Cantousent Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 Good Lord, you doofus. Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community: Happy Holidays Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:Obsidian Plays Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris. Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!
Judge Hades Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 As for the 19 year old kid, let him do what he wants. Its his life. You either accept that or you don't need to be around him. Age is irrelevant.
Child of Flame Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 Good Lord, you doofus. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> :D It was apparent I was joking wasn't it?
Surreptishus Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 Beat the gay out of him. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What if, by accident you beat the gay into him harder?
Cantousent Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 (edited) That's undoubtedly wise, Hades, but easier to say when it's someone else's kid. Of course I knew you were joking. The Doofus comment was purely coincidental. :Eldar's wink and grin with a twist of lemon icon: Wait, did I just wink at another guy? Ewwwww! Edited January 9, 2006 by Eldar Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community: Happy Holidays Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:Obsidian Plays Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris. Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!
Judge Hades Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 If it was my kid I would have the same view. When raising children you have to guide them and teach them what is right, what is wrong, what is fiction, and what is real but ultimately you need to teach them to make their own decisions and to teach them to take responsibility for the consequences for those decisions. You can't hold their hand forever nor should you try.
Cantousent Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 So speaks the voice of experience. Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community: Happy Holidays Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:Obsidian Plays Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris. Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!
Child of Flame Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 Don't be knockin' what he's sayin' just 'cause he has no kids Eldar. Sound advice, though it's harder to apply than one would think. I speak from the receiving end here.
Child of Flame Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 Same here, past the age of thirteen or so my punishments were doled out in the form of the consequences of my own actions. Worked a helluva lot better than grounding, though sometimes I wish the consequenced weren't quite so bad. Then again, a lesson learned well before you're an adult is worth the drawbacks.
Aurora Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 Okay, speaking as apparently the only person who's seen the movie, Shalit is an idiot. Jack's initial "seduction" consists of putting Ennis' arm around his chest while he thinks Ennis is sleeping, after which Ennis forcibly pulls away, then pulls back and then they have wild obnoxiously-filmed consensual sex. If that's all it takes to seduce someone into gay sex, it's a wonder the whole world hasn't been recruited yet. His later "seductions" involve sending him a single postcard saying he's going to come by to visit, after which Ennis greets him with enormous happiness since it's been *four years* since they've seen each other. They then have consensual sex in a motel (well, a post-sex scene complete with a cigarette since even in a movie about gay men there are still more actual heterosexual sex scenes shown on-camera), and decide to spend a week together a few times each year. Jack also later eventually makes a few requests for the two of them to settle down, because he's sick of only seeing him two or three times a year. Trust me, I'm highly sensitive to sexual predation (one of the reasons I read here rarely and post even more rarely is because of the amount of people who think that rape is, in fact, a joke) and this movie had nothing of a sort. If Shalit saw it there, however, I certainly hope he also took to task "A History of Violence" (incredibly violent man-on-woman "no means yes even if I'm physically fighting you off" sex scene), "House of Flying Daggers" (both male leads try to rape the female lead but are never blamed for it), and "Closer" ("no means yes" male-on-female again). Those're just recent movies that come to mind. I am following my fish. A temporary home for stranded ML'ers
Cantousent Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 Yeah, I thought the stairs sex scene in "A History of Violence" was over the top. Of course, even there was a lot of weird stuff going on. Mostly, even taking a charitable view, I thought the stair sex scene was unnecessary. Still, in regards to Brokeback Mountain, you disagree with his view. Fair enough. Should he be forced to apologize for it? Should he be fired for it? He's a critic. His opinion regarding a lot of films will be ridiculous. That's no reason to be up in arms. So, you think his opinion is stupid, but he's going to write it. Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community: Happy Holidays Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:Obsidian Plays Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris. Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!
Diamond Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 "Article about 2005 in RPG" is a miniature version of this story. Only people who are overly sensitive about the issue are pissed off.
Hell Kitty Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 (edited) That's no reason to be up in arms. The reason people get up in arms about comments such as this is because they fear it will influence people in a negative way and further harmful stereotypes. For example, a man beats up a gay man because "He came onto me which means he is a sexual predator, therefore he had it coming." They get up in arms because they hope to change such views. I've seen you on these boards get pretty "up in arms" over some negative comments concerning religious folk. Of course the problem with getting up in arms about issues, be it anti-gay, anti-religious or anti-American, is that often you only ever end up preaching to the choir. Edited January 9, 2006 by Hell Kitty
Aurora Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 Yeah, I thought the stairs sex scene in "A History of Violence" was over the top. Of course, even there was a lot of weird stuff going on. Mostly, even taking a charitable view, I thought the stair sex scene was unnecessary. Still, in regards to Brokeback Mountain, you disagree with his view. Fair enough. Should he be forced to apologize for it? Should he be fired for it? He's a critic. His opinion regarding a lot of films will be ridiculous. That's no reason to be up in arms. So, you think his opinion is stupid, but he's going to write it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I never said he wouldn't write it (though technically he speaks it), or should be forced to resign, or anything of the sort. But I don't think it's insane for someone to be upset over his claims, because, well, they're entirely made up. Ex: Jack tracks Ennis down - true, and Ennis is overjoyed to see him & have sex again & meet again several times a year. Jack tries to coax him into a long-term relationship - yes, because Jack is tired of living a lie. Ennis refuses - yes, because the film is set in the 60s-early 80s and he knows how likely it is they'll be *killed* if they move in together. If he did, however, insult every one of the movies I mentioned to the same extent (his reviews are televised so I can't check) as well as other movies where the same thing which happened in Brokeback Mountain happened in heterosexual relationships (Titanic is actually a very good comparison), then he's not hypocritical and people are overreacting. I don't know if he's homophobic -this would certainly indicate otherwise - but unless he's consistent about this, there's something really weird going on here. I just think he's an idiot for misunderstanding so much of the movie (which I suppose is subtle given the standard Hollywood relationship, but not *that* subtle) and I don't think it's impossible that that's related to some kind of weird gay hangup. I really don't understand what his problem is because I'm not familiar with his work and don't have access to it, but perhaps some of the people who are upset by his statements are familiar with it. Alternately, he could be trolling, since he appears to be laughing most of the time on the video clip (even through the phrase "sexual predator," which is always good for a laugh). Maybe that's just his thing! I am following my fish. A temporary home for stranded ML'ers
Cantousent Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 That's no reason to be up in arms. I've seen you on these boards get pretty "up in arms" over some negative comments concerning religious folk. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's a fair comment, Kitty, and I respect it. ...But I don't ask that anyone be censured or censored for making comments. I have argued most strenuously against their position. Inasmuchas that's what GLAAD is doing, I can agree with them. That's the right of free speech. Someone on the board suggested that better ideas win more conflicts than arms. If GLAAD is right, then their ideas will win the day. Of course, we both know that isn't true. Sometimes the better idea doesn't win. So, if he had specifically cited homosexuality as the cause of sexual predation, I would be more than willing to agree with GLAAD. He didn't. There are reasonable interpretations to what he said that do. not. rely. on. prejudice. Since there are reasonable alternatives than the assumption that he was gaybashing, we should not make the assumption in the first place. There are bigger battles to fight for homosexuals than attacking a critic for making a review. Is he consistent? I don't know. Unless he has a clear history of gay bashing, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Moreover, what are the kinds of things that cause me to be "up in arms?" I agree with you characterization. Not only have I been "up in arms," but I have been quite forceful in my arguments. Nevertheless, I don't see the film critic's remarks as quite the same thing as suggesting that folks beat me with a stick for being Christian or that I be denied the right to vote based on my religion. This critic may or may not have the right idea about the character, but GLAAD has not shown compelling evidence that he was actually bashing anyone other than an isolated character. Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community: Happy Holidays Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:Obsidian Plays Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris. Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!
Hell Kitty Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 There are bigger battles to fight for homosexuals than attacking a critic for making a review.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree with that. I sure GLAAD are fighting those bigger battles, though we'll never hear about it on these boards. I don't think this critic was out to promote some anti-gay agenda, though I do think the comments may be due to subconcious homophobia. Kinda like when people claim to be the most tolerant person on earth, but the moment a gay person hits on them they freak out in a way they never would if someone of the opposite sex hits on them.
Surreptishus Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 So you don't think the gay son somewhat exonerates the critic?
Lucius Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 He could be a prick towards him for all we know. Or. He could just have misunderstood what happened in the story and made a bad choice of words. DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
Nartwak Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 He could be a prick towards him for all we know. Considering the short essay whe wrote for PFLAG about his son Pete, which can be found here, I am inclined to doubt it.
Lucius Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 You should have brought this information sooner, damn you! *shakes fist* Well now we know, at least. DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
Hurlshort Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 I don't even think GLAAD is attacking Shalit or calling for his job. Clearly he's not some uptight guy looking to bash gays. But the choice of his words seemed careless, and GLAAD is making that known. I bet Shalit will eventually clarify his review, although he has no obligation to do so.
Cantousent Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 I don't even think GLAAD is attacking Shalit or calling for his job. Clearly he's not some uptight guy looking to bash gays. But the choice of his words seemed careless, and GLAAD is making that known. I bet Shalit will eventually clarify his review, although he has no obligation to do so. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If GLAAD is just causing a stir and using this issue as a chance to make social commentary, I don't have a problem at all. That's reasonable, whether you agree with them or not. I thought they were going after the guy, but I've kind of forgotten the original article at this point. Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community: Happy Holidays Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:Obsidian Plays Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris. Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!
Judge Hades Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 Too bad In Living Color isn't making new episodes. I would love to see a "Men on Films" sketch on this.
Lucius Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 I wonder if anyone besides yourself understand what that means. DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
Recommended Posts