Jake Gyllenhaal

Cigs: Jake Gyllenhaal Wishes He Knew How to Quit You


Last week I pointed you to some recent shots of Mr. Gyllenhaal on the basketball court. A reader points out that he seems to be trying to use the patch to kick the habit. Like I said...

Whether or not he's successful, he'll still be smokin' in our book.


You may have missed...
The Great American Smoke-Out [tr]

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Hm. Maybe its a testosterone patch! Could Jakey need a little booster? Its tough keeping up with Ryan Phillipe...

    Posted by: Joe | Jun 26, 2006 3:48:09 PM

  2. I once had a patch with an anti-nausea drug...maybe he gets vertigo or sea-sickness. I really can't believe he has any faults like an addiction. He's perfect.

    Posted by: JT | Jun 26, 2006 3:51:12 PM

  3. Maybe it's one of those icy-hot patches...if he needs a little shoulder rub he can call me.

    Posted by: Mike | Jun 26, 2006 5:14:32 PM

  4. ...just always good to see Jakey in action...I think it would be Ryan that would need testosterone patches!!!

    Posted by: eddie | Jun 26, 2006 5:30:10 PM

  5. why do we have to see pictures of Jake every time he leaves his house? yes he's sexy, but this is turning into a Jake supermarket tabloid paper. blah

    Posted by: Josephson | Jun 26, 2006 5:35:26 PM

  6. Geez, why do we have to see a shot of Jake every damn day doing every-day activities?

    Is this turning into a Jake G. fansite for every picture available? Enough already.

    Posted by: Marcus | Jun 26, 2006 8:24:16 PM

  7. Keep the Jake coming...in moderation.

    Posted by: Tom | Jun 26, 2006 8:40:26 PM

  8. God, you gays complain about everything! Andy enjoys Jake Gyllenhaal. Andy owns this site. Andy posts photos of Jake. Very simple. Now,shut up.

    Posted by: Kia | Jun 26, 2006 11:43:28 PM

  9. Ignore those Debbie Downers, Andy! Please feel free to post anything Jake you want. Life is so hard...can't we just enjoy the simple things?

    Posted by: Jake | Jun 27, 2006 12:50:26 AM

  10. I feel so...unimportant.

    Posted by: Ennis del Mar | Jun 27, 2006 4:53:59 AM

  11. Keep the Jake comin'....we love you too Heath!!

    Posted by: kurt | Jun 27, 2006 11:58:59 AM

  12. But where's the love for heath?
    Nowhere near anything Jake recieves on this site!

    Posted by: kokodee | Jun 27, 2006 1:24:40 PM

  13. Jake is a fantasy. A straight male who is totally unattainable. The fact that he played a gay male in a film makes him appear attainable, as the obsessed fan transfers the attraction for the gay character onto the the actual actor, who they can never really have. It's ok to fantasize, but in the end try finding a real gay guy to love.

    Posted by: Seth | Jun 27, 2006 4:40:45 PM

  14. A real gay guy doesnt have Jake's looks. He usually prefers to sleep around instead of building a relationship with someone. He doesnt love the way Jack Twist does. It's not unrealistic to fantasize about Jake G. because Jack Twist doesn't exist!

    Posted by: Tim | Jun 27, 2006 10:02:40 PM

  15. My gay cousin might want to argue with you on that Tim. And he and his patner are raising a son.

    Posted by: Lady Heather | Jun 28, 2006 5:27:49 AM

  16. I guess you know at this point that the patch is merely a watermark from a photoservice.... as was pointed out by our astute webmistress at iheartjake.

    Posted by: Michael | Jun 28, 2006 9:43:05 AM

  17. There are plenty of good looking gay guys. Even your fantasy Jack Twist slept around –at the rodeo, with the foreman in the neighboring ranch and with the guys in Mexico. I think we need a sequel to Brokeback Mountain it should be called “Who Killed Jack Twist?” Was Jack’s wife in on it? Did Jack’s father in law strike a deal on his deathbed to have Jack killed? Or how about the jealous gay lover foreman at the ranch next door? How about Delmar when he found out what a slut Jack was. Jake Gyllenhaal deserved an academy award for his portrayal of Jack Twist. The Jack Twist character was very believable.

    Posted by: Georgi Wright | Jun 30, 2006 6:13:06 PM

  18. The following is a response to poster "Seth": All of us reality-grounded gay men (the same LARGE percentage of our gay community as is the sane percentage within the straight population) are already aware Jake is just, as you say, a "fantasy", and we do not, as you suggest, actually dissapate/invest all our erotic/romantic capacity chasing that fantasy of Jake, instead of finding a real gay partner. A large proportion of our adoration for Jake is that he is such an open-minded, kindhearted advocate/activist for his gay and lesbian fellow humans' equality and dignity, when he really doesn't have to do that at all, to have a great career.

    Posted by: Dan | Dec 31, 2006 9:06:59 AM

  19. The following is a response to poster "Tim": "A real gay guy doesn't have Jake's looks?!?" What the hell are you talking about? Everytime I go to a gay bar, bathhouse, party or function of any kind, I observe in our gay community the same proportions of ugly-to-average-to-superhandsome guys, as those proportions are along the spectrum of hetero guys. As ape-shit as I am over Jakey-Jake, I DAILY observe gay guys out there who are even MORE strikingly handsome, in the "straightish", classic, cookie-cutter Ken Doll hunk manner. There's no real-world correlation between inward brain orientation and outward gender package. Now, to be fair, I'll admit that even those super-masculine/-handsome LOOKING gay specimens seldom also have Jake's hypermasculine GENDER DEMEANOR (e.g., his choppy, butch hand motions, gait, speech inflections), which is where the brain chemistry difference comes in. I can only conjecture that your perception that we're (gays) all homely-to-mediocre, perhaps stems from alittle internalized homophobia or feelings of inferiority on your own part. Regarding your assertion that gay men in general are sluts, I know that I, and many others I've known are highly-oriented toward, and aspire to a loving monogamous bond. In all honesty, I have to agree that I've observed a statistically-lower "monogamy quotient" of the gay community, than among straights, BUUUUUT ... , BUUUUUUUT ... , that's NOT any more innate/intrisic to our nature, than it is to straights. Rather, it's because the hetero majority, through the ages, has denied us the the honorable, stabilizing institution of wedlock, with all its security, blessings and societal affirmation of our loves. So we were never SOCIALIZED into that tradition of feeling our relationships had as much value and committment, as young heteros have always been. They take for granted every day that the world is their freakin' oyster. We're still a second-class subculture on the outside of it, looking in. If we had marraige, our relationships would be equally-endurant, and conversly, straight men would be equally "slutty" if straight women were also societally-denied wedlock, probably rendering them more accessible for casual sex, as gay men are to each other.

    Posted by: Dan | Dec 31, 2006 11:04:25 AM

Post a comment


« «« «