Monday, April 17, 2006
Brokeback Mountain: A Chick Flick With No Chicks
Okay, it had women in it. In fact, despite being a gay cowboy movie, it had boobies in it too. Not only did it have boobies it had Anne Hathaway's boobies. If you don't know her by name she is that bubbly girl from such Disney movies as The Princess Diaries and Ella Enchanted. I would have to assume that exposing your breasts in a gay cowboy movie means you have to give up the right to be in Disney movies for the rest of your life.
I knew from the get go that this movie was not going to be easy for me to watch. As liberal as I am, and as non-homophobic, I still find it to be a little gross for two men to be kissing. And this movie worked quickly to not alleveate these fears. Not more than twenty minutes into the film there were Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal kissing and buggering each other. Luckily the roughest stuff to watch was over early. I would compare this to Saving Private Ryan in that sense. Sure there was a bit of gore throughout Saving Private Ryan, but they packed the worst hardest to watch stuff right at the beginning. Brokeback Mountain did this too, the first thirty to forty-five minutes was uncomfortable to say the least. The rest of the movie was about this theme, but it was blessedly free of the most uncomfortable stuff, you know, like two guys buggering each other.
I didn't hate the movie, but I didn't like it either. In the end it was just a romance movie. A romance combined with a tragedy. Let me give praise where praise is due though first. Heath Ledger was amazing. Until this movie I didn't like Ledger and did not think him much of an actor, but his performance is amazing and totally believable. Gyllenhaal was good, but nothing special. The other notable performance was Michelle Williams as Ennis Del Mar's(Ledger) wife Alma. She unfortunately suspects what is going on between her husband and his fishing buddy and spends the movie in anguish grappling with this knowledge. Her character is as tragic and the two lovers who can never really be together. Ang Lee's direction was simply beautiful. The shots of the landscapes and the scenery were breathtaking. The music was so perfectly blended in the movie that it affected your emotions and much as the performances did. My only complaint to Mr. Lee would be that the film was about thirty or forty minutes too long. My wife lost all interest by the time end came. And it was a great ending, not the best I have ever seen, but a great ending nonetheless. I was almost as bored as my wife, but I did find myself touched by the end of the film. Without that ending the movie would have slipped below mediocricy, but the end elevated it to atleast average in my opinion.
It was boring, despite the good characters it was very boring at one point. When you even try to remember the movie after watching it you can't recall what happened for about an hour and a half in the middle of the movie, because it seemed to go nowhere very slowly. The beginning of the movie does not prepare you or set the groundwork for Ennis's and Jack's romance. One night the two characters are lying in a tent. Not more than three or four days from having met. One minute they are asleep the next they are buggering each other. That is far from the reluctant setup you would expect from outdoorsmen in an era of sexual repression. Also, I have a social objection to this movie. First let me state that I am a liberal. Why should we be praising and feeling sorry for these characters and there love we dare not speak of. When they first meet Ennis is engaged to be married. After their wild summer and by the time the two meet again both men are married with children. For years after they carry on this secret affair. Maybe I am looking at this all wrong, but an affair is still an affair even if you are having sex with someone of the same gender. I know the morals of our country are always questionable, but isn't sleeping around on your wife still a bad thing. I do realize that these two didn't feel they could ever be together and they tried to get on with their lives and be as normal as possible, but their wives are paying the price for societies bigotry and their husbands lusts. But like I said maybe I am missing the point somewhere. I am all for gay rights and social acceptance and I am glad this movie brought those issues to the forefront for a while. I am most hopeful that the movie can touch some of the people that see homosexuality as wrong and maybe make them rethink these thoughts. But if you are just looking for a good, entertaining movie, maybe you should rent King Kong instead.
I hoped I could write this article with out bringing up the word Oscar, but I can't I have to say this. The Academy of voters got everything comepletly right. Ang Lee won for best director and as well he should have. The movie was beautiful and wonderfully shot. Paul Haggis did a great job with Crash, but Ang Lee did a better job with Brokeback Mountain. Crash was the better of the two pictures on almost every level. People want to attribute social signifigance to Brokeback, but it is not as strong laid out in the movie as you have been led to believe. You don't watch this movie and think, "Damn, why can't society be more accepting of homosexuals?" You simply think, "Damn, was that sad." Crash left you think and pondering the way you interact and think of people of different races, and isn't that what a socially signifigant movie does, leave you thinking and questioning. Crash was more entertaining and while that isn't the only factor, to me it is the most important. Crash has excitement, a little humor, and scenes that leave you an emotional wreck, "Thank god for invisible magic capes." When you watch Crash you feel you watched something important, when you watch Brokeback Mountain you feel like you watched a slightly above average romantic tragedy.
I knew from the get go that this movie was not going to be easy for me to watch. As liberal as I am, and as non-homophobic, I still find it to be a little gross for two men to be kissing. And this movie worked quickly to not alleveate these fears. Not more than twenty minutes into the film there were Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal kissing and buggering each other. Luckily the roughest stuff to watch was over early. I would compare this to Saving Private Ryan in that sense. Sure there was a bit of gore throughout Saving Private Ryan, but they packed the worst hardest to watch stuff right at the beginning. Brokeback Mountain did this too, the first thirty to forty-five minutes was uncomfortable to say the least. The rest of the movie was about this theme, but it was blessedly free of the most uncomfortable stuff, you know, like two guys buggering each other.
I didn't hate the movie, but I didn't like it either. In the end it was just a romance movie. A romance combined with a tragedy. Let me give praise where praise is due though first. Heath Ledger was amazing. Until this movie I didn't like Ledger and did not think him much of an actor, but his performance is amazing and totally believable. Gyllenhaal was good, but nothing special. The other notable performance was Michelle Williams as Ennis Del Mar's(Ledger) wife Alma. She unfortunately suspects what is going on between her husband and his fishing buddy and spends the movie in anguish grappling with this knowledge. Her character is as tragic and the two lovers who can never really be together. Ang Lee's direction was simply beautiful. The shots of the landscapes and the scenery were breathtaking. The music was so perfectly blended in the movie that it affected your emotions and much as the performances did. My only complaint to Mr. Lee would be that the film was about thirty or forty minutes too long. My wife lost all interest by the time end came. And it was a great ending, not the best I have ever seen, but a great ending nonetheless. I was almost as bored as my wife, but I did find myself touched by the end of the film. Without that ending the movie would have slipped below mediocricy, but the end elevated it to atleast average in my opinion.
It was boring, despite the good characters it was very boring at one point. When you even try to remember the movie after watching it you can't recall what happened for about an hour and a half in the middle of the movie, because it seemed to go nowhere very slowly. The beginning of the movie does not prepare you or set the groundwork for Ennis's and Jack's romance. One night the two characters are lying in a tent. Not more than three or four days from having met. One minute they are asleep the next they are buggering each other. That is far from the reluctant setup you would expect from outdoorsmen in an era of sexual repression. Also, I have a social objection to this movie. First let me state that I am a liberal. Why should we be praising and feeling sorry for these characters and there love we dare not speak of. When they first meet Ennis is engaged to be married. After their wild summer and by the time the two meet again both men are married with children. For years after they carry on this secret affair. Maybe I am looking at this all wrong, but an affair is still an affair even if you are having sex with someone of the same gender. I know the morals of our country are always questionable, but isn't sleeping around on your wife still a bad thing. I do realize that these two didn't feel they could ever be together and they tried to get on with their lives and be as normal as possible, but their wives are paying the price for societies bigotry and their husbands lusts. But like I said maybe I am missing the point somewhere. I am all for gay rights and social acceptance and I am glad this movie brought those issues to the forefront for a while. I am most hopeful that the movie can touch some of the people that see homosexuality as wrong and maybe make them rethink these thoughts. But if you are just looking for a good, entertaining movie, maybe you should rent King Kong instead.
I hoped I could write this article with out bringing up the word Oscar, but I can't I have to say this. The Academy of voters got everything comepletly right. Ang Lee won for best director and as well he should have. The movie was beautiful and wonderfully shot. Paul Haggis did a great job with Crash, but Ang Lee did a better job with Brokeback Mountain. Crash was the better of the two pictures on almost every level. People want to attribute social signifigance to Brokeback, but it is not as strong laid out in the movie as you have been led to believe. You don't watch this movie and think, "Damn, why can't society be more accepting of homosexuals?" You simply think, "Damn, was that sad." Crash left you think and pondering the way you interact and think of people of different races, and isn't that what a socially signifigant movie does, leave you thinking and questioning. Crash was more entertaining and while that isn't the only factor, to me it is the most important. Crash has excitement, a little humor, and scenes that leave you an emotional wreck, "Thank god for invisible magic capes." When you watch Crash you feel you watched something important, when you watch Brokeback Mountain you feel like you watched a slightly above average romantic tragedy.
# posted by Brandon Michael Collinsworth @ 9:45 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Since I haven't seen BROKEBACK, I have no comments. But I do have a link to some comments from Marq that I read last month about BROKEBACK and the blurring of the lines between tolerance and acceptance. Enjoy:
http://renovatio.blogspot.com/2006/03/cowboys-sex-and-truth.html
http://renovatio.blogspot.com/2006/03/cowboys-sex-and-truth.html
I know the basic plot of the film, but I do not know the details. You mention that the two cowboys' wives pay the price for both society's bigotry and their husbands' lusts. What do you mean by "society's bigotry"? And how do the wives pay for "society's bigotry"?
Also, you pointed out that you were a liberal before you mentioned your social objections to the adultery in the film. Why? You seem to be prepping your audience for the revelation that, yes, liberals actually do have morals. But at the same time, it seems that you are almost fueling the stereotype a bit. Explain.
Good review. I like your honesty in this review. You present yourself as one who is both non-homophobic AND a bit sickened by the sight of two men "buggering" [great word!! :))]. I would think that many would call you a homophobe for admitting that. Some would not even mention their disgust for the sake of being called a homophobe.
Also, you pointed out that you were a liberal before you mentioned your social objections to the adultery in the film. Why? You seem to be prepping your audience for the revelation that, yes, liberals actually do have morals. But at the same time, it seems that you are almost fueling the stereotype a bit. Explain.
Good review. I like your honesty in this review. You present yourself as one who is both non-homophobic AND a bit sickened by the sight of two men "buggering" [great word!! :))]. I would think that many would call you a homophobe for admitting that. Some would not even mention their disgust for the sake of being called a homophobe.
I said that their wives were paying for society's bigotry because if it would have been possible for these two men to be together then they would have never gotten married, of course technically speaking that would mean that these women never would have became their wives. They married these women to try and bury these feeling and to try and change themselves as much as for any other traditional reason. I hope that clears up what I was trying to say.
As for my stating that I am a liberal I do it for two reasons and you hit one of them right on the head. I do think there is a stigma attached by some to liberals as immorals. But the other reason is because I am about to attack what has become a liberal holy grail over the last few months. As gentle as that attack maybe the last think I want people to think I am is a conservative. Ha Ha.
I am sure you are right and I would be labeled a homophobe by many, wrongly of course. There are lots of things I don't want to see. I love fried chicken, but I don't want to witness the act that gets a live chicken onto my plate.
As for my stating that I am a liberal I do it for two reasons and you hit one of them right on the head. I do think there is a stigma attached by some to liberals as immorals. But the other reason is because I am about to attack what has become a liberal holy grail over the last few months. As gentle as that attack maybe the last think I want people to think I am is a conservative. Ha Ha.
I am sure you are right and I would be labeled a homophobe by many, wrongly of course. There are lots of things I don't want to see. I love fried chicken, but I don't want to witness the act that gets a live chicken onto my plate.
I'm trying to grasp the meaning of your use (or BROKEBACK's) of the word "bigotry."
By saying "society's bigotry," are you (or BROKEBACK) saying that everyone who does not embrace homosexuality as moral is a bigot? In other words, those who are tolerant of homosexuality and homosexuals, but do not accept their lifestyle. People who do not resort to violence or rudeness when engaged in debate.
Or are you (or BROKEBACK)referring only to those in society who are intolerant of homosexuality and homosexuals, who resort to rudeness and violence because of their prejudice?
By saying "society's bigotry," are you (or BROKEBACK) saying that everyone who does not embrace homosexuality as moral is a bigot? In other words, those who are tolerant of homosexuality and homosexuals, but do not accept their lifestyle. People who do not resort to violence or rudeness when engaged in debate.
Or are you (or BROKEBACK)referring only to those in society who are intolerant of homosexuality and homosexuals, who resort to rudeness and violence because of their prejudice?
I don’t like peaches. In fact, I hate peaches. I think peaches have to be the worst food in the world. There can’t be anything in the world that disgusts me as much as peaches. Peaches, with their furry outsides and slimy, snot-like innards. For the life of me I don’t understand how anyone can eat a peach. I just don’t understand what makes a person like peaches. I can’t believe that everyone else in the world doesn’t think like me and hate peaches. Why doesn’t everyone else rise up with me as one and chop down every peach tree. Destroy every peach and spare the world from this horrible fruit. Even the sight of them sickens me a little. I refuse to have them even in my house. My home is a peach free zone. I don’t even like my kids eating peaches. I feel that the peaches will corrupt them and make them peach lovers.
But for some reason all of society doesn’t think like me. Some people not only like peaches, they love them. My own parents are voracious peach eaters and there is probably not a week that passes where my own father doesn’t enjoy a peach. My kids like them and eat them when they get a chance and many, many restaurants serve them, and even if I complain about it they will still serve them.
I am forced to live in a world with the dreaded peach. The way I see it I have two options: I could declare myself a one man army out to eradicate the peach or I could just accept that peaches are in this world to stay and that some people are going to eat them. I have chosen the lather. I myself don’t have to eat and can still not have them in my house. There is nothing I can do about the world though, the peach eaters are out there. I tell my family and friends that I don’t like the peaches and they respect my wishes to not bring peaches around me. I realize that our society is built around personal freedom which not only gives me the right to hate peaches, but also gives others the right to love peaches. I have learned to come to grips with my peach bigotry and though I will never love the sickly sweet peach I have learned to accept that the peach is going nowhere. I have learned how to live in harmony with not only the despised peach, but with the peach lovers out there always trying to convince me that peaches are good, natural, and harmless. I still think the peach sucks, but there is enough room in this country that we can avoid each other most of the time and I have come find that even when we do see each other the peach is perfectly hospitable to me. I have yet to have a peach jump in my face and try to force itself into my mouth, I have not had a peach try to persuade me to enjoy it’s peachy goodness.
I guess in the end the world isn’t so bad with peaches in it. They add quite a bit of color to the world and a lot of flavor. Sure it’s a flavor I don’t like, but others do and its not like the peach is directly hurting me. As long as they don’t try to turn me into a peach eater I see no reason why we can’t continue to live in harmony.
I don’t know if this answers your question or not. But I wasn’t looking to turn my pop culture blog into a referendum on gay rights. When I referred to bigotry I was talking about tolerance. Not to give anything away but SPOILER. Jack Twist was beaten to death at the end of the movie because he was gay. Throughout the movie including the beginning before they got married each man wanted to live together at their own ranch, but they knew what might become of them if people knew they were gay. You can’t force anyone to like anything. I will never like peaches or understand how anyone can eat a peach, but I am tolerant of peach eaters. I believe peach eaters have a right to be happy even if I don’t agree with their lifestyle. I can see how bigotry refers to both things you mentioned. But they are essentially the same emotion, one is just a more extreme point of view. But I was talking about tolerance not acceptance. At this point tolerance is the best I can hope for. Hey I think this comment could have made a good article on my other blog.
Down with Peaches!!!
But for some reason all of society doesn’t think like me. Some people not only like peaches, they love them. My own parents are voracious peach eaters and there is probably not a week that passes where my own father doesn’t enjoy a peach. My kids like them and eat them when they get a chance and many, many restaurants serve them, and even if I complain about it they will still serve them.
I am forced to live in a world with the dreaded peach. The way I see it I have two options: I could declare myself a one man army out to eradicate the peach or I could just accept that peaches are in this world to stay and that some people are going to eat them. I have chosen the lather. I myself don’t have to eat and can still not have them in my house. There is nothing I can do about the world though, the peach eaters are out there. I tell my family and friends that I don’t like the peaches and they respect my wishes to not bring peaches around me. I realize that our society is built around personal freedom which not only gives me the right to hate peaches, but also gives others the right to love peaches. I have learned to come to grips with my peach bigotry and though I will never love the sickly sweet peach I have learned to accept that the peach is going nowhere. I have learned how to live in harmony with not only the despised peach, but with the peach lovers out there always trying to convince me that peaches are good, natural, and harmless. I still think the peach sucks, but there is enough room in this country that we can avoid each other most of the time and I have come find that even when we do see each other the peach is perfectly hospitable to me. I have yet to have a peach jump in my face and try to force itself into my mouth, I have not had a peach try to persuade me to enjoy it’s peachy goodness.
I guess in the end the world isn’t so bad with peaches in it. They add quite a bit of color to the world and a lot of flavor. Sure it’s a flavor I don’t like, but others do and its not like the peach is directly hurting me. As long as they don’t try to turn me into a peach eater I see no reason why we can’t continue to live in harmony.
I don’t know if this answers your question or not. But I wasn’t looking to turn my pop culture blog into a referendum on gay rights. When I referred to bigotry I was talking about tolerance. Not to give anything away but SPOILER. Jack Twist was beaten to death at the end of the movie because he was gay. Throughout the movie including the beginning before they got married each man wanted to live together at their own ranch, but they knew what might become of them if people knew they were gay. You can’t force anyone to like anything. I will never like peaches or understand how anyone can eat a peach, but I am tolerant of peach eaters. I believe peach eaters have a right to be happy even if I don’t agree with their lifestyle. I can see how bigotry refers to both things you mentioned. But they are essentially the same emotion, one is just a more extreme point of view. But I was talking about tolerance not acceptance. At this point tolerance is the best I can hope for. Hey I think this comment could have made a good article on my other blog.
Down with Peaches!!!
You definitely should have blogged that one--for the world (me and Bobby--just joking, more people read your blog--like my mother-in-law--well...used to read your blog :)))to see!! That was a cool way to put things.
You described yourself as a peach bigot. By the very fact that you've also described yourself as tolerant of others who like peaches, you are not a bigot. Bigots are intolerant of others' views. That's what makes them bigots (by definition). You are tolerant of peach eaters; you just don't accept their love for peaches. You are not a peach bigot; you are simply one who does not enjoy peaches.
I find the word bigot (holding extremely negative connotations) to be offensive, especially ever since I was unjustly called one by a guy in Magee's Patio Cafe 5 years ago. His reasoning was this: Christians are bigots. Period. Every now and again, I hear someone refer to people who don't think that homosexuality is moral, as bigots. That's a strong word and an unjust accusation. Already knowing the ending to BROKEBACK, I thought it interesting that you used the word "society" when speaking of bigotry. I could see different ways of interpreting "society's bigotry"--1) all those in society who don't agree with homosexuality are bigots 2)society contains bigots, so the bigot representatives are "society's bigots" I was wondering how you meant it, so I asked.
You wrote, "I don’t know if this answers your question or not. But I wasn’t looking to turn my pop culture blog into a referendum on gay rights." I hope that I didn't offend you. I simply like to respond to yours as well as my other "blog" friends' writings. I also like to ask questions--sometimes I'm curious, but other times I seek to challenge the thinking of others (as well as my own). In this case, I was both. I wanted to see if you believed that there was a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I wanted to challenge your thinking, and in a sense, I wanted you to defend yourself.
Blogging (writing) is a thinking tool, especially when someone is always challenging your thinking. This morning I was at P.J.'s writing about Calvinism and FRANKENSTEIN and I happened to meet a Calvinist-literature scholar who started grilling me on my thinking. I'm working on an essay about the constraints of Calvinism reflected in JEKYLL AND HYDE and FRANKENSTEIN--what a coincidence (and a blessing) that this guy walked in. At first, I was scrambling. But after about an hour of thinking and talking with this guy, I was able to not only convince him that my thinking had merit (FRANKENSTEIN does reflect the constraints of Calvinism), but he was able to convince me where my thinking needed fine-tuning. It made my heart glad when he finally said, "Oh!!! I see where you're coming from. Geez. Maybe Shelley is reflecting Calvinism in FRANKENSTEIN). I could have stopped the conversation at the beginning and said something to the effect of "Hey, I think differently than you. Let's agree to disagree. Case closed." or "Please spare me the bullshit,' and then insult him profusely for his audacity to challenge me, but I felt compelled to justify my reasoning, and I generally expect most who offer written or verbal thought to be able to defend their thinking. I expect it of myself (even though I scramble). Not all agree with me though, but that's okay (see, I'm not a bigot! :)))
But anyway, keep 'em coming, bro--blog posts, that is.
By the way, here's my present views on homosexuality: If the Bible is true, homosexuality is wrong. If the Bible is false, homosexuality is right. Remember, my feet are in two canoes right now, so not at any point in your BROKEBACK article did I think you were calling me a bigot (wanted to make that clear).
Also, your post and Marq's post on BROKEBACK inspired me to post some thoughts on tolerance. Be on the lookout this week! (shameless plug).
You described yourself as a peach bigot. By the very fact that you've also described yourself as tolerant of others who like peaches, you are not a bigot. Bigots are intolerant of others' views. That's what makes them bigots (by definition). You are tolerant of peach eaters; you just don't accept their love for peaches. You are not a peach bigot; you are simply one who does not enjoy peaches.
I find the word bigot (holding extremely negative connotations) to be offensive, especially ever since I was unjustly called one by a guy in Magee's Patio Cafe 5 years ago. His reasoning was this: Christians are bigots. Period. Every now and again, I hear someone refer to people who don't think that homosexuality is moral, as bigots. That's a strong word and an unjust accusation. Already knowing the ending to BROKEBACK, I thought it interesting that you used the word "society" when speaking of bigotry. I could see different ways of interpreting "society's bigotry"--1) all those in society who don't agree with homosexuality are bigots 2)society contains bigots, so the bigot representatives are "society's bigots" I was wondering how you meant it, so I asked.
You wrote, "I don’t know if this answers your question or not. But I wasn’t looking to turn my pop culture blog into a referendum on gay rights." I hope that I didn't offend you. I simply like to respond to yours as well as my other "blog" friends' writings. I also like to ask questions--sometimes I'm curious, but other times I seek to challenge the thinking of others (as well as my own). In this case, I was both. I wanted to see if you believed that there was a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I wanted to challenge your thinking, and in a sense, I wanted you to defend yourself.
Blogging (writing) is a thinking tool, especially when someone is always challenging your thinking. This morning I was at P.J.'s writing about Calvinism and FRANKENSTEIN and I happened to meet a Calvinist-literature scholar who started grilling me on my thinking. I'm working on an essay about the constraints of Calvinism reflected in JEKYLL AND HYDE and FRANKENSTEIN--what a coincidence (and a blessing) that this guy walked in. At first, I was scrambling. But after about an hour of thinking and talking with this guy, I was able to not only convince him that my thinking had merit (FRANKENSTEIN does reflect the constraints of Calvinism), but he was able to convince me where my thinking needed fine-tuning. It made my heart glad when he finally said, "Oh!!! I see where you're coming from. Geez. Maybe Shelley is reflecting Calvinism in FRANKENSTEIN). I could have stopped the conversation at the beginning and said something to the effect of "Hey, I think differently than you. Let's agree to disagree. Case closed." or "Please spare me the bullshit,' and then insult him profusely for his audacity to challenge me, but I felt compelled to justify my reasoning, and I generally expect most who offer written or verbal thought to be able to defend their thinking. I expect it of myself (even though I scramble). Not all agree with me though, but that's okay (see, I'm not a bigot! :)))
But anyway, keep 'em coming, bro--blog posts, that is.
By the way, here's my present views on homosexuality: If the Bible is true, homosexuality is wrong. If the Bible is false, homosexuality is right. Remember, my feet are in two canoes right now, so not at any point in your BROKEBACK article did I think you were calling me a bigot (wanted to make that clear).
Also, your post and Marq's post on BROKEBACK inspired me to post some thoughts on tolerance. Be on the lookout this week! (shameless plug).
you know I am always glad of your comments and I love the debate and exchanging of ideas.
Of course I am not offended in getting in this discussion. It is relevant to the review and I am the one that made the comment in my post that inspired your question.
I always like when people question me and what I say, because we all know that sometimes I have a tendency to get over-zealous and start talking out of my ass. One thing you defintely do is keep me on my toes and make me watch what I say. For the most part, and I am sure you assumed this, I used the word "society" simply as a generalization. Not by attributing it to the population as a whole or even to a certain group. I used it only a reprenstation of the majority or predominant opinion.
Was the, "Please spare me your bullshit" and attempt by yourself to become more crude and move down to my level or simply a poke at me?
Your are definitely right about the connotation of the word bigot. It is an extreme word and should be used accordingly. Bigot actually feels like a stronger way to say racist, sexist, or such. I want to be amazed that someone threw that word at you, but I can't be. Bigot is a word that left-wingers like to use and we all know that we live in a world were many people use a word without actually understanding its meaning or implications. Sometimes people just find words they like and use them too much like "bigot" or "buggering".
And you my friend are nowhere near a bigot, I have known more than few people I would have associated that word with and you are even close. The first criteria of being a bigot is being close-minded. Which already disqualifies you.
Of course I am not offended in getting in this discussion. It is relevant to the review and I am the one that made the comment in my post that inspired your question.
I always like when people question me and what I say, because we all know that sometimes I have a tendency to get over-zealous and start talking out of my ass. One thing you defintely do is keep me on my toes and make me watch what I say. For the most part, and I am sure you assumed this, I used the word "society" simply as a generalization. Not by attributing it to the population as a whole or even to a certain group. I used it only a reprenstation of the majority or predominant opinion.
Was the, "Please spare me your bullshit" and attempt by yourself to become more crude and move down to my level or simply a poke at me?
Your are definitely right about the connotation of the word bigot. It is an extreme word and should be used accordingly. Bigot actually feels like a stronger way to say racist, sexist, or such. I want to be amazed that someone threw that word at you, but I can't be. Bigot is a word that left-wingers like to use and we all know that we live in a world were many people use a word without actually understanding its meaning or implications. Sometimes people just find words they like and use them too much like "bigot" or "buggering".
And you my friend are nowhere near a bigot, I have known more than few people I would have associated that word with and you are even close. The first criteria of being a bigot is being close-minded. Which already disqualifies you.
"Was the, 'Please spare me your bullshit' and attempt by yourself to become more crude and move down to my level or simply a poke at me?"
Just a poke at you. :)) Had to get that in there somewhere!
I'm glad you feel this way, man. I often feel self-conscious about my comments and questions, thinking that others are thinking, "Geez. Doesn't he have anything better to do than sit around deconstructing me."
As for now, the examination will cease....of this post, that is.
Just a poke at you. :)) Had to get that in there somewhere!
I'm glad you feel this way, man. I often feel self-conscious about my comments and questions, thinking that others are thinking, "Geez. Doesn't he have anything better to do than sit around deconstructing me."
As for now, the examination will cease....of this post, that is.
I can honestly say that watching a man and a woman kissing and/or fucking on screen grosses the HELL out of me. Even though it's been going on for about... hmmm, I dunno... FOREVER. And nobody fucking complains. Even gays are not allowed to complain about it because being straight is 'normal' and being gay isn't apparently. Well, if that makes me a heterophobe, so be it. I'm just being honest as well, plus I'm evening things out a bit. It's about time more folks out there express their disgust over straight people making out.
# posted by 
: 8:32 PM
: 8:32 PM
She smiled at himcoquettishly. Asmile came across Bobs face as those words came out of my mouth.
total femdom stories
nifty nifty erotic stories archive
13yo teen girls sex stories
teens ass fuck pic stories
sex stories post.com
She smiled at himcoquettishly. Asmile came across Bobs face as those words came out of my mouth.
Post a Comment
total femdom stories
nifty nifty erotic stories archive
13yo teen girls sex stories
teens ass fuck pic stories
sex stories post.com
She smiled at himcoquettishly. Asmile came across Bobs face as those words came out of my mouth.
<< Home
