Movies that will make you gay
rampf
following films can radically change your life! At the very
least, you will develop an insatiable taste for high style,
arch dialogue, classic couture, Drama (yes, that's with a
capital "D") and romance. But most likely, you will just
turn ... GAY!"
Halmyre
fr...@spamexpire-200911.rodent.frell.theremailer.net says...
What, no "Top Gun"?
--
Halmyre
This is the most powerful sigfile in the world and will probably blow your
head clean off.
nick
There's downsides to going online too early in the morning, when the
eyes are still blurry. For starters, I misread "Listmania" and
thought Ken Russell's Lisztomania would make you gay (which it
probably does). And going through the list misread Gods and Monsters
as Gods and Generals but then again, maybe Gods and Generals makes you
gay too since there's not a lot of difference between Civil War
Reenactors and drag queens.
Flasherly
> On Nov 20, 4:35 pm, rampf
>
> <fr...@spamexpire-200911.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
> > (Amazon.com Listmania) - "Warning! Exposure to the
> > following films can radically change your life! At the very
> > least, you will develop an insatiable taste for high style,
> > arch dialogue, classic couture, Drama (yes, that's with a
> > capital "D") and romance. But most likely, you will just
> > turn ... GAY!"
>
> gay too since there's not a lot of difference between Civil War
> Reenactors and drag queens.
Reminds me of plain, straight porn. Something either they always seem
to want, which they're of so affectedly gay having obtained, but never
let on other than an insatiable desire for more. And, never ever that
actually good movies do conceivably exist as reenactments on a lesser
backstage of erotica, apart for pornographic poundcake production
values nevertheless to supplant, nor that pornographic, as a given,
which most often are more depressingly apart from anything else viewed
inherently worthwhile;- Apparently a latter, circular conundrum for
all the more to evince, as it were, to prise cold, dead Budweisers
from adamantly inflexible and pudgy, little grasping hands.
-
I have plowed the sea. -Luke Ford [<Com. usage, ex.> 'Very good. Then,
why not raise taxes, say by 300 if not 3000 percentage. . .']
David Oberman
DOUBLE INDEMNITY and THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE are gay
favorites?! Since when?
____
I shall never write a symphony. You can't have any idea
what it's like to hear such a giant marching behind you.
-- Brahms, referring to you-know-who
moviePig
I'm not sure drag queens are necessarily gay... although, say, it does
seem an unlikely hobby to pass along to one's children...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
steve
On 21-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure drag queens are necessarily gay... although, say, it does
> seem an unlikely hobby to pass along to one's children..
Well, they may not be "necessarily gay"...but they're gay.
As an adult, havent you noticed that all the effeminate guys everyone
thought were gay as kids (and we all got in trouble for calling them gay)
turned out to actually be gay? A book often does reflect it's cover.
steve
--
"Politicians are worse than thieves. At least when thieves take your money,
they don't expect you to thank them for it."
Walter Williams
nick
clothes. The latter is the domain of the straight male, like Ed Wood
and high school football players at pep rallies.
TT
I agree that "The way we were" with Redford and Streisand may make one
gay. I had to watch the full series of "Death Wish" to become straight
again(5 stages to becoming straight). Where is "Out of Africa" with
Redford and Streep though?!
But seriously, have to disagree with many in that list, agreed with
Crying Game. It may make you gay if you think about it...
TT
> rampf <fr...@spamexpire-200911.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
>
>> (Amazon.com Listmania) - "Warning! Exposure to the
>> following films can radically change your life! At the very
>> least, you will develop an insatiable taste for high style,
>> arch dialogue, classic couture, Drama (yes, that's with a
>> capital "D") and romance. But most likely, you will just
>> turn ... GAY!"
>>
>> http://tr.im/MoviesGay
>
> DOUBLE INDEMNITY and THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE are gay
> favorites?! Since when?
>
>
Nothing gay in Postman always...
Unless Jessica Lange or Nicholson would be gay symbols?
moviePig
No... at worst I may be confusing it with "female
impersonator" (...with the distinction being an academic gnat's
eyelash, to my coarse grasp of gender studies). And I know that the
latter aren't necessarily gay, because long ago I saw a tv-show
('Remington Steele'?) where one of the guest stars, as well his
character, was a then-famous f.i. ...and he had a girlfriend. (Well,
his character did, anyway. I remember her well, because the writers
inserted an entire scene to prove she existed.)
Howard Brazee
>As an adult, havent you noticed that all the effeminate guys everyone
>thought were gay as kids (and we all got in trouble for calling them gay)
>turned out to actually be gay? A book often does reflect it's cover.
I didn't know about homosexuality when I was a kid, and as an adult I
have no idea which of my friends are gay.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Brad Filippone
Brad
TT
Why not? Do you think people are born gay/straight?
The Giant Brain
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:cr5hg519ncpou174v...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:49:34 GMT, "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
>
>>As an adult, havent you noticed that all the effeminate guys everyone
>>thought were gay as kids (and we all got in trouble for calling them gay)
>>turned out to actually be gay? A book often does reflect it's cover.
>
> I didn't know about homosexuality when I was a kid, and as an adult I
> have no idea which of my friends are gay.
As an adult, I don't care who is gay and who is straight.
Honestly, I just don't give a fuck!
TBerk
Eh, I have seen, and rewatched more than once mind you, over a third
of the list. (Well, one viewing of 'the Crying Game' was enough
thankyouverymuuuuch), still not Gay.
I can't belive men would taste as good to me as women do, no matter
what films I watch. Of course, 'Clockwork Orange' has something along
these lines to say on the matter.
See, I think the trouble with a list like this is it doesn't allow for
an omnivorous gourmand. I like some or even most. Wait, not most,
some of those films on that list but what of all the other films I
also like?, like 'Romeo Must Die', 'the Usual Suspects', 'Bad Company'
w/ Barkin, Fishburne, & Langelica, 'Wizards', hell I saw Caligula one
time on it's 1st run. Might see about a Director's Cut type review of
that one too.
Besides, while you can talk a human being into most any damn thing
it's been my experience that gay people are born, not 'made'.
"I might turn Gay!" Foolishness.
berk
moviePig
> Brad Filippone wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 5:35 pm, rampf
> > <fr...@spamexpire-200911.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
> >> (Amazon.com Listmania) - "Warning! Exposure to the
> >> following films can radically change your life! At the very
> >> least, you will develop an insatiable taste for high style,
> >> arch dialogue, classic couture, Drama (yes, that's with a
> >> capital "D") and romance. But most likely, you will just
> >> turn ... GAY!"
>
> > Sexuality is not caused by watching a movie.
>
Of course not. People are born liking musicals or Westerns... which
then *makes* them gay or straight (or, for ANNIE GET YOUR GUN,
hermaphrodites...)
Flasherly
>
> Eh, I have seen, and rewatched more than once mind you, over a third
> of the list. (Well, one viewing of 'the Crying Game' was enough
> thankyouverymuuuuch), still not Gay.
Though it's gay, perhaps less in the direct sense than, say, Jeremy
Irons in M. Butterfly, The Crying Game also would share an engaging
element of drama that draws the viewer into a believably realistic
endeavor of gender transposition -- limits pushed to actualize a
situation they form to convey. Quite differently from Mommie Dearest,
which perhaps stresses elements of more traditional gendering, seen
for a horrific fascination of repressive elements domination serves,
as much an alienation factor, nor wholly one whereby biological
engendering passed for an assimilator today propounds;- as well,
perhaps, at the other extreme, the comedic, for nonetheless elements
so disjointed, as to broach the hysteric underpinnings of horrific
expose, in Some Like it Hot. Reasons they're variously cited, no
doubt, not near as exhaustively as I could or would care concern
myself. I've nowhere near a third familiarity: *Evita, *Talented Mr.
Ripley, *Streetcar Named Desire, Cabaret, Gods and Monsters, Far From
Heaven, *Gallipoli, Valley of the Dolls;- Offhand, for those I
earmarked, and a small indication of exposure I'd indeed feel pressed
to draw by gay conjectures.
-
'Sophisticated - God, I'm sophisticated.' -Daisy, The Great Gatsby.
'I am one of the few honest people that I have ever known.' -Nick,
ibid.
steve
On 21-Nov-2009, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >As an adult, havent you noticed that all the effeminate guys everyone
> >thought were gay as kids (and we all got in trouble for calling them gay)
> >turned out to actually be gay? A book often does reflect it's cover.
>
> I didn't know about homosexuality when I was a kid, and as an adult I
> have no idea which of my friends are gay.
One of my sisters was/is a "fruit fly" (hangs with gay guys) and she's given
me the news on several guys we all figured were gay as early as junior HS
(we called them "queers" back then and got in trouble when overheard)...some
were already (secretly) gay in HS, she tells me.
TT
> On 21-Nov-2009, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>>> As an adult, havent you noticed that all the effeminate guys everyone
>>> thought were gay as kids (and we all got in trouble for calling them gay)
>>> turned out to actually be gay? A book often does reflect it's cover.
>> I didn't know about homosexuality when I was a kid, and as an adult I
>> have no idea which of my friends are gay.
>
> One of my sisters was/is a "fruit fly" (hangs with gay guys)
I thought the term is "fag hag".
steve
On 22-Nov-2009, TT <n...@email.org> wrote:
> > One of my sisters was/is a "fruit fly" (hangs with gay guys)
>
> I thought the term is "fag hag".
Ive heard both and prefer the former.
globular
Stupid list, Gallipoli?
No Querelle?
globular
No Wilde?
You'll never look at Jude Law the same way again.
TT
Just watched Faye Dunaway playing Joan Crawford in MOMMIE DEAREST.
Nothing gay in the movie...Except apparently Crawford is a gay icon
because of some movie of hers...and Dunaway being made to look like
Crawford did look a bit like a drag queen perhaps.
But a GREAT performance from Dunaway and a great not easy to watch movie.
I read comments on imdb and quite a lot posters seemed to think it was a
campy movie and Dunaway overacted. I hear it even got Razzie award...
That's just foolish imo and these people just can't see how well Dunaway
portrayed her role and that some parents really are like that. The movie
was not humour at all.
I guess I can never look a Crawford movie in same way again. A bit
ironic Crawford's role in "what ever happened to Baby Jane"...being
herself being bullied by her deranged alcoholic sister...while she
apparently acted in similar way to her adopted children.
David Oberman
>But a GREAT performance from Dunaway and a great not easy to watch movie.
>I read comments on imdb and quite a lot posters seemed to think it was a
>campy movie and Dunaway overacted. I hear it even got Razzie award...
>That's just foolish imo and these people just can't see how well Dunaway
>portrayed her role and that some parents really are like that.
Pauline Kael saw. Check out her review of the movie.
Rich
Main problem with gays isn't that they are gay, attracted to the same
sex, it's that the males want to be women, not men. Take a look at
that make-up pasted prancer from the music awards. Take a look at gay
males when they are young. They prefer to company of women and they
often play with dolls. This has nothing to do (obviously) with them
being attracted to women as sexual objects but to the fact they
identify themselves as being like women.
Cindy Hamilton
> Why not? Do you think people are born gay/straight?
To some extent, yes. It seems to me that sexual orientation
is a combination of nature and nurture, as are most things.
Cindy Hamilton
Gregory Morrow
No _Funny Face_, no _Breakfast At Tiffany's_, no _It's Always Fair Weather_,
no _Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf_, no _The Bad Seed_, no _I Want To
Live!_, no _I'll Cry Tomorrow_...NO _Female Trouble_...!!!???
--
Best
Greg
nick
wrote:
list of movies you'll like once you *are* gay.
David Oberman
>No _Funny Face_, no _Breakfast At Tiffany's_, no _It's Always Fair Weather_,
>no _Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf_, no _The Bad Seed_, no _I Want To
>Live!_, no _I'll Cry Tomorrow_...NO _Female Trouble_...!!!???
"It's Always Fair Weather" is a gay favorite?
Are any of the following gay favorites?
"Teahouse of the August Moon"?
"Henry V" (Olivier)?
"Kwaidan"?
"Vertigo"?
"Sansho the Bailiff"?
____
It is not exactly that we learn from each other, for no one can
really learn anything except in and by himself; it seems better to
say that we learn because of each other, and, indeed, that if there
were no others, there could be no learning at all. In this there is
a mystery, for we know not how to account for the first beginning
of all learning.
-- Richard Mitchell, "Psyche Papers" Part III
Howard Brazee
<nickmacp...@AOL.com> wrote:
>No, it was a list of movies that will *make* you gay. The above is a
>list of movies you'll like once you *are* gay.
OK, I'll bite. What are the characteristics of something that will
make one gay? And why?
Howard Brazee
<angelica...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Why not? Do you think people are born gay/straight?
>
>To some extent, yes. It seems to me that sexual orientation
>is a combination of nature and nurture, as are most things.
Agreed. As is obesity.
And I don't see a significant difference between Righteous rightist
who want to cure homosexuality, and Righteous leftists who want to
cure obesity.
Flasherly
> No Querelle?
How quintessential of you to say.
--
'When queried, raise the little pinky to your eyebrow. Just so.' -
Camus
Flasherly
>
> I guess I can never look a Crawford movie in same way again.
Bloody hell. Quick. Man in need of an antidote -).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083967/
Flasherly
>
> No film could make me gay, but Flawless with P.S. Hoffman made me nauseous.
Did I miss something -- when did the thread change to gay films that
"make me want to go straight"?
Off topic. Go sit in the Corner and wear the Scarlet Hat.
TT
Errr...thanks. Good movie, not sure how it would help my state though! :)
Stone me
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:01:42 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> <angelica...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Why not? Do you think people are born gay/straight?
>>
>>To some extent, yes. It seems to me that sexual orientation
>>is a combination of nature and nurture, as are most things.
>
> Agreed. As is obesity.
>
> And I don't see a significant difference between Righteous rightist
> who want to cure homosexuality, and Righteous leftists who want to
> cure obesity.
>
An interesting article.
If you are scanning for news to support the "nature" argument,
then accept the first part of the story.
Those that want the whole story must read more carefully.
The most telling comment I found was by someone from
the Gay Rights charity, right at the end of the piece.
Stone me.
TT
Maybe, but if we think only whether it's "nature or nurture" it's hard
to disagree with the statement:
"Critics of the theory argue a gay gene would eventually be wiped out
because gay couples do not procreate."
Stone me
"TT" <n...@email.org> wrote in message
news:Us3Pm.44121$La7....@uutiset.elisa.fi...
And yet.. homosexual activity is observed in animals who would not seem
to offer much in the way of nurture to their young. I remember the example
of seals or sea lions. Can't remember which.
Perhaps the causes are overcrowding?
But then.. in more remote communities, we do not hear of homosexuality
being lessened.
http://www.psychomedia.it/pm/lifecycle/gender/drescher2.htm
See :Freud's Nonconflictual Theory of Homosexuality
Cheers
Stone me.
TT
In that case it would appear homosexuality is in genes of all sea
lions/humans, not only those who do it.
I doubt that seals/sea lions do not nurture their young though, or that
their environment wouldn't be able to influence them. Hell, I bet some
of them have seen Crying Game even!
David Oberman
>Maybe, but if we think only whether it's "nature or nurture" it's hard
>to disagree with the statement:
>"Critics of the theory argue a gay gene would eventually be wiped out
>because gay couples do not procreate."
I thought that millions of homosexuals have procreated throughout
history (irrespective of whether any heritable trait has been passed
down).
TT
> TT <n...@email.org> wrote:
>
>> Maybe, but if we think only whether it's "nature or nurture" it's hard
>> to disagree with the statement:
>
>> "Critics of the theory argue a gay gene would eventually be wiped out
>> because gay couples do not procreate."
>
> I thought that millions of homosexuals have procreated throughout
> history (irrespective of whether any heritable trait has been passed
> down).
>
But large quantity does not. In the long run genes should vanish.
Howard Brazee
<dobe...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>>Maybe, but if we think only whether it's "nature or nurture" it's hard
>>to disagree with the statement:
>
>>"Critics of the theory argue a gay gene would eventually be wiped out
>>because gay couples do not procreate."
>
>I thought that millions of homosexuals have procreated throughout
>history (irrespective of whether any heritable trait has been passed
>down).
The desire to procreate can be very strong, even without societal
pressures to do so. Strong enough to engage in activities that are
as unpleasant as gay sex would be to me.
And not all homosexuality is that strongly exclusive.
Howard Brazee
>> I thought that millions of homosexuals have procreated throughout
>> history (irrespective of whether any heritable trait has been passed
>> down).
>>
>
>But large quantity does not. In the long run genes should vanish.
Unless those gene combinations have other utility that compensate to a
degree for a tendency to have fewer children. Or unless those gene
combinations are easy to be re-created.
Let's say there is a gene that makes someone highly sexed, and highly
subject to accept a love interest. Compare that to a gene
combination that made someone weakly sexed and more solitary.
This might have the former producing more children - and more
homosexuals.
Trouble is, we're just guessing. We have very little understanding
in how genes work in very simple characteristics, much less complex
ones. And we don't know what various combinations of genes lead
towards homosexual tendencies - nor what other characteristics they
encourage.
Not all attributes are directly related to a particular behavior. For
instance, I was reading about a (panther?) that killed a monkey for
dinner. That monkey was a mother, and the baby went to the panther
for care. That panther actually tried to protect the baby of its
prey but was unable to. It's not useful to care about babies of
prey - but the genes that say "care about babies" are more general
than that.
TT
Well if we have a study(do we?) that says homosexuals have on average
less children than heterosexuals then the other functions of the gene do
not matter and the fact remains that homosexual behaviour is not hereditary.
Ouch, thinking about it...if homosexuals have less than 1 offspring on
average _then_ the gene should have been vanished long long time ago...
(While if the amount is just smaller than for heterosexuals then the
relative amount of homosexuals in population should constantly decrease)
Also, a question can be asked...would someone be born homosexual if
he/she procreates naturally.