11/18/2004
"Coming Out For One of Their Own": Fred Phelps' special brand of hate comes to the Oklahoma town of Michael Shackelford, with results that may surprise you. Shackelford, you may remember, was followed by the Washington Post for a story on gay youth several months ago.
Berkeley study finds massive statistic anomalies in Florida electronic votes likely awarding Bush hundreds of thousands of votes.
Oliver Stone's Alexander: Too gay for mainstream audiences and not gay enough for gay audiences? Musto: "The film tries to have it both ways, like Alexander himself."
Posted 3:15 PM EST by Andy Towle in Elsewhere | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Whoa. I like the last part in that article: "Stay with me tonight, Hephastion." Haha. I tell the bf that every night. :-)
Posted by: Kenny | Nov 18, 2004 6:40:35 PM
I read that story about Michael Shackelford and Fred Phelps. Love the last line,"Leave our Homos Alone".
Posted by: Hoya86x | Nov 19, 2004 10:52:04 AM
Alexander the Great was not gay – so says a group of Greek lawyers who are threatening to sue Warner Bros. and director Oliver Stone for suggesting in his new film Alexander that the warrior was bisexual.
"We are not saying that we are against gays, but we are saying that the production company should make it clear to the audience that this film is pure fiction and not a true depiction of the life of Alexander," Yannis Varnakos, spokesman for the 25 lawyers, tells Reuters.
...
While Varnakos and his group of Greek attorneys haven't actually seen the epic, starring Colin Farrell and Angelina Jolie, they say they have gathered enough evidence to know there are "inappropriate references" to Alexander's sexuality.
Alexander's sexual behavior is a sensitive subject among some Greeks. Two years ago, hundreds of northern Greeks from the province of Macedonia, where Alexander was born, stormed an archaeological symposium because a paper was presented discussing the homosexuality of Alexander. At the time, police were called in to evacuate the participants.
etc, etc....
Posted by: Ryan | Nov 19, 2004 4:47:32 PM
KENNY, you gave me a big laugh: you call your b.f. "Hephastion"??...O.K. I know you don't, but your comment hit my funny bone (no pun).
I saw Alexander @ Harmony Gold screening rm in L.A. Nov. 14. All the discussion abt gay, bisexual, or anything else re the movie will all be moot 2 wks after it opens cause the film will disappear from theaters rapidly. Reason: it's a bad movie. For starters, it's almost 3 hrs of repetitve talk, talk, talk that wears the audience down into unintentional laughter after 2 hrs. Despite Colin being there for Q&A afterward, many people were streaming up the aisle to escape the movie...not him. He smolders on screen & his legs (shown a lot on horseback) are sexy & there is a butt shot of him getting into bed on his wedding night. (He marries a chick.) That's it. There are hugs between Colin & Jared who plays Hephastion but no kissing. Unfortunately word-of-mouth is gonna cause the film to self-distruct before Christmas.
Posted by: JOHN | Nov 19, 2004 7:31:24 PM
Here's a post I made on another site:
Calling Alexander the great a 'gay' is blasphemy. It is indeed a reflection of the degradation of the male race that one of its best heroes is being labelled as 'gay' today.
Gay refers to a negative form of 'third gender' --- a result of heterosexualisation of the modern society. Although third gender males (whether they like women or men or other third gender people) are by no means inferior they are certainly different than (straight/ masculine) men. Alexander was the opposite of 'gay'. He was the epitome of masculinity --- an alpha male. Probably, the greatest alpha male that this world has known.
There has always been a 'special' kind of person equivalent of today's homosexual, eversince the Greek times who was extremely feminine and exclusively sought passive anal sex.
No one in the history has ever called Alexander or the Greeks in general 'gay' or 'homosexual'. Indeed the whole concept of 'homosexuality' or even 'sexual orientation' is a recent western phenomenon. The concept of sexual orientation or homosexuality is relevant only if male-male eroticism was something that only a small minority could feel, a condition which is (at least superficially) has been artificially achieved by the western heterosexual society by drastically changing the rules of masculinity.
Of course Alexander loved a man. Additionally he may not have much interest in women. (both are typical male attitudes). However, in the ancient world loving another man was not a wayward, feminine or 'minority' thing that the term 'gay' suggests. On the contrary, it was the most common and natural thing that every straight man took part in. In fact it would have been a wayward thing to bond with a woman. It was something that only third gender males participated in. Straight men did marry after they reached 30, but that was because of the social duty to raise children (an attitude which straight men typically exhibited till recent times). Indeed, men considered women to be dispensable but for procreation. Men in fact hoped that if men could give birth they will not need women at all.
This is in keeping with the nature of the mammalian male. In the wild the mammalian males mate only for reproduction. There is never a bonding or equivalent of love between opposite sexes. Any real intimate and committed bonding takes place only between animals who are not only the same-sex but also the same-gender. The opposite-sex mating takes place only once a year and not all males participate. Alpha males often mate only a few times in their lives or even not mate at all.
The only mammalian males that bond with females are the equivalent of the third gender human males --- as observed in the case of sheep and the sea lion. These males don't live in the 'male' pack but live with and bond with females as one of them.
The heterosexual society is a sham. It is an anti-male society that seeks to break men apart from each other in order to demasculinise them and make them forever subservient to and dependant on women. Straight men are never naturally heterosexual. They only pretend to be heterosexual --- or have been trained to be so by a society that requires heterosexuality as a proof of their manhood (straighthood), is hostile to male-male intimacy and propagates it as a third gender 'homosexual' stuff. Bonding with women does not come naturally to men. Indeed the institution of marriage has always been a pain in the neck for straight men and the society has had to compensate them and threaten them in a number of ways to make them marry women. However, marriage till recently did not mean 'bonding' with women, and most interaction with wives were limited to either sex or 'family' matters. Straight men formed any meaningful bonds only with other straight men. Indeed the idea of love marriage was rare and looked down upon in non-western societies.
The entire heterosexual social order ----- it's institutions, it's concepts, it's values, it's science, media, social categories and even it's language is designed to perpetuate this heterosexual agenda. By making essentially a third gender trait into a compulsory 'straight' thing, the heterosexual society has effectively disempowered, demasculated and subdued men.
The only people to benefit from this unnatural social order (apart from aggressive women) are the heterosexuals (who are actually either feminine or lesser males) and the homosexuals (i.e. feminine males who seek men as females). Heterosexuals, because getting 'manhood' has becomes as easy as fucking or bonding with women (unlike in the past). And homosexuals because it gives them the reign over male-male intimacy. The irony is that both the groups are in a minority. The one's to suffer are the straight men --- who try their best to pass off as heterosexual.
QUOTE: "Us NCOs were EXPECTED to turn in troops we thought were gay."
"I actually don't begrudge anyone their sexuality. If a guy wants to handle his buddies package that's on him, i just have two reasonable requests."
It is ironical that a heterosexual man asks 'gays' (although he uses the word 'gay', he apparently includes straight men who openly desire males) to keep out of the military. Well, of course the true homosexuals (i.e. the feminine males) should stay out of the military. Third gender males will not care much for the military anyways. But, military is where the straight (masculine) men belong. Just as much as loving another man is THE natural thing for them to do. Indeed, if anyone should stay away from the military (apart from the real homosexuals) are the real heterosexuals. Heterosexual men have no appreciation for, understanding or use of masculinity. They should rather be with women, form families and raise children --- something that they are naturally suited for. Military is not a place for them.
In the end it would be apt for me to include a quote from the well known heterosexual Buddhist scholar and author, the late Alan Watts:
"If they (young and unrealised men who desire men, who affect machismo, ultramasculinity, and who constitute the hard core of our military-industrial-police-mafia-combine) would go fuck each other (and I use that word in its most positive and appreciative sense) the world would be vastly improved. They make it with women only to brag about it, but are actually far happier in the barracks than in boudiors. This is, perhaps, the real meaning of "make love, not war". We may be destroying ourselves through the repression of male-male bonds."
Posted by: Buddha | May 9, 2005 3:49:24 AM
Homosexuality is the negative form of male-male bonds --- the marginalised, feminised and minoritised version. It is the remanant that reamains when you submit the society to specific artificial processess whereby the natural tendency of men to bond with men (including sexual/ emotional bonds) is suppressed in the mainstream community and allowed only in third sex/ third gender circles.
This process was certainly unimagniable in the times of Alexander. In fact homosexuality happens only in modern heterosexual societies --- and is a direct result of heterosexualisation. In other words it is one of the innumerable harmful waste products that the heterosexualisation of a society produces.
Therefore it is wrong to even suggest that Alexander was ‘gay’ because he loved men.
Posted by: buddha | Oct 13, 2005 5:26:06 AM
In fact, it is wrong to use the word homosexuality for sexual attraction between two masculine/ straight/ regular men. For all practical terms, homosexuality refers to the sexual attraction of a meterosexual/ transgendered man for another meterosexual/ transexual man or even for straight men.
Posted by: buddha | Oct 13, 2005 5:33:18 AM
What is the meaning of meterosexual alpha man? Does it mean that a straight man can love another man, in the same content that a woman could love and care for another woman,without having the thought of having sex at anytime. Only to purely love another male as a dear friend. Please clarify this point for me.
Posted by: Frances Fillippo | Apr 2, 2006 5:44:02 AM
Where has anyone talked about meterosexual alpha man?
Straight men should also be able to love another man sexually, just like they used to do in pre-modern, pre-heterosexualisation and pre-homosexualisation days
Posted by: Buddha | Sep 28, 2006 7:11:47 AM