even Marlowe knew Eddie the Duece was a leatherboy.
He had a mistress and illegitmate children and made his best efforts at being a warlord like any king should be.
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2012, 12:57:43 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 12:53:00 PM
Oh please, even Marlowe knew Eddie the Duece was a leatherboy.
He had a mistress and illegitmate children and made his best efforts at being a warlord like any king should be.
Yeah, and Oscar Wilde had kids, too. Didn't make his loafers any heavier.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 12:59:52 PM
Yeah, and Oscar Wilde had kids, too. Didn't make his loafers any heavier.
Ok so I should...what ignore pieces evidence from the period and just assume he had an identity based on a concept that did not exist?
Oh and Marlowe lived like 300 years after he was dead.
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2012, 01:05:56 PM
Ok so I should...what ignore pieces evidence from the period and just assume he had an identity based on a concept that did not exist?
Well Medieval chroniclers did call their love boundless and 'undue' and at least one relatively contemporary chronicle just says Edward 'particularly delighted in the vice of sodomy' ('in vitio sodomitico nimium delectabat') so there's some evidence at the time. But again the identity's a red herring - no-one's talking about that because it's so deeply anachronistic. It'd be like saying Richard II was metrosexual.
Having said that Edward lost a civil war so it's more than possible that his enemies threw everything at him in the chronicles to justify their own action. Similarly I do wonder if Marlowe's Edward is like Shakespeare's Richard in casting a very long shadow on the actual man. I think the sexuality of Edward is just part of a Marlovian overreacher. It's like Faust's thirst for knowledge, Barabas's cruelty or Tamburlaine's heresy - it's a small individual vice that in some way represents the whole character's moral failings.
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2012, 01:05:56 PM
Oh and Marlowe lived like 300 years after he was dead.
Same thing with me. I've live a long time after I was dead.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 01:13:18 PMHaving said that Edward lost a civil war so it's more than possible that his enemies threw everything at him in the chronicles to justify their own action. Similarly I do wonder if Marlowe's Edward is like Shakespeare's Richard in casting a very long shadow on the actual man. I think the sexuality of Edward is just part of a Marlovian overreacher. It's like Faust's thirst for knowledge, Barabas's cruelty or Tamburlaine's heresy - it's a small individual vice that in some way represents the whole character's moral failings.
Unfortunately--and this is where I'll just go ahead and contradict my premise about gays gaying up historical figures--you can't necessarily discount vice as the root cause for moral failing, considering it's so often the prime motivating factor. At least in literature.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 02:32:27 PM
Unfortunately--and this is where I'll just go ahead and contradict my premise about gays gaying up historical figures--you can't necessarily discount vice as the root cause for moral failing, considering it's so often the prime motivating factor. At least in literature.
Agreed. That's my point. I think Edward's gayness in Marlowe as much a literary device than anything else.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 02:35:03 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 02:32:27 PM
Unfortunately--and this is where I'll just go ahead and contradict my premise about gays gaying up historical figures--you can't necessarily discount vice as the root cause for moral failing, considering it's so often the prime motivating factor. At least in literature.
Agreed. That's my point. I think Edward's gayness in Marlowe as much a literary device than anything else.
I think we can all agree that Martinus is a overly dramatic fag for starting this thread.
Personally, I'm glad that the tweeners and soccer moms have co-opted the Vampire Motif from the gays. That Anne Rice nonsense has been annoying for 20 years.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 02:52:50 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 02:35:03 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 02:32:27 PM
Unfortunately--and this is where I'll just go ahead and contradict my premise about gays gaying up historical figures--you can't necessarily discount vice as the root cause for moral failing, considering it's so often the prime motivating factor. At least in literature.
Agreed. That's my point. I think Edward's gayness in Marlowe as much a literary device than anything else.
I think we can all agree that Martinus is a overly dramatic fag for starting this thread.
Personally, I'm glad that the tweeners and soccer moms have co-opted the Vampire Motif from the gays. That Anne Rice nonsense has been annoying for 20 years.
Even the Twilight vampires come across as faggy...as one expects from individuals wearing body glitter. :)
CdM, I could just as well turn the question around and ask why do you consider yourself Irish (to the point of having donated or at least verbally supported the IRA) even though you do not have any real connection to Ireland.
People crave identity, validation (as you put that) and sense of community. This sense of identity is both inclusionary ("there are other people like me") and exclusionary ("I'm different from other people because..."). Gays are a curious minority however because there is no inheritable culture there for obvious reasons (unlike the Jews, or the Irish, or the blacks, you can't just look to your parents for the cultural traits) - and since our own ethnic cultures usually (at least until recently) reject us, we try to find that kind of heritage in the "gays of old".
I think this is pretty obvious psychologically.
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2012, 03:05:39 PM
CdM, I could just as well turn the question around and ask why do you consider yourself Irish (to the point of having donated or at least verbally supported the IRA) even though you do not have any real connection to Ireland.
People crave identity, validation (as you put that) and sense of community. This sense of identity is both inclusionary ("there are other people like me") and exclusionary ("I'm different from other people because..."). Gays are a curious minority however because there is no inheritable culture there for obvious reasons (unlike the Jews, or the Irish, or the blacks, you can't just look to your parents for the cultural traits) - and since our own ethnic cultures usually (at least until recently) reject us, we try to find that kind of heritage in the "gays of old".
I think this is pretty obvious psychologically.
But that just amounts to saying that you project gayness onto certain historical figures because you find it psychologically comforting to do so--it says nothing about whether or not those figures were in fact homosexual.
Quote from: dps on April 10, 2012, 03:11:18 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2012, 03:05:39 PM
CdM, I could just as well turn the question around and ask why do you consider yourself Irish (to the point of having donated or at least verbally supported the IRA) even though you do not have any real connection to Ireland.
People crave identity, validation (as you put that) and sense of community. This sense of identity is both inclusionary ("there are other people like me") and exclusionary ("I'm different from other people because..."). Gays are a curious minority however because there is no inheritable culture there for obvious reasons (unlike the Jews, or the Irish, or the blacks, you can't just look to your parents for the cultural traits) - and since our own ethnic cultures usually (at least until recently) reject us, we try to find that kind of heritage in the "gays of old".
I think this is pretty obvious psychologically.
But that just amounts to saying that you project gayness onto certain historical figures because you find it psychologically comforting to do so--it says nothing about whether or not those figures were in fact homosexual.
His point is that it is always like that, not just for homosexuals but often for American claims to certain histories. After all if I claim Scottish ancestry, that's a rather nebulous description as Scots now are different from those individuals that were my ancestors and I'm very different from both. When he reclaims some figures as gay, that really just means they share some sort of commonly labelled trait with him but has little to do with how similar their lifestyles really are.
It's a bit of a stretch but not terrible in Marti analogies.
I'm glad that Marty has proven himself useful and validated my theories. :lol:
I claim Californian ancestry, and I will fight to the death to keep it that way.
Gayness is even worse than Irishness, although not by much.
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2012, 03:25:31 PM
Gayness is even worse than Irishness, although not by much.
Poor Wellington. :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 02:52:50 PM
I think we can all agree that Martinus is a overly dramatic fag for starting this thread.
And how :)
QuotePersonally, I'm glad that the tweeners and soccer moms have co-opted the Vampire Motif from the gays. That Anne Rice nonsense has been annoying for 20 years.
I don't know. At least Anne Rice vampires are in the whole Romantic Byronic hero tradition. Edward Cullen just needs to grow a pair.
I'm saddened at the tweenish love for quiveringly weak excuses of men <_<
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2012, 03:05:39 PM
CdM, I could just as well turn the question around and ask why do you consider yourself Irish (to the point of having donated or at least verbally supported the IRA) even though you do not have any real connection to Ireland.
People crave identity, validation (as you put that) and sense of community. This sense of identity is both inclusionary ("there are other people like me") and exclusionary ("I'm different from other people because..."). Gays are a curious minority however because there is no inheritable culture there for obvious reasons (unlike the Jews, or the Irish, or the blacks, you can't just look to your parents for the cultural traits) - and since our own ethnic cultures usually (at least until recently) reject us, we try to find that kind of heritage in the "gays of old".
I think this is pretty obvious psychologically.
Which is why nationalism is another (and far larger) indentity that causes problems.
Sheilbh likes the bears :perv: :P
Quote from: PDH on April 10, 2012, 03:19:00 PM
I claim Californian ancestry, and I will fight to the death to keep it that way.
Oh me too! Actually though I don't claim ancestry - I am a California! :hug:
You 20-something fags are hopeless. My bf is like that too. Not a single idealistic/revolutionary bone in you. <_<
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2012, 03:33:05 PM
You 20-something fags are hopeless. My bf is like that too. Not a single idealistic/revolutionary bone in you. <_<
Why do we need to be revolutionary? We've already gotten most of what we want.
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 03:33:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2012, 03:33:05 PM
You 20-something fags are hopeless. My bf is like that too. Not a single idealistic/revolutionary bone in you. <_<
Why do we need to be revolutionary? We've already gotten most of what we want.
It's fun. But I mellowed out, mostly, recently. I just do it because I like to annoy people.
Marti, do you honestly believe that is the reason people find you annoying?
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2012, 03:33:05 PM
You 20-something fags are hopeless. My bf is like that too. Not a single idealistic/revolutionary bone in you. <_<
There's nothing revolutionary or idealistic about trawling Wikipedia looking for 'Personal life and sexuality' sections :lol:
You want to celebrate gay culture go read the bloody Sonnets - or watch Derek Jarman's 'The Angelic Conversation', a film accompanying them being read by Judi Dench - don't start threads about 'The Lost Boys'.
QuoteI'm glad that Marty has proven himself useful and validated my theories.
Marti's really marshalling homosexuality into his own thing. It's not about the gays it's about Martiism.
QuoteWhy do we need to be revolutionary? We've already gotten most of what we want.
To smash the rich? :mellow:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 03:27:13 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2012, 03:25:31 PM
Gayness is even worse than Irishness, although not by much.
Poor Wellington. :(
Being born in a stable does not make one a horse.
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2012, 03:37:00 PM
It's fun. But I mellowed out, mostly, recently. I just do it because I like to annoy people.
I knew it!
Quote from: HVC on April 10, 2012, 03:30:37 PM
Sheilbh likes the bears :perv: :P
Wolves. Wolves :P
So, what about Bram Stoker?
What's a wolf? You guys have too many terms lol
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 03:38:32 PM
QuoteWhy do we need to be revolutionary? We've already gotten most of what we want.
To smash the rich? :mellow:
Don't be foolish, what self-respecting gay man wants that? Well unless smash is some new sexual slang term.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 03:38:32 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2012, 03:33:05 PM
You 20-something fags are hopeless. My bf is like that too. Not a single idealistic/revolutionary bone in you. <_<
There's nothing revolutionary or idealistic about trawling Wikipedia looking for 'Personal life and sexuality' sections :lol:
You want to celebrate gay culture go read the bloody Sonnets - or watch Derek Jarman's 'The Angelic Conversation', a film accompanying them being read by Judi Dench - don't start threads about 'The Lost Boys'.
QuoteI'm glad that Marty has proven himself useful and validated my theories.
Marti's really marshalling homosexuality into his own thing. It's not about the gays it's about Martiism.
QuoteWhy do we need to be revolutionary? We've already gotten most of what we want.
To smash the rich? :mellow:
I was just posting while inebriated. :P
Quote from: The Larch on April 10, 2012, 03:42:49 PM
So, what about Bram Stoker?
Never heard that. A quick Google search suggests only Marty has.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 03:39:09 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 10, 2012, 03:30:37 PM
Sheilbh likes the bears :perv: :P
Wolves. Wolves :P
Personally, I like otters. Is a "wolf" the same thing?
Quote from: HVC on April 10, 2012, 03:44:00 PM
What's a wolf? You guys have too many terms lol
Oh, sorry, I meant in Twilight terms :lol:
Though I think some people use wolf for slim, but hairy older men. Not my type <_<
Quote from: HVC on April 10, 2012, 03:44:00 PM
What's a wolf? You guys have too many terms lol
Careful, you're on the verge of a "you people." <_<
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 03:45:30 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 10, 2012, 03:44:00 PM
What's a wolf? You guys have too many terms lol
Oh, sorry, I meant in Twilight terms :lol:
Though I think some people use wolf for slim, but hairy older men. Not my type <_<
you should not dignify twilight. It's below you.
So a wolf, if it is a term, is like a silver fox who dyes his hair? :P
Quote from: HVC on April 10, 2012, 03:48:06 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 03:45:30 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 10, 2012, 03:44:00 PM
What's a wolf? You guys have too many terms lol
Oh, sorry, I meant in Twilight terms :lol:
Though I think some people use wolf for slim, but hairy older men. Not my type <_<
you should not dignify twilight. It's below you.
So a wolf, if it is a term, is like a silver fox who dyes his hair? :P
:huh:
No. Someone whose hair hasn't turned entirely silver. Besides fox seems to describe any old person regardless of how hirsute they are.
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 03:47:20 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 10, 2012, 03:44:00 PM
What's a wolf? You guys have too many terms lol
Careful, you're on the verge of a "you people." <_<
I love ze gays. I live on the edge of the Toronto gay district. As a group you guys rock. You just have way too many subcultures. Hard to keep track :D
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 03:44:36 PM
Quote from: The Larch on April 10, 2012, 03:42:49 PM
So, what about Bram Stoker?
Never heard that. A quick Google search suggests only Marty has.
I only found out that he was buddies with Oscar Wilde, and he married a woman Wilde formerly pursued.
Quote from: HVC on April 10, 2012, 03:50:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 03:47:20 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 10, 2012, 03:44:00 PM
What's a wolf? You guys have too many terms lol
Careful, you're on the verge of a "you people." <_<
I love ze gays. I live on the edge of the Toronto gay district. As a group you guys rock. You just have way too many subcultures. Hard to keep track :D
My best friend is black? :hmm:
Anyway, I think it's pretty obvious I'm histrionic (it's the nicer relative of narcissistic - not as much megalomaniac as an attention whore :P).
I guess I like to cultivate my gay victimhood as a sole respite from realization I come from a privileged background and am now among 0.1% of top earners in Poland. :P
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 03:52:02 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 10, 2012, 03:50:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 03:47:20 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 10, 2012, 03:44:00 PM
What's a wolf? You guys have too many terms lol
Careful, you're on the verge of a "you people." <_<
I love ze gays. I live on the edge of the Toronto gay district. As a group you guys rock. You just have way too many subcultures. Hard to keep track :D
My best friend is black? :hmm:
do you try to pass him off as Indian?
:P
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2012, 03:52:58 PM
I guess I like to cultivate my gay victimhood as a sole respite from realization I come from a privileged background and am now among 0.1% of top earners in Poland. :P
If you like I can cultivate my victimisation :P
Quote from: HVC on April 10, 2012, 03:54:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 03:52:02 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 10, 2012, 03:50:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 03:47:20 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 10, 2012, 03:44:00 PM
What's a wolf? You guys have too many terms lol
Careful, you're on the verge of a "you people." <_<
I love ze gays. I live on the edge of the Toronto gay district. As a group you guys rock. You just have way too many subcultures. Hard to keep track :D
My best friend is black? :hmm:
do you try to pass him off as Indian?
:P
Don't stick your tongue out unless you are planning to use it.
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2012, 03:52:58 PM
I guess I like to cultivate my gay victimhood as a sole respite from realization I come from a privileged background and am now among 0.1% of top earners in Poland. :P
Ah the terrible burden of success. You sure have alot of rage for a privileged successful dude.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 03:54:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2012, 03:52:58 PM
I guess I like to cultivate my gay victimhood as a sole respite from realization I come from a privileged background and am now among 0.1% of top earners in Poland. :P
If you like I can cultivate my victimisation :P
Hell if he'd like he can cultivate my victimization.
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2012, 04:00:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2012, 03:52:58 PM
I guess I like to cultivate my gay victimhood as a sole respite from realization I come from a privileged background and am now among 0.1% of top earners in Poland. :P
Ah the terrible burden of success. You sure have alot of rage for a privileged successful dude.
Because I have a lot of rage, period. I'm quite choleric.
I reckon I'd be amongst the top earners as well, if compared the inhabitants of a third world country.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 03:29:09 PM
I'm saddened at the tweenish love for quiveringly weak excuses of men <_<
But are you surprised? Girls have been lusting after non-threatening 'bad boys' for a long time now.
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 03:33:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2012, 03:33:05 PM
You 20-something fags are hopeless. My bf is like that too. Not a single idealistic/revolutionary bone in you. <_<
Why do we need to be revolutionary? We've already gotten most of what we want.
No shit; you know you're mainstream when you're a minority fag, and yet support the GOP. Doesn't get much more sell-out than that. :P
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2012, 04:07:20 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 03:29:09 PM
I'm saddened at the tweenish love for quiveringly weak excuses of men <_<
But are you surprised? Girls have been lusting after non-threatening 'bad boys' for a long time now.
I thought emoism had faded after the early 2000s.
Quote from: The Larch on April 10, 2012, 03:42:49 PM
So, what about Bram Stoker?
He was definitely one, born in Dublin to Irish parents.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 04:08:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 03:33:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2012, 03:33:05 PM
You 20-something fags are hopeless. My bf is like that too. Not a single idealistic/revolutionary bone in you. <_<
Why do we need to be revolutionary? We've already gotten most of what we want.
No shit; you know you're mainstream when you're a minority fag, and yet support the GOP. Doesn't get much more sell-out than that. :P
I've voted for Dem candidates. :angry:
Strom Thurmond hasn't been a Dem for years. Or alive.
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2012, 04:07:20 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 03:29:09 PM
I'm saddened at the tweenish love for quiveringly weak excuses of men <_<
But are you surprised? Girls have been lusting after non-threatening 'bad boys' for a long time now.
Doesn't the wolf-boy want to bang the baby or something in the next film or book or whatever? I heard that somewhere.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 04:14:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2012, 04:07:20 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 03:29:09 PM
I'm saddened at the tweenish love for quiveringly weak excuses of men <_<
But are you surprised? Girls have been lusting after non-threatening 'bad boys' for a long time now.
Doesn't the wolf-boy want to bang the baby or something in the next film or book or whatever? I heard that somewhere.
WTF?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_ULMDV4HUi60%2FTCJ5-yUzRfI%2FAAAAAAAABAc%2FNxNCeBG1i1M%2Fs400%2Fcrazy_old_man.jpg&hash=8068c2d5fe4b22093fe0ed92e906d69fc102c5e6)
:lol: I found it:
QuoteTHE DEVIN'S ADVOCATE: WHY BREAKING DAWN MUST BE MADE INTO A MOVIE
By Devin Faraci · 11.27.2009
With New Moon likely to make yet another metric fuckload of money this weekend we need to find the bright side to the entire Twilight mania. There must be something good that comes from this awful Mormon fantasy that seems to have invaded our culture on every front. That something is the eventual movie version of Breaking Dawn.
Even though New Moon has made a bazillion dollars and even though the third Twilight book, Eclipse, is already filming, Summit has declined to announce the fourth and final Twilight book as a movie. There's a good reason for this: Breaking Dawn is completely fucking insane, and it is probably totally unfilmable. But if they do film it... man, we are in for a treat.
Breaking Dawn opens with Bella Swan, the lacteal heroine of the series, finally getting married to Edward Cullen, the mopey vampire hero. They go off to honeymoon on Isle Esme, a Brazilian island the Cullen clan owns (this is already ridiculous beyond belief. Imagine a vampire going snorkeling; it basically happens in this book), and Edward is afraid to fuck his new bride. The reason: he's super strong and she's just a human – Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex type of situation here. But Bella wears him down and Edward throws it in her – and knocks her the fuck out, leaving her badly bruised.
Let's go over that again: Edward fucks Bella into unconsciousness. This alone should have you running to Fandango to pre-order your tickets, but it only gets better.
Despite being knocked out cold by his sexual style (and having the headboard destroyed), Bella goes back to Edward for seconds. This time he knocks her up. Yes, an undead vampire apparently has enough viable sperm to impregnate a human woman while fucking her off the coast of Rio de Janero. Stephenie Meyer, you fabulous idiot!
The baby in Bella's belly starts growing incredibly fast. And it starts hurting Bella, as each kick it gives has the super strength of a vampire behind it. As it grows, Bella gets sicker, and then the good stuff starts. The baby kicks so hard it breaks Bella's ribs and then severs her spine. Are you imagining Kristen Stewart wearing a fake pregnancy belly and pretending to have been suddenly crippled by her own fetus? Because I am and it's making me laugh and laugh and laugh.
Oh wait, I missed something. Edward is completely freaked out about the baby, fearing it will kill Bella. He tries to convince her to get an abortion (but seriously, how could she? Vampires are tough to kill even in this shitty series), and goes so far as asking Native American wolfboy Jacob to impregnate his wife so that she can have the baby she desperately wants. I'm dizzy with how ridiculous this is, and we're just getting started.
Eventually the baby starts to get born and Bella is dying. The baby has telepathy, by the way, so everybody can read its thoughts while it's in the womb, and it turns out to have an essentially adult mind. Like Alia in Dune; I would accuse Stephenie Meyer of ripping this off, but anyone who thinks that Meyer might have read Frank Herbert has never been within spitting distance of Twilight. The woman is a moron.
In a moment that demands to be shown on the silver screen, Edward gives Bella an emergency C-section with his fucking teeth. It's like something out of XTro, for the love of God. It's so horrible it's brilliant, and this scene alone is why I remain firm in declaring that David Cronenberg must direct Breaking Dawn. This is surely his movie.
Once the baby is out, Bella gets vamped by Edward, as she's about to die at any moment. Then comes the most astonishing turn of events in 21st century literature, and possibly in the entire history of awful fiction aimed at tweens: Jacob the werewolf, who has been madly in love with Bella, sees the new baby girl and immediately imprints on her. What this means, in layman's terms, is that he falls in love with the baby.
I want to pull this out on its own: Jacob falls in love with a baby.
The book makes no bones about this; while Jacob doesn't want to fuck the baby right off the bat, he can't stand to be away from it and visits everyday. His love has been transferred from Bella to the baby (who has the tongue shattering name Renesmee), and because of the science behind imprinting he'll love her forever. So one day he's going to stick his wolf dick in this girl that he see as a bloody newborn. Romance is not dead, it's just being abused by insane Mormon writers.
There's more in Breaking Dawn - the Volturi come back, for one thing – but these are the main amazing events that demand this book to be turned into a film. I will not rest until I have seen a movie in which a werewolf falls in love with a baby. Hell, once I've seen a werewolf fall in love with a baby I may quit movie watching – I will have seen the ultimate culmination of a century of cinema. The entire film of Breaking Dawn would play like the weirdest exploitation film since Doris Wishman died – brutal sex, bizarre body horror, unbelievable pedophilia.
A werewolf falling in love with a baby. This is why Thomas Edison invented this shit in the first place. So we could see a werewolf fall in love with a baby.
http://www.chud.com/21684/the-devins-advocate-why-breaking-dawn-must-be-made-into-a-movie/
QuoteHis love has been transferred from Bella to the baby (who has the tongue shattering name Renesmee),
It's shit like this that will make me laugh my balls off in a few short years, when Ed Anger goes to his kids' first classroom meet-n'-greet, and 7 of the little shits are named Renesmee.
I didn't know you wrote for a website.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 04:47:51 PM
QuoteHis love has been transferred from Bella to the baby (who has the tongue shattering name Renesmee),
It's shit like this that will make me laugh my balls off in a few short years, when Ed Anger goes to his kids' first classroom meet-n'-greet, and 7 of the little shits are named Renesmee.
:mad: