02/23/2006
Bill O'Reilly chatted with Tab Hunter and Harry Hamlin the other night about playing gay in Hollywood. Pam has a snippet. Hamlin: "It's so weird that when you play a role that has a different sexual orientation, they seem to cross over, and they don't get it. You could play an ax murderer or you could play a rapist or whatever and get away with that, but for some reason when you cross the sexual boundary, it makes a difference."
Is Elijah Wood channeling Freddie Mercury?
Utah Senator Chris Buttars' bigoted bill aimed at gay-straight alliances passes is approved by the Utah Senate. Openly gay Senator Scott McCoy: "The most common epithets thrown about in our high schools are words like faggot and dyke. What these clubs exist to do is not to recruit people to change they way they live their lives. These clubs are simply places they can come together and say, 'We don't think people should be treated like that.'"
The poster for Brokeback Mountain in Turkey allegedly translates as Faggot Cowboys. UPDATE: I've been told by a few people that the translation may actually be Queer Cowboys. Which really isn't news at all then, except for the fact that they're shepherds.
Vladimir Luxuria is Italy's first drag queen to run for a parliament seat. Many news outlets describe her as transgender, which is obviously not the same as a drag queen. She has her own explanation: "Luxuria, 40, was born as Vladimiro Guadagno and describes herself as neither woman nor man, just someone in search of a husband. She moved to Rome to pursue a career as a night-club singer and actress and organized Italy's first gay pride march in 1994." Luxuria will be campaigning for gay marriage rights as well as the legalization of some drugs and prostitution.
Two gay priests are up for Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese in California. Both candidates have longtime same-sex partners.
Star Jones and Al Reynolds close to splitting? No way!
In Brazil for Carnaval? Made in Brazil has a guide to some of the parties and the scoop on a new product to keep your kisses germ-free.
Posted 9:55 AM 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.
Made in Brazil is horrible BLOG. The guy edits and deletes peoples comments. I LOVE following the comments section. A few days ago I read 6 comments on a news piece. Came back a little later and 3 had been deleted!
How can you run a BLOG in order to express your own ideas, interests, and comments and then censor other people? It's easy to take the attitude 'It's my BLOG and I can do what I wanna!' but it's still irresponsible and hypocritical in my opinion. I won't reward it with another click.
Thanks Andy for not censoring!
Posted by: Blue | Feb 23, 2006 10:17:08 AM
So Harry Hamlin played a gay character in a movie, then lands a lead in the biggest TV series of the late eighties and now he's complaining that it was playing gay that kept him from having a movie career?
Maybe it was because he was crappy at playing gay or straight characters...
Posted by: Tom | Feb 23, 2006 12:30:56 PM
EEEEK! I bought a Brokeback poster from Israel.
http://i8.ebayimg.com/03/i/06/0b/50/90_1.JPG
Anyone read Hebrew?
Posted by: Jim | Feb 23, 2006 12:49:14 PM
Jim, it says "cowboy butts make me nuts"
Posted by: Jason | Feb 23, 2006 1:32:43 PM
She should be used to splitting with Al's. he split with Al Roker at birth
Posted by: Rikki Lee | Feb 23, 2006 2:09:48 PM
Turkey is capable of anything (except intelligence) BYI turkish straight guys will do ANYTHING for the right price.
Posted by: steve | Feb 23, 2006 3:26:54 PM
Well, I can certianly see the photo shops going into over drive with Elijha's photo!
Posted by: Rad | Feb 23, 2006 4:31:07 PM
"Faggot Cowboys" is the right translation. Actually it's a pirate release DVD. BBM will be on theatres in Turkey on March 23rd. And Steve your comment about my country is really offensive!
Posted by: istanbulcasual | Feb 23, 2006 5:33:25 PM
Istanbulcasual: First, I agree with you about the offensive nature of Steve's comment. Second, your blog is outstanding! I like the BBM content and your selection of man-flesh.
Blue: Mr. Towle does, in fact, censor to a degree. If he receives a large number of complaints about someone, he will block them from posting. That is why the conservative rants from Mr. Schooler haven't been seen for so long.
Posted by: JT Stout | Feb 23, 2006 6:14:18 PM
JT,
That's interesting.
I thought that most of us regulars were all becoming a bit more mellow--including a couple of people who I was REALly argu-blogging with.
I mean, I've seen fewer and fewer remarks against Canadians or against Blacks on Andy's site to be offended by. Lately, if I see anything possibly controversial, whoever's bn blogging about the topic has "sorted it out" before I got there. It's Way Kool, I haven't written a loooong soliloque addressing a topic in awhile.
Not to harp on things, JT, but every time I see your posts, I can't help but picture a middle-aged guy dressed up "prettily" sitting in a silo(!) in the middle of a prairie field. Oh well, I'm sure you're a multi-faceted guy I will learn more about as time passes.
The Point Is:
I thought Matthew Schooler was mellowing too.
Posted by: Gilli | Feb 23, 2006 6:36:15 PM
Gilli: I'm sending a picture to your e-mail...no, not that kind of picture. I, by the way, am an honorary Canadian. My partner is from Montreal (dual citizen, no less) and I'm a University of Toronto grad. I was also born seven miles from the border, so I grew up with CBC from Brandon.
I think what I appreciated most about Matthew's posts were the fact that they were so intentionally over-the-top they ended up challenging us who are equally over-the-top on the other extreme. He really is a nice guy (weird, but nice) and doesn't act like something he's not. And believe me, he is every bit as conservative as he appeared.
Posted by: JT Stout | Feb 23, 2006 6:48:12 PM
Correction: Both Jack and Ennis rode Bronocos so they qualify as cowboys.
Yes, they herded sheep to make ends meet, no pun intended, but they were in fact cowboys polishing each other's beltbuckles.
Yeeehawwwww!
Posted by: Joe | Feb 23, 2006 6:55:42 PM
Joe, not to correct you, but they were stemming roses, not polishing beltbuckles.
Posted by: JT Stout | Feb 23, 2006 7:02:32 PM
Thanks.
I'm ashamed to say I hadn't checked my email in a bit.
Too bad! It looks like I've received some wonderful emails from bloggers on this site.
Need to keep reading...
You look highly active. And fun!
Have you and your partner had much time to visit?
Mellow: I meant that Schooler's emails were seemingly becoming less "offensive". True, he still tried to overly shake things up sometimes, but most of us knew to just play along. It was alternative to Matthew's regular paid-for therapy.
I will respond more later. Gotta fly for now.
Posted by: Gilli | Feb 23, 2006 7:07:43 PM
How can you block someone from a site? You can choose any e-mail address and name you chooose. Even if you block that IP address I'm sure you could just use another computer or IP masking program.
Anyways, I think there is a difference from removing harrassing and spamming people and general ceonsorship. I don't agree with many comments on here but I wouldn't delete any of them even if I could.
The guy from Made in Brazil Blog (I don't know his name because he hides it.. although freely advertises his boyfriend, maid, chaffeur, wealth, popularity blah blah blah.) all in the same breathe he begs for donations via Pay Pal.
But what's the point of having a comments section if you remove them? If you have certain rules about commenting then it should be posted, then breaking those rules of conduct would merit deletion. BLOGing is the newest form of media. Just because it's the internet does that condone a total disregard from journalistic integrity and repsect for freedom of expression? I guess that where I and 'J' from Made in Brazil differ. But then again, perhaps it's Maid.
Posted by: Blue | Feb 23, 2006 7:34:04 PM
>>when you cross the sexual boundary, it makes a difference
Sour grapes from Harry, who really puts the HAM in Hamlin. He says playing Gay in "Making Love" killed his movie career. I think it was his lack of acting ability that was the real culprit.
BTW, I'm proud, and a bit surprised, to say that I've never been censored here. Shouted down, but never censored. I'd be surprised to find that Andy deletes posts, but if he does, they must be real doozies.
For freedom loving people, blog censorship is a bad thing, but sometimes it has to be done. I think it's a lot harder to censor rude posts than it is to let people argue their point of view. I guess sometimes, we go beyond what good taste and fairness will allow. In that event, censorship may be more fair than freedom.
Posted by: Jay Croce | Feb 23, 2006 8:30:49 PM
>>describes herself as neither woman nor man, just someone in search of a husband.
Man, those Italian Commies are a wild bunch. They put a female porn star into parliament a while back. You wouldn't think trannys and hoes would go over so big in the home of the Roman Catholic Church, but then, until a few years ago, you wouldn't have thought of Priests as pedophiles and rapists.
Viva Italiano.
Posted by: Jay Croce | Feb 23, 2006 9:07:07 PM
A very interesting point, Jay.
So taking that beyond BLOG censorship if people consider gay marriage or gay rights beyond what they consider fair or in good taste, is it therfore OK to ban those too? That arguement sounds like a slippery slope.
And I disagree. I think it's a lot more difficult and takes a lot more courage to allow people to post opposing points of view, even if they are inflamatory, on your website you've put so much work and effort into, than to take the low-road and just hit 'delete' and santize content.
Anyways I'm censoring myself now. Talk amongst yourself... =)
P.S. From now on I'm going to try and only post with content that contains the words 'Black' and 'Canadian' in protest of censorship!
Posted by: Leandro | Feb 23, 2006 9:08:07 PM
>>if people consider gay marriage or gay rights beyond what they consider fair or in good taste, is it therfore OK to ban those too?
If it's an "off-topic" or personally insulting comment, maybe yes. If it's just an opinion that you'd rather not hear, then no.
Of course, I'm only saying that BLOG censorship is sometimes necessary in order to promote discussion. Not to prevent people from presenting their opinions or sharing their knowledge. If a poster is too abusive, and turns every topic into a discussion about himself and his beliefs, then you don't have an open dialog anymore. You just have a running series of arguments and hurt feelings.
Keep in mind that a Blog is not held to the same standards as a major media outlet. Television Networks and Newspapers have an obligation to present the truth in a more or less unbiased manner. Bloggers are free to present opinions, editorialise, and even disseminate un-checked facts, since the idea is rapid communication of ideas, not news reporting.
Censorship comes in many forms. Bullying people into silence is the same thing as censorship.
Posted by: Jay Croce | Feb 23, 2006 9:40:53 PM
That is such a cop-out! Who says one form of news media is required to publish verifiable, accurate and unbaised information but another form is wavied of any all integrity or obligation.
Just because BLOGs are new or they are internet-based does not obsolve them of all responsibility. Were early newspapers or early TV news shows obsolved of their responsibilty too?
You can't bully someone into silence. You can only allow yourself to be bullied into silence.
Posted by: Blue | Feb 23, 2006 10:19:51 PM
I don't believe that Mr. Towle is under any obligation to post anything that we send. This is his intellectual property. It is his creation, regarless of what we contribute. We have no first amendment right to be heard on this blog. Even though it might be nice to have a disclosure statement, that's not even necessary. He assured Matthew that he has blocked non-conservatives so at least he's fair and open minded.
Posted by: JT Stout | Feb 24, 2006 6:35:18 AM
*screeching tires halting sound*
Wait a cotton-pickin' minute here!
Ok.. last 9/30/05 there was this post on this very website:
>>>
A Knoxville, Tennessee community paper (which in this case should be translated as right-wing bigot rag) agreed to run an ad for a National Coming Out Day event called "Come Out Knoxville" only after the words "gay" and "lesbian" were entirely removed from the ad.
Wow. Perhaps the "community" should ban gays and lesbians from appearing at the event as well!
Publisher Steve Hunley released a statement saying "The Fountain City Focus is a community newspaper. Our focus is on the positive aspects of community. We choose not to involve ourselves in controversial social, cultural or religious issues. We prefer to leave that to the mainstream media." The positive aspects.
Here's the kicker. Gary Elgin, director of the Rainbow Community Awareness Project, actually thanked Hunley for allowing the censored ad to be run. Said Elgin: "Steve Hunley is a very kind man and I think he has made steps to embrace us as a community. He's not going to run the ad as we had designed it, but he has agreed to run an ad of one of our events and that's a step. That's building a bridge, board by board."
What steps has he made to embrace us? As far as I can see, he's a right wing bigot who'd rather we all disappeared. I understand it must be tough-going in Knoxville but thanking Hunley? It's like thanking the bully on the playground who just punched you in the face.
>>>
And in response to this Andy called the Editor "A nazi". Wasn't that newspaper HIS intellectual property to which he can publish, edit, or sanatize whatever he wants without any obligations?
How can ANYONE pick and choose where the First Amendment is appicable? How is censorship of convatives OK, but gays is not? You cannot selectively censor in one breathe calling it fair and open minded and condemn censorship in the next. This website reaches far more people than that little rag does, yet that newspaper is held to a higher standard??
Lord.. there are some days it's just not worth chewin' through the restraints.
P.S. I'm not referring to M. Schooler incident in particular (I know nothing about it). I'm aruging on the entire premise and fringe idealogy of selective censoring.
Posted by: Blue | Feb 24, 2006 8:56:26 AM
Basic differences and similarities do exist. Both newspapers and blogs edit submissions. A newspaper is only a limited a public forum, though. It is an organ for expressing content and views of those working for the newspaper, hoping that they represent the public. A blog is not a public forum. It is an organ of individual expression on the part of the person logging his or her views and ideas.
I believe that the first amendment has fairly broad applicability and might be able to be extended to blogs as articles of individual expression. Mr. Towle's blocking posts doesn't limit our ability to express ourselves. If I were blocked from posting my support of Matthew, I could go over to Lime Shurbet and post it. If Robert blocked me from that blog because of my liberal views, I could start my own web log.
This is a medium of communication and it is under the control of its creator. Mr. Towle is under no obligation to post anything, just as he is under no obligation to answer his telephone when it rings…another medium of communication…or to read junk mail, or his Bloomingdale’s bill.
Posted by: JT Stout | Feb 24, 2006 9:28:32 AM
As you all know, there are a large number of conservative voices and liberal voices that post in the comments section to this blog. My policy is to not delete comments unless they are personally directed, hurtful, and offensive to myself or others, off-topic, or linking to other sites that have nothing to do with the topic being discussed. If I receive a large enough amount of complaints about a certain commenter, they will be banned from commenting. The banning or deletion of comments has NOTHING to do with a person's political perspective. I appreciate the various political perspectives even if I do not always agree with them.
Posted by: andy | Feb 24, 2006 9:57:43 AM
You guys haven't bothered to mention--because you're probably not aware of--that one weekend blogger who only posts while most of us are all asleep. I won't bother repeating his/her derogatory comments, but Andy always deletes this numbnut the next day.
~~~
Andy,
What's so interesting is what different people find personally offensive enough to send you a complaint.
I haven't done much of this because I have found the whole tit-for-tat bickering blogging process to be mostly "self-regulating".
I'm sure you've noticed that many of us now do more "open" and multi-dimensional blogs instead of thinking of ourselves alone when we write.
Or else, instead of getting immediately offended, we try to have a sense of humour.
Of course, nothing is foolproof. I say this while trying not to take offence to Leandro's comment. Instead, I'll just consider the source.
~~~
Posted by: Gilli | Feb 24, 2006 3:10:16 PM