Act Acting » Acting School » Heterophobia

Heterophobia

Question:

well i don’t really understand any of these posts but i think that heteromales could do with a little satirizing–and get a sense of humor i mean i don’t hear anyone complaining that every fucking movie made in hollywood is extremely misogynistic (when was the last time your saw a major blockbuster about a woman who kidnapps imprisons tortures and kills a bunch of men?) we could do with a little heterophbia in this county–lets face it if every one would limit themselves to there own sex the abortion debate would pretty much disapear wouldn’t it? the thing is that heteromen really need to get a sense of humor–it is important to be able to mock yourself including your sexuality. i don’t really know what i am saying–sorry i have so much i want to express but can’t think of the words and come on–heterosexual sex can be kind of gross. i mean just as much as straight people feel (i don’t want to see that) gay people can feel the same way. i think it is better if we all just except eachother. i mean the entire "hetero phobic" analyis of the film is based on the sexuality of the charecters–if every chareter was reversed then the whole theory falls apart. why not just view it as they just happen to be that sexuality. portraying someone of one kind of sexuality as happy while a charecter of another as unhappy is not making a comment that one is better than the other—that is just silly. plenty of movies made by lesbigays portray the violence or the psychological toll of being gay in a mostly het society. does this mean that they are saying homosexuality is wrong because these people are unhappy (as a result of being beaten raped or disowned by their family)? of course not—that is stupid. its just a movie—telling a story—that hopefully resembles reality in some way. shindlers list showed some really unhappy jews and happy nazis—does that mean it is better to be a nazi than a jew? i mean what kind of reasoning is this? i hate when people overreact to things like this. like that guy who was always on donahue all the time in a jacket and tie and a long skirt saying that men are oppressed and crap like that as a backlash against feminism. it seems like making a mockery of a real struggle. what if people who don’t have a mental illness start saying they are being treated poorly because they don’t get to ride on the bus at a discount and don’t get to stay home from work and live off that hefty $500 ssi check—and they can’t get the crappy medical care that medicaid provides—like those lucky schizos—ridiculous right? well i should just shut up now cause i am not making any sense. just one more thing–what about the fact that this young girl was totally sexualized by this old perv–i mean i hated being hit on by old men when i was a girl–its disgusting—why aren’t people talking about this. goodnight diane

Response:

In article <1d6d828a.20ab3…@usw-ex0108-063.remarq.com>, pete_l <pete_lNOpeS…@altavista.com.invalid> wrote: > Hi Lou! > > but religious pride is the ugliest kind there is > What are we talking here Lou, the bible belt culture ? It is a > culture you have in the US that wields a lot of power is it not. > We in the uk are not as much entwined we have only 900 000 > Sunday worshippers out of some sixty million (discounting non > Christian denominations). As an average brit I find the bible > culture hard to take.

When you examine all these people making the most noise you see that ego is really at the core of it rather than any genuine concern about anything, causes having priority over people, I just had to flip them all off and get back to where things are genuine and then you can see where people are really at who play all these games and get rich in the process. > >capture the mind and it is > >more effective than outright persecution of people and ethnic > >groups. > It’s a sort of hypnosis though aint it. Live apart from the > priestly dictat for a while and you naturally lean to being more > independant and the hypnosis wears off. Much of the uk, large > parts of europe and a great deal of Russia and China and > elsewhere live happily without religious influence. By some > definitions we are heathen but whatever.

Religion sucks. Everything going on in Irland is all about religion, people starve to death in India becuase of religion–can’t even kill a fly because it might be your sister who died and came back as a fly. It was religious dummies who took a couple of shots at me on the front porch who were convinced that I was the anti-christ, not all that safe around all these sane folks, but seems that our society here has gone too far to one extreem or the other, always the innocent who pay the price. > Living so near the "Fire and Brimstone" pit about to open up in > your back yard must be worrying Lou. > Keep well > Regards > Peter

I was just glad for the opportunity I had to tell them all to kiss my ass and show how stupid the smart folks can be who put a false image out there for people to admire but afraid for any to see the hidden things, why I was not sorry in making a comment in 1994 that there is no way in hell I will kiss a Pollock’s finger, meant it as a joke back then but very serious about not allowing anybody human to own my mind which is what religion is about today, using it to control other people, same power game as politics and none of it genuine, either would sell you out and most have already done that, not all but the majority are not people you can trust. — Lou http://www.grizzadam.com/ "In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Response:

pete_l <pete_lNOpeS…@altavista.com.invalid> wrote in message

news:1d6d828a.20ab36cb@usw-ex0108-063.remarq.com… > Hi Lou! > > but religious pride is the ugliest kind there is > What are we talking here Lou, the bible belt culture ?

I find the US bible belt hard to take and hard to understand. They have such silly rules. I remember going to a bar in a restaurant in South Carolina many years ago and was surprised to find that every ounce of booze at the bar was in mini-bottles. You know the kind they serve on airplanes. At that time (it may have changed since) it was illegal for bars and restaurants to have full-size bottles of booze on the premises. Very silly and a waste of glass or plastic. My sister-in-law and her family moved to the bible belt in North Carolina several years ago and I guess my smokin’, cussin’ sister-in-law turned a few faces red down there with her anti-bible belt ways. She’s a great gal but not one that fits well into the bible belt mentality. In the area where her and her family live the county just went wet (legalized alcohol) something like 14 years ago (if memory serves). And how is it that the bible-belt states (and supposedly the most christian) seem to have the biggest problems with racial division. You would think a good christian person would be more accepting of other races. I don’t get it. Frank. It is a – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> culture you have in the US that wields a lot of power is it not. > We in the uk are not as much entwined we have only 900 000 > Sunday worshippers out of some sixty million (discounting non > Christian denominations). As an average brit I find the bible > culture hard to take. > >capture the mind and it is > >more effective than outright persecution of people and ethnic > >groups. > It’s a sort of hypnosis though aint it. Live apart from the > priestly dictat for a while and you naturally lean to being more > independant and the hypnosis wears off. Much of the uk, large > parts of europe and a great deal of Russia and China and > elsewhere live happily without religious influence. By some > definitions we are heathen but whatever. > Living so near the "Fire and Brimstone" pit about to open up in > your back yard must be worrying Lou. > Keep well > Regards > Peter > >http://www.grizzadam.com/ > >"In an age of universal deceit, telling > >the truth is a revolutionary act." > >George Orwell > >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > >Before you buy. > * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * > The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

Technoboy <_techno…@hot.a2000.nl> wrote in message

news:8d6lui$lkr$1@weber.a2000.nl… > I found this post off topic and offensive!

I agree. I replied to that effect when the post first appeared a few weeks ago. Frank. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Fred > <dementia_prae…@my-deja.com> wrote in message > news:8c5ra1$e0e$1@nnrp1.deja.com… > > The following appeared in the British Newspaper, the Daily Mail today: > > HETEROPHOBIA > > How Hollywood Is Demonising Heterosexual Life As Part Of A Disturbing > > New Pro-Gay Agenda > > By Daniel Jeffreys > > As American Beauty scoops the board at the Oscars there are profound > > fears about its hidden messages. > > At the start of the film American Beauty, Kevin Spacey’s character, > > Lester Burnham, says: ‘In a year, I will be dead’ – and by the movie’s > > end, he is, killed by his repressed homosexual next-door neighbour. In > > the meantime, his middle-class life implodes as he falls in love with > > his teenage daughter’s best friend and his wife finds comfort in the > > arms of a reptilian estate agent. We are left feeling that suburbia is > > a hellish place where happiness will forever be absent. > > Everyone in the film is explosively dysfunctional, except for the > > Burnhams’ other set of neighbours, an affluent gay people who float > > through the mayhem with disarming serenity. > > To some, the film is a thought-provoking lesson in the importance of > > not taking stereotypes at face value and of seeking out the joy and > > wonder we otherwise take for granted in modern life. > > To the more sceptical, its main message seems clear: if only we could > > all be gay and out of the closet, we would be happy. The flip side to > > that message is that, as heterosexuals, we are doomed to unhappiness > > and strife. If we are lucky, the best we can achieve is manic > > depression. At worst, we will be murdered by some causality of > > heterosexual deviancy. > > The film that dominated the Oscars is a triumph of dark cynicism with > > some wonderful acting and direction, but I believe that it was only > > made because of what I call its ‘heterophobia’ – the systematic > > denigration of heterosexual lifestyles – that has become part of the > > Hollywood mainstream. American Beauty is heterophobia’s propaganda > > masterpiece. > > Its sweep of the Academy Awards’ top categories thrilled Hollywood’s > > gay community, who have been trying to prove for a long time that > > heterosexuality is a sad form of sexual dysfunction. > > American Beauty is now regarded as a classic in the same mould as The > > Graduate, but far more interesting are the characters behind the movie > > and the agenda they hope to promote. > > In the seventies, homosexuals had legitimate grievances. They were > > persecuted for their sexuality and discriminated against in ways that > > were repellent. > > The gay rights movement that became increasingly vocal in the 80s won > > deserved new freedoms for homosexuals. Nobody should be persecuted for > > their sexuality, except those who prey on young children. > > Yet at some time in the past ten years, a new theory gained currency > > among gays, especially in the entertainment business. This held that > > heterosexuality was a curse to be denigrated and mocked wherever > > possible, and that gays could never win the power they craved in > > society without undermining heterosexuals whenever possible. > > At the same time, gays who held this view began agitating for > > homosexuality to be accepted as a form of behaviour on par with > > heterosexual activity. This was to be done in two ways. > > On the positive front, these radical gays argued that homosexuals > > should be entitled to get married in the same way as heterosexual > > couples, and that schools should teach about gay sex as if it were no > > more normal or abnormal than male-female intercourse. > > Academics began writing papers arguing for gay parenting, using > > statistics to suggest that children of gay couples had no more > > emotional problems than the average child of a ’straight’ family. > > On the negative end, gays began countering undesirable images of > > homosexuality – such as the spread of Aids -with a bleak picture of > > what they derisively called ’straight sex’. Lesbians began affirming > > that any woman who had a sexual relationship with a man must, at some > > point, submit to rape. > > Workplace behaviour, such as mild flirting, once regarded as innocent, > > was lumped together with flagrantly intrusive and unacceptable > > advances, and all of it labelled ’sexual harassment’. > > The point of this exercise was to demonise normal heterosexual > > behaviour, and to make the ordinary rituals of attraction and > > relationships seem aberrant, so that gays could advance their own cause > > by claiming ’straights’ led lives that were much worse than theirs. > > Along the way, sexual harassment law, and the industry which has > > developed around it, distorted from a sensible set of safeguards into > > something which could be used to attack heterosexuality at its roots, > > effectively conveying the idea that a heterosexual male was inherently > > dangerous and needed to be constrained by Draconian laws just as bars > > might hold back a rabid tiger. > > Into this picture enter the men responsible for American Beauty, who > > must be stunned that their insidious attack on heterosexuality has not > > only become an Oscar-winner but has broken box office records. > > The screenwriter, who won an Oscar for Best Screenplay, is Alan Ball. > > He grew up in the American South, in Georgia. > > Ball’s family life was, by his own admission, dysfunctional. He > > compares his childhood to American Beauty’s Ricky, the son of Lester > > Burnham’s mad neighbour and eventual nemesis. > > Ball’s home included a father who was remote and distant, plus a mother > > who suffered severe depression after Ball’s sister died in car a > > accident. > > Ball says he did not even know he was homosexual until he went to > > university, but claims to have suffered enough persecution at the hands > > of heterosexuality to believe it is inherently evil. > > At school, he was weedy and bespectacled. He played in the school band > > and was bullied by members of the school football team, who always > > dated the prettiest girls. he recalled recently that it was a time when > > homosexuality was so taboo he could not even acknowledge to himself > > that he was gay. > > Once Ball arrived in Hollywood, he became successful writing scripts > > for TV comedies and it was here his contempt for heterosexuality > > hardened. > > He wrote American Beauty while working for Cybill Shepherd on her show > > Cybill. It was a relationship forged in hell. Shepherd,a vivacious > > blonde, is an aggressive heterosexual. If her new autobiographyis to be > > believed, she once had group sex with her personal trainer and his best > > friend because she wanted all her pleasure points stimulated > > simultaneously. > > Sheis also the kind of girl whowould have spent time with football > > players at school – the kind of guys who used to slap Ball around. > > Ball has made no secret of his hatred for Shepherd, and sources say > > much of the shrillness in Lester Burnham’s wife – played by Annette > > Bening – is based on Ball’s antipathy towards a woman who made > > nosecretof her unalloyed enjoyment of the kind of macho hunkBall has > > never been. > > American Beauty provided Ball with another opportunity to promote his > > agenda. Last year, he wrote and produced a TV series called Oh, Grow > > Up, which featured two straight men sharing a house with a gay man, > > who, predictably, has much the better life. > > The series did not do well but in his film Ball was able to make his > > anti-heterosexual themes work withmore power. In American Beauty, > > Ball’s central characters, Lester and his wife, by focusing their sex > > drives on a teenage girl and a married man, are ciphers for the idea > > that heterosexuality must always mutate and become somethingdamaging or > > perverse. > > The Fitts, who live next door to Lester, have different problems. Mr > > Fitt is a violent ex-marine who persecutes his wife – making the point > > that heterosexuality always tends to become abusive -and beats his son. > > Mr Fitt’s problems, of course, stem from the fact that he is gay but > > cannot accept it. When Fitt mistakenly decides Lester Burnham is also > > gay, he makes a pass. Spurned, he shoots Burnham in the head. > > The only battle Ball lost with his English director, Sam Mendes, and > > star, Spacey, as the script was filmed, tells much about Ball’s > > motivations. > > In the final cut, Burnham stops just short of consummating his desires > > for his daughter’s Lolita-like friend. Ball wanted the consummation to > > happen so that, according to sources, Burnham, the dark soul of > > heterosexuality revealed, could be seen as irredeemable. > > But Burnham is allowed to show a sudden emotional maturity, rejects > > this chance of a seedy seduction and dies gazing lovingly at a picture > > of his wife and child. The revised ending weakens Ball’s attack on > > heterosexuality, but by then the main damage has been done. > > Were Ball the only prosletysing gay character in this off-screen drama, > > the case against American Beauty could not be made, but that is far > > from the truth. > > Long before it became an Oscar hit, Ball’s script was picked up by > > DanJinks and Bruce Cohen, who eventually produced the film and wereon > > stage last Sunday to collect the Oscar for Best Picture. > > These two men got to know each other in 1995 when Cohen invited Jinks > > to be on the steering committee of Out There, an activist group of gay > > entertainment executives that he had

Response:

In article <8d6lui$lk…@weber.a2000.nl>, "Technoboy" <_techno…@hot.a2000.nl> wrote: > I found this post off topic and offensive! > Fred > <dementia_prae…@my-deja.com> wrote in message > > The following appeared in the British Newspaper, the Daily Mail today: > > HETEROPHOBIA > > How Hollywood Is Demonising Heterosexual Life As Part Of A Disturbing > > New Pro-Gay Agenda

– It is conservatives who are in the closet in Hollywood but there are many who just go with the flow rather than putting careers at risk and Hollywood is a very mixed bag of people no different than what you see anywhere else, they just reach a larger number of people the same as these counterfeit TV evangelists who have done more harm to orthodox chritianity and things pertaining to common sense than any other source, best way to destroy anything is to blend in like one of the boys to do all the damage from the inside, most destructive work is an inside job rather than bad guys vs good guys. Most dangerous is the counterfeit that looks genuine, most dangerous lie is a half truth. The trend today seems to be more like dealing with a problem by attacking the victims and make it appear like a righteous thing to be doing, too many causes out there that leave a trail of dead and wounded in their path, Moral Majority was a disaster the same as "Diamond Pat Robertson" who is nothing more than an ego maniac using conservative issues to be a hero, playing the role while not even in the script, even his theology is not orthodox, but religious pride is the ugliest kind there is and Robertson is nothing more than a cult leader with a twisted message just like the other counterfeits with a messiah complex like Hitler, just a different outward appearance, more dangerous than Hitler because he blends in to look like one of the good guys, capture the mind and it is more effective than outright persecution of people and ethnic groups. http://www.grizzadam.com/ "In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Response:

Hi Lou! > but religious pride is the ugliest kind there is

What are we talking here Lou, the bible belt culture ? It is a culture you have in the US that wields a lot of power is it not. We in the uk are not as much entwined we have only 900 000 Sunday worshippers out of some sixty million (discounting non Christian denominations). As an average brit I find the bible culture hard to take. >capture the mind and it is >more effective than outright persecution of people and ethnic >groups.

It’s a sort of hypnosis though aint it. Live apart from the priestly dictat for a while and you naturally lean to being more independant and the hypnosis wears off. Much of the uk, large parts of europe and a great deal of Russia and China and elsewhere live happily without religious influence. By some definitions we are heathen but whatever. Living so near the "Fire and Brimstone" pit about to open up in your back yard must be worrying Lou. Keep well Regards Peter >http://www.grizzadam.com/ >"In an age of universal deceit, telling >the truth is a revolutionary act." >George Orwell >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ >Before you buy.

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

I found this post off topic and offensive! Fred <dementia_prae…@my-deja.com> wrote in message

news:8c5ra1$e0e$1@nnrp1.deja.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The following appeared in the British Newspaper, the Daily Mail today: > HETEROPHOBIA > How Hollywood Is Demonising Heterosexual Life As Part Of A Disturbing > New Pro-Gay Agenda > By Daniel Jeffreys > As American Beauty scoops the board at the Oscars there are profound > fears about its hidden messages. > At the start of the film American Beauty, Kevin Spacey’s character, > Lester Burnham, says: ‘In a year, I will be dead’ – and by the movie’s > end, he is, killed by his repressed homosexual next-door neighbour. In > the meantime, his middle-class life implodes as he falls in love with > his teenage daughter’s best friend and his wife finds comfort in the > arms of a reptilian estate agent. We are left feeling that suburbia is > a hellish place where happiness will forever be absent. > Everyone in the film is explosively dysfunctional, except for the > Burnhams’ other set of neighbours, an affluent gay people who float > through the mayhem with disarming serenity. > To some, the film is a thought-provoking lesson in the importance of > not taking stereotypes at face value and of seeking out the joy and > wonder we otherwise take for granted in modern life. > To the more sceptical, its main message seems clear: if only we could > all be gay and out of the closet, we would be happy. The flip side to > that message is that, as heterosexuals, we are doomed to unhappiness > and strife. If we are lucky, the best we can achieve is manic > depression. At worst, we will be murdered by some causality of > heterosexual deviancy. > The film that dominated the Oscars is a triumph of dark cynicism with > some wonderful acting and direction, but I believe that it was only > made because of what I call its ‘heterophobia’ – the systematic > denigration of heterosexual lifestyles – that has become part of the > Hollywood mainstream. American Beauty is heterophobia’s propaganda > masterpiece. > Its sweep of the Academy Awards’ top categories thrilled Hollywood’s > gay community, who have been trying to prove for a long time that > heterosexuality is a sad form of sexual dysfunction. > American Beauty is now regarded as a classic in the same mould as The > Graduate, but far more interesting are the characters behind the movie > and the agenda they hope to promote. > In the seventies, homosexuals had legitimate grievances. They were > persecuted for their sexuality and discriminated against in ways that > were repellent. > The gay rights movement that became increasingly vocal in the 80s won > deserved new freedoms for homosexuals. Nobody should be persecuted for > their sexuality, except those who prey on young children. > Yet at some time in the past ten years, a new theory gained currency > among gays, especially in the entertainment business. This held that > heterosexuality was a curse to be denigrated and mocked wherever > possible, and that gays could never win the power they craved in > society without undermining heterosexuals whenever possible. > At the same time, gays who held this view began agitating for > homosexuality to be accepted as a form of behaviour on par with > heterosexual activity. This was to be done in two ways. > On the positive front, these radical gays argued that homosexuals > should be entitled to get married in the same way as heterosexual > couples, and that schools should teach about gay sex as if it were no > more normal or abnormal than male-female intercourse. > Academics began writing papers arguing for gay parenting, using > statistics to suggest that children of gay couples had no more > emotional problems than the average child of a ’straight’ family. > On the negative end, gays began countering undesirable images of > homosexuality – such as the spread of Aids -with a bleak picture of > what they derisively called ’straight sex’. Lesbians began affirming > that any woman who had a sexual relationship with a man must, at some > point, submit to rape. > Workplace behaviour, such as mild flirting, once regarded as innocent, > was lumped together with flagrantly intrusive and unacceptable > advances, and all of it labelled ’sexual harassment’. > The point of this exercise was to demonise normal heterosexual > behaviour, and to make the ordinary rituals of attraction and > relationships seem aberrant, so that gays could advance their own cause > by claiming ’straights’ led lives that were much worse than theirs. > Along the way, sexual harassment law, and the industry which has > developed around it, distorted from a sensible set of safeguards into > something which could be used to attack heterosexuality at its roots, > effectively conveying the idea that a heterosexual male was inherently > dangerous and needed to be constrained by Draconian laws just as bars > might hold back a rabid tiger. > Into this picture enter the men responsible for American Beauty, who > must be stunned that their insidious attack on heterosexuality has not > only become an Oscar-winner but has broken box office records. > The screenwriter, who won an Oscar for Best Screenplay, is Alan Ball. > He grew up in the American South, in Georgia. > Ball’s family life was, by his own admission, dysfunctional. He > compares his childhood to American Beauty’s Ricky, the son of Lester > Burnham’s mad neighbour and eventual nemesis. > Ball’s home included a father who was remote and distant, plus a mother > who suffered severe depression after Ball’s sister died in car a > accident. > Ball says he did not even know he was homosexual until he went to > university, but claims to have suffered enough persecution at the hands > of heterosexuality to believe it is inherently evil. > At school, he was weedy and bespectacled. He played in the school band > and was bullied by members of the school football team, who always > dated the prettiest girls. he recalled recently that it was a time when > homosexuality was so taboo he could not even acknowledge to himself > that he was gay. > Once Ball arrived in Hollywood, he became successful writing scripts > for TV comedies and it was here his contempt for heterosexuality > hardened. > He wrote American Beauty while working for Cybill Shepherd on her show > Cybill. It was a relationship forged in hell. Shepherd,a vivacious > blonde, is an aggressive heterosexual. If her new autobiographyis to be > believed, she once had group sex with her personal trainer and his best > friend because she wanted all her pleasure points stimulated > simultaneously. > Sheis also the kind of girl whowould have spent time with football > players at school – the kind of guys who used to slap Ball around. > Ball has made no secret of his hatred for Shepherd, and sources say > much of the shrillness in Lester Burnham’s wife – played by Annette > Bening – is based on Ball’s antipathy towards a woman who made > nosecretof her unalloyed enjoyment of the kind of macho hunkBall has > never been. > American Beauty provided Ball with another opportunity to promote his > agenda. Last year, he wrote and produced a TV series called Oh, Grow > Up, which featured two straight men sharing a house with a gay man, > who, predictably, has much the better life. > The series did not do well but in his film Ball was able to make his > anti-heterosexual themes work withmore power. In American Beauty, > Ball’s central characters, Lester and his wife, by focusing their sex > drives on a teenage girl and a married man, are ciphers for the idea > that heterosexuality must always mutate and become somethingdamaging or > perverse. > The Fitts, who live next door to Lester, have different problems. Mr > Fitt is a violent ex-marine who persecutes his wife – making the point > that heterosexuality always tends to become abusive -and beats his son. > Mr Fitt’s problems, of course, stem from the fact that he is gay but > cannot accept it. When Fitt mistakenly decides Lester Burnham is also > gay, he makes a pass. Spurned, he shoots Burnham in the head. > The only battle Ball lost with his English director, Sam Mendes, and > star, Spacey, as the script was filmed, tells much about Ball’s > motivations. > In the final cut, Burnham stops just short of consummating his desires > for his daughter’s Lolita-like friend. Ball wanted the consummation to > happen so that, according to sources, Burnham, the dark soul of > heterosexuality revealed, could be seen as irredeemable. > But Burnham is allowed to show a sudden emotional maturity, rejects > this chance of a seedy seduction and dies gazing lovingly at a picture > of his wife and child. The revised ending weakens Ball’s attack on > heterosexuality, but by then the main damage has been done. > Were Ball the only prosletysing gay character in this off-screen drama, > the case against American Beauty could not be made, but that is far > from the truth. > Long before it became an Oscar hit, Ball’s script was picked up by > DanJinks and Bruce Cohen, who eventually produced the film and wereon > stage last Sunday to collect the Oscar for Best Picture. > These two men got to know each other in 1995 when Cohen invited Jinks > to be on the steering committee of Out There, an activist group of gay > entertainment executives that he had co-founded. > Sources say that one of Out There’s key objectives is to promote the > gay lifestyle within films and members talk openly among themselves > about how best to mock heterosexuality. > Members of Out There have been actively involved in films like American > Pie, which makes adolescent heterosexuality seem like a monstrous > affliction, and the U.S. TV series Will and Grace, whose two leading > gay men always seem to get the best lines, usually at the expense of a > hapless heterosexual. > Given their Out There affiliation, Jinksand Cohen knew

Response:

Well said sp. Frank. Spiritus <spiri…@sanctus.org> wrote in message

news:020420000054469514%spiritus@sanctus.org… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In article <8c5ra1$e0…@nnrp1.deja.com>, dementia_prae…@my-deja.com > wrote: > > The following appeared in the British Newspaper, the Daily Mail today: > > HETEROPHOBIA > > How Hollywood Is Demonising Heterosexual Life As Part Of A Disturbing > > New Pro-Gay Agenda > Note: the use of the word "Agenda" (speaking of propaganda,,) as if > some secret evil society of Homosexuals was organizing the downfall of > Heterosexuality. > One or 2 films that "don’t" show the Gay people Dying, being miserable, > or as Clownish Queans, or as Psychotic killers. and heterosexuals start > thinking their days of dominating the world are numbered. > And American Beauty won an Oscar!!! Oh LORD!!! Where will it end!!!??? > Yeah, I’m sure a few movies are going to make heterosexuals start being > Opressed, "Straight Bashing" by bands of roving Gay thugs, Straights > getting fired from their jobs, dis-owned by their families, Condenmed > by the Church. Denied the right to Marry and pop out children. Pretty > soon Gays will start picketing the funerals of murdered straights with > signs that say "Straights BURN IN HELL" > Kill this "Disturbing New Pro-Gay "Agenda" before it kills you!!! > SP

Response:

dementia_prae…@my-deja.com wrote in message

<8c5ra1$e0…@nnrp1.deja.com>… >The following appeared in the British Newspaper, the Daily Mail today: >HETEROPHOBIA >How Hollywood Is Demonising Heterosexual Life As Part Of A Disturbing >New Pro-Gay Agenda >By Daniel Jeffreys

<snip> What a crock of you-know-what! Lily

Response:

Hi Dementia! The Mail is sickening. The articles they are running on same sex relationships make me puke. Overt intrusion into anyones private life is an offense to civil behaviour, to see loving relationships belittled is shite. We are brits we love it we buy the newspapers, our journalism is a example of comtemporary commentary that leads the world. I am proud, and proud I should be to read these words, come hither gather around me and read this. Regards, Peter * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

<damod…@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:21346-38E6BE05-13@storefull-618.iap.bryant.webtv.net… > I KNEW it. The minorities are trying to take over. And I go to such > lengths to treat all inferior races, groups and nationalities as equals > and now this. The flood gates are open!! > I’m telling my friends about this. > Our time has come to arise and purge the earth of the insideous vermin. > The trisexuals are the worst of all.

Not as bad as the heptasexuals. They’re really perverted ). Frank. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The republicans started this you know. > They’ve been infiltrated by the Roscicrucians. > Damo

Response:

In article <8c5ra1$e0…@nnrp1.deja.com>, dementia_prae…@my-deja.com wrote: > The following appeared in the British Newspaper, the Daily Mail today: > HETEROPHOBIA > How Hollywood Is Demonising Heterosexual Life As Part Of A Disturbing > New Pro-Gay Agenda

Note: the use of the word "Agenda" (speaking of propaganda,,) as if some secret evil society of Homosexuals was organizing the downfall of Heterosexuality. One or 2 films that "don’t" show the Gay people Dying, being miserable, or as Clownish Queans, or as Psychotic killers. and heterosexuals start thinking their days of dominating the world are numbered. And American Beauty won an Oscar!!! Oh LORD!!! Where will it end!!!??? Yeah, I’m sure a few movies are going to make heterosexuals start being Opressed, "Straight Bashing" by bands of roving Gay thugs, Straights getting fired from their jobs, dis-owned by their families, Condenmed by the Church. Denied the right to Marry and pop out children. Pretty soon Gays will start picketing the funerals of murdered straights with signs that say "Straights BURN IN HELL" Kill this "Disturbing New Pro-Gay "Agenda" before it kills you!!! SP

Response:

I think this article is very dangerous. I see it as a very subliminal form of prejudice against homosexuals. The author does not come out and say he is against homosexuality or that he feels it is wrong but he tries to make us hate homosexuals by "proving" that they are out to get us straights. He also tries to make it sound like all homosexuals participate in wild parties filled with naked men and orgies. Firstly, so what if they do and, secondly, I doubt if all homosexuals are as promiscuous as he implies. Just like heterosexuals I’m sure some homosexuals are monogamous and others experiment more sexually. I think this article is wrong and should never have been printed. This guy is obviously homophobic and/or has some half-baked conspiracy theory. I have not seen American Beauty but I doubt that it could do much to change how the average person feels about homosexuality. Most people already have made up their minds one way or another. It’s only one movie. It’s not going to change anything or cause homosexuals to rise to the top of society and rule over the heterosexuals. We’re all just people. Let’s remember that. Frank. <dementia_prae…@my-deja.com> wrote in message

Response:

Dementia movies. books, and music shape culture. I have not seen this movie, but I doubt that was the writers purpose. I forget the movies name, but there is a movie that shows how a teenager is treated because he is gay. Maybe it is named Lucas. I forget. I would hate to see this discussion board divided by introducing material like this. I hope we are not going to discuss abortion next or something like that. You are rather new to this group and you are very intelligent. It seems like you could start off a good topic on illness related material. I look forward to some posts of yours that will help with support for schizophrenia. YOu never did answer my question. Are you schizophrenic? I might have missed your first post so please forgive if you already told us I wonder if I am on anybodys kill file? I guess I will now go on and think some more for the rest of the day. Now I have some more things to think about. girl.

Response:

I KNEW it. The minorities are trying to take over. And I go to such lengths to treat all inferior races, groups and nationalities as equals and now this. The flood gates are open!! I’m telling my friends about this. Our time has come to arise and purge the earth of the insideous vermin. The trisexuals are the worst of all. The republicans started this you know. They’ve been infiltrated by the Roscicrucians. Damo

Response:

He’s crazy Girl.

Response:

In article <21346-38E6BE63…@storefull-618.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, damod…@webtv.net wrote: > He’s crazy Girl.

– Ain’t we all ? sane ain’t no fun. Think I will promote myself to PhD like the other dude did. Lou http://www.grizzadam.com/ "In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Response:

The following appeared in the British Newspaper, the Daily Mail today: HETEROPHOBIA How Hollywood Is Demonising Heterosexual Life As Part Of A Disturbing New Pro-Gay Agenda By Daniel Jeffreys As American Beauty scoops the board at the Oscars there are profound fears about its hidden messages. At the start of the film American Beauty, Kevin Spacey’s character, Lester Burnham, says: ‘In a year, I will be dead’ – and by the movie’s end, he is, killed by his repressed homosexual next-door neighbour. In the meantime, his middle-class life implodes as he falls in love with his teenage daughter’s best friend and his wife finds comfort in the arms of a reptilian estate agent. We are left feeling that suburbia is a hellish place where happiness will forever be absent. Everyone in the film is explosively dysfunctional, except for the Burnhams’ other set of neighbours, an affluent gay people who float through the mayhem with disarming serenity. To some, the film is a thought-provoking lesson in the importance of not taking stereotypes at face value and of seeking out the joy and wonder we otherwise take for granted in modern life. To the more sceptical, its main message seems clear: if only we could all be gay and out of the closet, we would be happy. The flip side to that message is that, as heterosexuals, we are doomed to unhappiness and strife. If we are lucky, the best we can achieve is manic depression. At worst, we will be murdered by some causality of heterosexual deviancy. The film that dominated the Oscars is a triumph of dark cynicism with some wonderful acting and direction, but I believe that it was only made because of what I call its ‘heterophobia’ – the systematic denigration of heterosexual lifestyles – that has become part of the Hollywood mainstream. American Beauty is heterophobia’s propaganda masterpiece. Its sweep of the Academy Awards’ top categories thrilled Hollywood’s gay community, who have been trying to prove for a long time that heterosexuality is a sad form of sexual dysfunction. American Beauty is now regarded as a classic in the same mould as The Graduate, but far more interesting are the characters behind the movie and the agenda they hope to promote. In the seventies, homosexuals had legitimate grievances. They were persecuted for their sexuality and discriminated against in ways that were repellent. The gay rights movement that became increasingly vocal in the 80s won deserved new freedoms for homosexuals. Nobody should be persecuted for their sexuality, except those who prey on young children. Yet at some time in the past ten years, a new theory gained currency among gays, especially in the entertainment business. This held that heterosexuality was a curse to be denigrated and mocked wherever possible, and that gays could never win the power they craved in society without undermining heterosexuals whenever possible. At the same time, gays who held this view began agitating for homosexuality to be accepted as a form of behaviour on par with heterosexual activity. This was to be done in two ways. On the positive front, these radical gays argued that homosexuals should be entitled to get married in the same way as heterosexual couples, and that schools should teach about gay sex as if it were no more normal or abnormal than male-female intercourse. Academics began writing papers arguing for gay parenting, using statistics to suggest that children of gay couples had no more emotional problems than the average child of a ’straight’ family. On the negative end, gays began countering undesirable images of homosexuality – such as the spread of Aids -with a bleak picture of what they derisively called ’straight sex’. Lesbians began affirming that any woman who had a sexual relationship with a man must, at some point, submit to rape. Workplace behaviour, such as mild flirting, once regarded as innocent, was lumped together with flagrantly intrusive and unacceptable advances, and all of it labelled ’sexual harassment’. The point of this exercise was to demonise normal heterosexual behaviour, and to make the ordinary rituals of attraction and relationships seem aberrant, so that gays could advance their own cause by claiming ’straights’ led lives that were much worse than theirs. Along the way, sexual harassment law, and the industry which has developed around it, distorted from a sensible set of safeguards into something which could be used to attack heterosexuality at its roots, effectively conveying the idea that a heterosexual male was inherently dangerous and needed to be constrained by Draconian laws just as bars might hold back a rabid tiger. Into this picture enter the men responsible for American Beauty, who must be stunned that their insidious attack on heterosexuality has not only become an Oscar-winner but has broken box office records. The screenwriter, who won an Oscar for Best Screenplay, is Alan Ball. He grew up in the American South, in Georgia. Ball’s family life was, by his own admission, dysfunctional. He compares his childhood to American Beauty’s Ricky, the son of Lester Burnham’s mad neighbour and eventual nemesis. Ball’s home included a father who was remote and distant, plus a mother who suffered severe depression after Ball’s sister died in car a accident. Ball says he did not even know he was homosexual until he went to university, but claims to have suffered enough persecution at the hands of heterosexuality to believe it is inherently evil. At school, he was weedy and bespectacled. He played in the school band and was bullied by members of the school football team, who always dated the prettiest girls. he recalled recently that it was a time when homosexuality was so taboo he could not even acknowledge to himself that he was gay. Once Ball arrived in Hollywood, he became successful writing scripts for TV comedies and it was here his contempt for heterosexuality hardened. He wrote American Beauty while working for Cybill Shepherd on her show Cybill. It was a relationship forged in hell. Shepherd,a vivacious blonde, is an aggressive heterosexual. If her new autobiographyis to be believed, she once had group sex with her personal trainer and his best friend because she wanted all her pleasure points stimulated simultaneously. Sheis also the kind of girl whowould have spent time with football players at school – the kind of guys who used to slap Ball around. Ball has made no secret of his hatred for Shepherd, and sources say much of the shrillness in Lester Burnham’s wife – played by Annette Bening – is based on Ball’s antipathy towards a woman who made nosecretof her unalloyed enjoyment of the kind of macho hunkBall has never been. American Beauty provided Ball with another opportunity to promote his agenda. Last year, he wrote and produced a TV series called Oh, Grow Up, which featured two straight men sharing a house with a gay man, who, predictably, has much the better life. The series did not do well but in his film Ball was able to make his anti-heterosexual themes work withmore power. In American Beauty, Ball’s central characters, Lester and his wife, by focusing their sex drives on a teenage girl and a married man, are ciphers for the idea that heterosexuality must always mutate and become somethingdamaging or perverse. The Fitts, who live next door to Lester, have different problems. Mr Fitt is a violent ex-marine who persecutes his wife – making the point that heterosexuality always tends to become abusive -and beats his son. Mr Fitt’s problems, of course, stem from the fact that he is gay but cannot accept it. When Fitt mistakenly decides Lester Burnham is also gay, he makes a pass. Spurned, he shoots Burnham in the head. The only battle Ball lost with his English director, Sam Mendes, and star, Spacey, as the script was filmed, tells much about Ball’s motivations. In the final cut, Burnham stops just short of consummating his desires for his daughter’s Lolita-like friend. Ball wanted the consummation to happen so that, according to sources, Burnham, the dark soul of heterosexuality revealed, could be seen as irredeemable. But Burnham is allowed to show a sudden emotional maturity, rejects this chance of a seedy seduction and dies gazing lovingly at a picture of his wife and child. The revised ending weakens Ball’s attack on heterosexuality, but by then the main damage has been done. Were Ball the only prosletysing gay character in this off-screen drama, the case against American Beauty could not be made, but that is far from the truth. Long before it became an Oscar hit, Ball’s script was picked up by DanJinks and Bruce Cohen, who eventually produced the film and wereon stage last Sunday to collect the Oscar for Best Picture. These two men got to know each other in 1995 when Cohen invited Jinks to be on the steering committee of Out There, an activist group of gay entertainment executives that he had co-founded. Sources say that one of Out There’s key objectives is to promote the gay lifestyle within films and members talk openly among themselves about how best to mock heterosexuality. Members of Out There have been actively involved in films like American Pie, which makes adolescent heterosexuality seem like a monstrous affliction, and the U.S. TV series Will and Grace, whose two leading gay men always seem to get the best lines, usually at the expense of a hapless heterosexual. Given their Out There affiliation, Jinksand Cohen knew just where to take the American Beauty script to get it made – to fellow Out There sympathiser David Geffen, Steven Spielberg’s partner in Dreamworks. As, The Operator, a new biography of Geffen makes clear, Geffen is a predatory homosexual who has devoted considerable energy to projects that target heterosexuality. He is allegedly the main force in the Velvet Mafia, a loose association of powerful gay men who use their influence in Hollywood to advance gay issues. Sources say Geffen … read more »

Response:

Permalink
In: Acting School

You online HQ for everything ACTING

Home

Act Acting

Heterophobia

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Categories

Popular Posts