Andy Bell | Anna Paquin | Crime | Helen Thomas | Jake Gyllenhaal | Miley Cyrus | Modern Family | News | Robert Pattinson | Taylor Lautner | Television

News: Andy Bell, Helen Thomas, Mt. Rainier, Modern Family

 road Jake Gyllenhaal gets caffeinated in LA.

Jake  road Andy Bell on experiencing his first dose of ageism: "I saw this guy, turns out he was 24, and I went up to him and said 'you are stunningly good-looking.' And he says, 'I thought you used to be good-looking when you were in Erasure.' And I thought, I still AM in Erasure. Then he went on to say that he really only likes to have sex with people his own age. I have never been an ageist person. My tastes are open to all men, I like all ages, all races, all kinds. I remember thinking is it me, and the fact that I am 45, or is the issue with this kid?"

 road Miley Cyrus promises you that she did not kiss a girl on Britain's Got Talent earlier this week.

 road Foot in mouth: Helen Thomas sorry for saying Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go back home to Poland, Germany, America and everywhere else."

 road Anna Paquin on coming out as bisexual earlier this year: "It wasn't like it was a big secret. It was just a cause I cared about and privately supported, but not one that I had ever had an opportunity to speak out about in a way that would be useful. Obviously I know that one person's voice doesn't necessarily do that much, but I just wanted to do my bit."

 road Gary Coleman's ex-wife turns to the camera asking for your help paying for his funeral.

 road One missing as avalanche strikes Mount Rainier.

 road NY Times columnist Charles Blows explains why heterosexual men are becoming increasingly accepting of gays. One theory: "Virulent homophobes are increasingly being exposed for engaging in homosexuality...In fact, there is a growing body of research that supports the notion that homophobia in some men could be a reaction to their own homosexual impulses. Many heterosexual men see this, and they don’t want to be associated with it. It’s like being antigay is becoming the old gay. Not cool."

6a00d8341c730253ef0133ed710e95970b-800wi

 road Ed O'Neill on the controversy surrounding the lack of affection between Modern Family's gay couple: "Oh, that's so stupid. Who cares? When I hear that, it's half amusing, half annoying. First of all, they're the most conservative family of the three. Mitchell is a lawyer, and Cameron is a stay-at-home mom with a baby."

 road The manager of a pub in London refused to serve gay group LGBT Labour.

 road Stolen trailer leads to a hate crime.

 road Watch 10 seconds from Twilight: Eclipse of Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner getting all confrontational with each other.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. btw, "hot young guys" in other countries flock to older men. not every boy is as self-absorbed as some of you young bitches. good luck with that.

    @ian, where do you get your statistics.

    Posted by: nic | Jun 6, 2010 7:37:11 AM


  2. The Arabs (indigenous to Arabia) go off colonizing and displacing the original inhabitants of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and all of North Africa. And don't forget the 800 or so years they spent in Spain.

    Should they get the hell out of those countries, too? Or do the Arabs play by "rules for me, but not for thee."

    Posted by: Brad | Jun 6, 2010 7:50:57 AM


  3. Uh, I think it has less to do with Andy's AGE and more to do with his AIDS.

    The kid was just being kind.

    Posted by: Ken | Jun 6, 2010 10:30:12 AM


  4. I'm not sure why the Helen Thomas comment is on towleroad.com. Maybe its the common confusion of lesbian with Lebanese. She's not a lesbian, she's of Lebanese origin.

    The Israeli blockade of Gaza has become cruel and is not sustainable, but no one is haranguing the Egyptians who have closed their border with their "Arab brothers" in Gaza.

    People who want the Jews out of the Middle East ought to get together and do something about it. Given the oil wealth in some of the Arab nations, I am wondering what the problem is. So far the Arabs are a defeated, divided people.

    The Palestinian strategy of having children until the Israelis are overwhelmed is working, but it will take a little more time. Soon, if Jews want to live in a majority Jewish state, they will have to curtail their borders.

    As regards ageism in the gay community, I was once young,handsome and indifferent, if not contemptuous of the middle aged, now, not so much. Newsflash: if an older man wants to enjoy sex with a stunningly beautiful guy in his 20s he will have to pay for it. Hourly rates are available. This type of barter has been going on for some time (see ancient civilization), but its considered demeaning given our current mores.

    You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you're an upstanding respectable member of the community who goes without and apes the bourgeois practices of majority community or you're a pervert.

    I guess we each have to choose for ourselves.

    Posted by: Conflicted | Jun 6, 2010 10:32:10 AM


  5. Man, Brian really hit the nail on the head.
    "Ageism" is a load of crap, and just another step in the game of finding more and more victims in society.

    I'm not attracted to feminine guys, or bears. Nor am I attracted to guys old enough to be my father. It's called taste/preference. Maybe Bell is attracted to everyone because he has to take what he can get, but that's not the case for all of us. I don't ask others to unconditionally be interested in my "type," and I expect that they don't request the same.

    Stop it with all of this "we all have to like/be attracted to one another" crap. We can't all be responsible for everyone in the universe's hurt feelings. Sheesh.

    Posted by: Jack | Jun 6, 2010 10:41:14 AM


  6. Andy Bell's comments remind me of an interview I read with Armistead Maupin, where he talked about how much he LOVED being in his sixties. And he sat there decrying ageism in the gay community. Of course, he then talks about his WONDERFUL boyfriend, who happens to be 30 years younger than him. Wonder if Armistead would have that eye candy if he was a manager at a WalMart and not an acclaimed author.

    Some men, gay or straight, will always try to get someone thats too young for them. That's fine, but Im not gonna hold their hand if they're rejected or pretend its true love if they have deep pockets or international celebritydom.

    Posted by: dizzy spins | Jun 6, 2010 12:19:11 PM


  7. All men (most men) shoot out of their league. Way out of their league. It's just the way it is...I think a lot of men think that they're much more attractive than they actually are...and if you're straight, that can really work out for you (confidence). But if you're gay, you can all of the confidence in the world, and it won't make a bit of difference.

    Older gay men that hit on men who are dramatically younger and more attractive than they are...go for it...just don't complain about your feewings when you get shot down. That's the price you pay.

    Posted by: TANK | Jun 6, 2010 12:32:15 PM


  8. No Tank, the price one pays is whatever it might cost $ to get the young man in the sack...EVERYONE has their price if you are willing to meet it...stop tripping...

    Posted by: yeahisaidit | Jun 6, 2010 1:10:19 PM


  9. Well there's that, too. But not everybody wants a whore...perhaps that resolve weakens with age? ha ha ha

    Posted by: TANK | Jun 6, 2010 1:17:58 PM


  10. Bluntness about lack of sexual attraction isn't ageism, it's just rude.

    Posted by: Distingue Traces | Jun 6, 2010 1:28:29 PM


  11. @Mt. Rainier. Really Andy, this is news? Not here in WA. Here in WA we are ALWAYS spending our tax dollars having to rescue people that go up that mountain ill-prepared and ill-equipt. Not news, unless you have a "Darwin Award New Section" I don't know about.

    Posted by: Kenn | Jun 6, 2010 2:11:24 PM


  12. Interesting in Israel people freely -- and frequently -- criticize their government. Go figure.
    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jun 5, 2010 11:29:06 PM


    Go fuck yourself, Ehrenstein, as it's clear no one else will fuck your saggy half-black ass.

    Yes, Israeli citizens are free to criticize their government - Unless the citizens of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and numerous other Muslim nations in the Middle East, which routinely suppress, arrest, imprison, and torture political dissenters.

    As for the legitimacy of Israel's existence, you don't have to rely on the Bible for that. There is ample archeological evidence that Jewish people lived there thousands of years ago. But even if you didn't rely on that evidence, the Jews who migrated to that region beginning in the late 19th century were settling on land that belonged to no one - it was owned by the Ottoman Empire and most of the Jews bought the land outright from the Turks!

    Finally, every person who thinks Jews should up and leave because they are living on "stolen land" should pack their bags and leave the United States because - guess what! - the Native Americans were here first so get the fuck out of here you hypocritical fags.

    Posted by: GrabbinNewscum | Jun 6, 2010 3:26:05 PM


  13. i don't look like a crack-whore what a bitchy thing to say;i'm a really decent guy there's really no need for such derogatory comments!

    Posted by: andy bell | Jun 6, 2010 5:20:03 PM


  14. Unless you're a celebrity like Ian McMillan, Karl Lagerhead or Andy Bell, I don't see any way to bed these hot 20 somethings without paying for it. Anyone have any tips?

    I have tried a healthy, mutually-caring relationship with someone my own age, but I can't stay away from the prime beef.

    Please help me.

    Posted by: Likes them between 22 and 30 too | Jun 6, 2010 5:27:20 PM


  15. If it hadn't been for the Russian Jews, the Israelis would have been drastically outnumbered years ago. If you look at the population figures (eg. palestinian vs. Israeli jewish birth rates), it is clear that the Jewish situation is analagous to the whites in South Africa some years ago.

    Israel can build a wall, blockade Gaza, subdue Lebanon, buy-off Egypt and drain American coffers, but in time the number of young radicalized Palestinians will be overwhelming. Israel and the U.S. are buying time to what end? Are the Arabs suddenly going to see it their way?

    Helen Thomas is an admirable person, and since she sat through both Bush administrations, I think we should be patient with her outbursts. She doesn't have much time left to speak her truth.

    Posted by: John | Jun 6, 2010 5:54:44 PM


  16. >Israel can build a wall, blockade Gaza, >subdue Lebanon, buy-off Egypt and drain >American coffers, but in time the number >of young radicalized Palestinians will be >overwhelming.

    As I said before, if the Palestinians and their Arab "brothers" had simply accepted the legitimacy of Israel over 60 years ago, they would have their state together.

    And here's a little history lesson for you: you know which nations first "occupied" the West Bank and Gaza? It wasn't Israel. It was Jordan and Egypt, which occupied those lands for nearly 20 years after their failed attempt to destroy Israel in 1948. They kept the Palestinians in a refugee state, rather than give them their own state, because it allowed them to exploit the Palestinians and rile up their own Arab populations anger at the new democratic state of Israel, and avoid having to explain to their own people how come the Jews got to vote and exercise civil rights, but they didn't.

    Even just as recently as this year, Jordan stripped all Palestinians living there of their citizenship. Can you imagine if Israel stripped its Arab citizens of citizenship? You'd never hear the end of it. But when it comes to the double standard of the loony anti-Semite leftists, you never hear anything about it at all.

    Posted by: GrabbinNewscum | Jun 6, 2010 6:58:28 PM


  17. My question again: Can't Israel go through whatever it's going through without so many U.S. tax dollars? I don't care whose land it is supposed to be, who should stay or leave etc., but hamfisted billions upon billions upon billions of gov't appropriated funds, (and munitions), spent on their behalf STINKS when we need to help people here first....!

    Posted by: yeahisaidit | Jun 6, 2010 7:11:21 PM


  18. "Loony anti-semite leftists" ? There's no need for such derogatory remarks.

    Think of what the Afrikaners did for the indigenous population? Yet, apartheid could not maintain its legitimacy. Zionism is a legitimate response to centuries of European anti-semitism, but the current situation is not sustainable.

    Go to Israel and see the difference in living conditions between Jews and Arabs. Americans are tired of subsidizing these inequities.

    My question again: Israel and America are buying time to what end? Are the Arabs, or even Iranians, suddenly going to see it Israel's way?

    Posted by: John | Jun 6, 2010 7:40:43 PM


  19. let me repeat: the entire population of israel is less than that of the CITY of new york. we bolster this shit-stained country to the sum of billions of dollars per year, not to mention the tear stained loss of american bodies who go to their defense. does anyone really think that 9/11 would have happened were it not for our muddied hands and muddled thinking in defense of a rogue state? the jews who currently inhabit that region are right-wing extremists. let's get out of that region and let them twist in the wind. (how is that for irony?)

    Posted by: nic | Jun 6, 2010 9:24:44 PM


  20. Nic is an unequivocal antisemite. There is no doubt in my mind. Ignored.

    John: The situation with the palestinians may be untenable, but what's your suggestion? Are you of the notion that israel doesn't have a right to exist, too?

    Posted by: TANK | Jun 6, 2010 10:05:35 PM


  21. Israel is often its own worst enemy, and as of late they deserve the lion's share of blame for the state of things. But further displacing populations isn't the solution. There are Jews who trace their roots in Palestine back through centuries. And generations of Jews have lived and died in Israel. Forcing them to leave en masse is such a loathsome idea that I can't believe people can sit and casually spout it.

    And while I generally like to give anti-Zionists the benefit of doubt, their total silence when Egypt, Jordan, and Syria's culpability in the current state of affairs is telling, as is the casual Jew=Israeli. Not every Jew is a Zionist.

    Posted by: Zach | Jun 6, 2010 10:21:14 PM


  22. Israel deserves "the lion's share" for the state of things? So would that include the missiles that the Hamas terrorists in Gaza used to routinely and randomly fire across the border into southern Israel, terrorizing innocent civilians? Or is it only everything since then (ie., circa early 2009 after Israel finally fought back and defended its population by blockading further supplies of bomb-making material into Gaza)

    I'm all up for having a debate about U.S. foreign aid to Israel. But as long as we're having that conversation, let's also put on the table the foreign aid sent the Palestinians. The U.S. is the largest donor of aid to the Palestinians. Is that money well spent? What does it get us? How do we know it's not just perpetuating a cycle of violence? Maybe it's time to take the Palestinians off the dole and see how well they fare without the U.S.?

    Or is there a particular reason for singling out a majority Jewish state?

    Posted by: GrabbinNewscum | Jun 6, 2010 10:48:12 PM


  23. What about trading occupied land for peace? Back to whatever borders it takes to create a majority Jewish Israel.

    The Saudis and the oil-rich Gulf states can be expected to aid Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, even Egypt.

    Israel is already a center of innovation, and the Palestinians embrace education when it is available. There could be prosperity in a two-state solution, and a big disincentive to Muslim fundamentalism.

    If the US can kick Iraq's army out of Kuwait, we can defend a righteous Israel.

    As before, Jerusalem can be a divided city. Work it out.

    As far as I can tell Gaza has always been a problem for everyone. If no one wants them, maybe they could become an autonomous region of Egypt.

    International peacekeeping forces can enforce the peace for as long as it takes.

    Right now, Israel is a pariah nation that the U.S. is using as its front line of defense in the Middle East. It seems things will continue that way, but certainly not indefinitely. If want to secure our oil supply (keep the King, Sheiks and Emir in power) without huge military expenditures, we must seek to accelerate the peace process. Will we subdue Iran next?

    Time is on the Palestinian's side.

    Any other questions?

    Posted by: John | Jun 6, 2010 11:11:20 PM


  24. @grabbinnewscum...I didn't mean to single out only U.S. aid to Israel, (money&munitions), because your pointing out the U.S. aid to the Palestinians is also apt...CUT THAT HUGE EXPENSE AS WELL...It's all so complicated and crazy with the U.S. largely funding BOTH sides as they KILL each other...STOP FUNDING EITHER SIDE, not choosing one over the other, and bring that $ home where we need it! Though I tend to agree with John and fear that the truth is that the U.S. is using Israel as its front line of defense in the Middle East. I seriously wish that the American government would simply bring our taxpayer dollars out of that area, away from Israel and Palestine both. I'm afraid though that I am being naive if I don't come to realize that this is all about war and the "big boys" using both sides, funneling in tons of cash and weapons for their own political and financial interests. I mean, what's new about that? Plus, if you research how much of our money has been spent in this, there is no way your eyes wouldn't pop right out of your skull...So should I be depressed or cynical? I've got those two choices here and both SUCK!

    Posted by: yeahisaidit | Jun 7, 2010 1:08:56 AM


  25. "What about trading occupied land for peace?"

    As if that never occurred before...did you know that twenty years ago, arafat was offered a palestinian country which he turned down because it clearly wasn't in his best interest financially to end the conflict? It's not in the interest of muslim theocracies that surround israel for there to be a solution to this conflict. And if you think that time is on the side of the palestinians, you are mistaken...because bigger nations than israel will fall and many, many people will die if it ever comes to that--and hopefully it never will. Time is on no sane person's side in this matter. It's really quite hopeless, and most palestinians just want to live their lives unobstructed in their own country, but are drawn into this conflict by neighboring states and the political leaders who represent them--well funded by these extremists. And, of course, there are radical fringe elements within israel who encourage continued settlements beyond the green line in the west bank...they don't want an end to this conflict either.

    You see, when israel cedes land to the palestinians and the settlements are withdrawn from palestinian territories, hamas starts to commit terrorist acts like firing rockets. This inflames israel, and you get a disproportionate response just like every other nation's response to terrorist activity: punish everyone. And the settlements in palestinian territories continue. It's not about a "trade for peace," as peace isn't even on the agenda of many of the key players.

    So, to be clear, you don't think israel should be taken off the map, displacing people who've lived in that area for generations?

    Posted by: TANK | Jun 7, 2010 1:43:54 AM


  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «IRS Will Recognize Gay Couples In California For Tax Purposes« «