WOCKNER/BOB PARIS & ROD JACKSON BREAK UP
Rex Wockner
BOB PARIS AND ROD JACKSON SPLIT UP
by Rex Wockner
The famous gay couple Bob Paris and Rod Jackson have broken
up.
In a statement faxed [to this news service] by Paris on July
18, the bodybuilder/model couple said: "Rumors have been
circulating in the gay community regarding the status of our
relationship, and while neither of us is comfortable discussing
the very private aspects of our lives, we want to address those
rumors directly to prevent any misunderstanding.
"For the public record, we have been broken up for the last
year and were separated for a year before that. The past two
years have been an extraordinarily difficult time for both of us
as we have faced the dissolution of our marriage. The details and
reasons for our separation are complicated, painful and personal,
as they are when any marriage fails. And while our marriage was
lived in the public eye for many years, its demise is not a
subject either of us can expand upon in the media. We have tried
to handle the breakup in a mature, quiet fashion, and are trying
now to find new ways to still be in each other's lives.
"We tried our best to make our marriage work," the always-
publicity-sensitive couple continued. "We loved each other deeply
and had ten years together. Seven of those years were spent as
activists for gay civil rights and we were fortunate to have been
able to do some very difficult, rewarding and exhausting work
together. Like so many couples, we found ourselves in very
different places, and our partnership could no longer be the
source of joy and shelter it was for so long. Living and working
so much in the public eye, our marriage took on a life of its
own, and our full schedule of gay rights activism often came at
the expense of sustaining our personal relationship.
"We share the disappointment of those of you who looked up
to our marriage as a role model -- no one feels that
disappointment more keenly than we do," Jackson and Paris said.
"But as individuals we need to move on and look forward, as any
other couple, gay or straight, would at this point in their
lives. We both remain completely committed to the cause of making
the world a better, safer place for gay, lesbian and bisexual
youth. We both remain deeply committed to the concept of equal
marriage rights, and we both still believe in the magic of love."
In a telephone conversation, Paris -- a former Mr. America
and Mr. Universe -- said the couple prepared the statement
because, "I think readers of the gay press are interested."
Paris and Jackson got married in 1989, after Paris came out
publicly in the July 1989 issue of the muscle magazine Ironman.
Thereafter, they spent several years as sort of free-lance gay
role-models -- showing gay and straight America that two All-
American guys could fall in love and live happily every after.
They made scores of speaking and television appearances, and
released a coffee-table book of photos of themselves.
-end-
------------------------------
Copyright (c) 1996 Rex Wockner
------------------------------
--
////
(. .)
-------------------o00-(_)-00o------------------
Tim Evanson
Rex Wockner (rwoc...@netcom.com) wrote:
: BOB PARIS AND ROD JACKSON SPLIT UP
: by Rex Wockner
: In a statement faxed [to this news service] by Paris on July
: 18, the bodybuilder/model couple said: "Rumors have been
: circulating in the gay community regarding the status of our
: relationship, and while neither of us is comfortable discussing
: the very private aspects of our lives, ...
Well, uncomfortable ONLY when they're not signing books, that is.
: "For the public record, we have been broken up for the last
: year and were separated for a year before that.
In other words, they lied to the public JUST as their book was coming
out, and kept lying while the Bianchi thing hit the bookshelves... And
kept lying all this while until (Ty Fox, anyone) news reports were going
to report the truth anyway.
: ... And while our marriage was
: lived in the public eye for many years, its demise is not a
: subject either of us can expand upon in the media.
At least not until they can figure out a way to make a buck off it. "Bob
and Rod: How to Divorce The Gay Way", coming to a gay bookstore near
you, Fall, 1996.
: "We tried our best to make our marriage work," the always-
: publicity-sensitive couple continued.
Sensitive to HOW MUCH publicity they get. Anything less than total
adoration seems to upset them...
: "We loved each other deeply
: and had ten years together. Seven of those years were spent as
: activists for gay civil rights...
Singing "We Shall Overcome" in the hot Selma sun, no doubt... Er,
sorry, singing "I'm Every Woman" in the hot Miami Beach sun. Sorry!
: ... Living and working
: so much in the public eye,
As mean ol' publishers and agents held flamethrowers to their heads anf
twisted their arms until they said "Ow!"
: our marriage took on a life of its
: own, and our full schedule of gay rights activism often came at
: the expense of sustaining our personal relationship.
Oh, the price of freedom! All that slaving during the chain-gang press
tours, the cramping from signing those autographs, and the terror of
facing down less than 100 fans during a book reading!
: "We share the disappointment of those of you who looked up
: to our marriage as a role model --
Sarcasm fails me here for a moment. "Help me, I've collapsed under 3 tons
of hubris and ego, and can't get up!"
: In a telephone conversation, Paris -- a former Mr. America
: and Mr. Universe -- said the couple prepared the statement
: because, "I think readers of the gay press are interested."
Or he's testing the waters to see if the public is willing to gulp down
another self-serving biography or kitschy picture book.
: Paris and Jackson got married in 1989, after Paris came out
: publicly in the July 1989 issue of the muscle magazine Ironman.
: Thereafter, they spent several years as sort of free-lance gay
: role-models -- showing gay and straight America that two All-
: American guys could fall in love and live happily every after.
"All-American" so long as that means born into wealth, born genetically
pure, willing to abuse steroids, and never confronting abuse or
homophobia while young (or old, I imagine).
Being a nasty ol' queen...
Tim #1
(laughing too hard, and it HURTS...I guess that's my punishment)
--
Jess Anderson
In article <tevansonD...@netcom.com>
teva...@netcom.com (Tim Evanson) writes:
>>[Rexed direct]
>>In a statement faxed [to this news service] by Paris on
>>July 18, the bodybuilder/model couple [the Jackson-Parises]
>>said: "Rumors have been circulating in the gay community
>>regarding the status of our relationship, and while neither
>>of us is comfortable discussing the very private aspects of
>>our lives, ...
>[extensive Schadenfreude clipped]
>>Paris and Jackson got married in 1989, after Paris came out
>>publicly in the July 1989 issue of the muscle magazine Ironman.
>>Thereafter, they spent several years as sort of free-lance gay
>>role-models -- showing gay and straight America that two All-
>>American guys could fall in love and live happily every after.
>"All-American" so long as that means born into wealth, born
>genetically pure, willing to abuse steroids, and never
>confronting abuse or homophobia while young (or old, I
>imagine).
Good grief! Once born into wealth, what would you have a
person do, get unborn? What do you actually know about
their genetics, especially the "purity" (whazzat?) thereof?
Do you know the difference between using steroids and
abusing them, or is that pretty much the same thing, in your
lexicon? In actual fact, I submit that the J-Ps have
probably "confronted" at least as much homophobia as you
ever have.
>Being a nasty ol' queen...
A petty young one, more like.
>Tim #1 (laughing too hard, and it HURTS...I guess that's my
>punishment)
So you *had* to share the punishment. Golly gee.
--
Jess's homepage URL is http://www-jsbach.macc.wisc.edu/~anderson/
Copyright 1996 Jess Anderson. *All rights reserved.* Copying in
whole or in part prohibited except for direct response on Usenet.
--
<> Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names.
<> -- John F. Kennedy
--
Opinions expressed herein have no connection with the UW-Madison.
Jess Anderson ande...@doit.wisc.edu
a flying squirrel
teva...@netcom.com (Tim Evanson) wrote:
> Being a nasty ol' queen...
... who clearly needs more surgery to get the *rest* of the bile out. Sheesh.
--
a flying squirrel Richard W. Johnson skw...@mtcc.com
"I got a new car in December and have already managed to destroy its
rear bumper. I think I am not gifted for driving." -- E McManus
Jess Anderson
In article <4tt5ht$a...@panix.com>, ABulous
<hka...@panix.com> wrote:
>Harry, a big fan of Bob Paris, in any case.
We simply *must* get together one of these days, dearie,
because it would be major major dish. What I like about
Paris (in the appearance departmentand in his heyday) is his
symmetry. He was large without being grotesque and his parts
balanced one another in proportion. Muchnicer, I think,
than the current Mr. O, Dorian Yates, who (with apologies
to Tim Wilson) is butt-ugly.
--
Jess's homepage URL is http://www-jsbach.macc.wisc.edu/~anderson/
Copyright 1996 Jess Anderson. *All rights reserved.* Copying in
whole or in part prohibited except for direct response on Usenet.
--
<> Old people like to give good advice, as solace for no longer
<> being able to provide bad examples.
<> -- Francois Duc de La Rochefoucauld
<> "Maxims" 1665
Robert Emery Smith
In article <rwocknerD...@netcom.com>, rwoc...@netcom.com (Rex
Wockner) wrote:
> BOB PARIS AND ROD JACKSON SPLIT UP
> by Rex Wockner
I thought our trusty cross-posting Fount of Verity had packed up and left
soc.motss in a huff. Guess it's true: you can't trust the media.
Bob
ABulous
It is *tragic* when any relationship goes on the rocks. I feel their
pain.
Harry, a big fan of Bob Paris, in any case.
--
Harry A. Kaplan, Ph.D., IRC nick: ABulous
e-mail: hka...@panix.com, web: <http://www.panix.com/~hkaplan>
Richard Jasper
Jess Anderson (ande...@macc.wisc.edu) wrote:
: We simply *must* get together one of these days, dearie,
: because it would be major major dish. What I like about
: Paris (in the appearance departmentand in his heyday) is his
: symmetry. He was large without being grotesque and his parts
: balanced one another in proportion. Muchnicer, I think,
: than the current Mr. O, Dorian Yates, who (with apologies
: to Tim Wilson) is butt-ugly.
He can't help it (Dorian, that is); HTH-induced acromegaly. If you look
at his *before* pictures he was almost, kinda cute, in that s.i.b.w.c.
English sort of way.
-- richard
Christian Molick
In article <4tt7e1$d...@netaxs.com>,
Anthony J. Rzepela <rzep...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>Riddle me this, CM:
Bitterness much?
> ...being so "straight-acting", how will they manage to find dates now?
This doesn't make any sense. Social groups transcend the
boundaries of sexual orientation. You can find straight
and gay anarchists and white picket fencers. Charm is
something else entirely, and fabulousness is in the eye
of the beholder, ne pas? In my experience people who are
heavily into this relationship stuff are never without
for very long. Clock is ticking...
>(and the corollary: do they look more faggy alone or together?)
Maybe it's just me, but I always saw them looking kind of
alone even when they were together. I see their fagginess
depending mostly on what they wear and how they choose to
pose for the camera. Do I win?
ChristianM
ke...@worldnet.att.net
lib...@curly.cc.emory.edu (Richard Jasper) wrote:
>
>(just now noticing that nail polish smells an awful lot like poppers; are
>they related...?)
No. Either your nail polish or your poppers have gone queer, so to
speak. Check your supplier. Revlon or the guy at the bookstore made a
bad batch.
Jack Carroll
Re Paris and Jackson: I admired Bob Paris and Ironman magazine for
his outing article. While I found the pair's burblings about their
marriage a little sick-making, it was after all *their* partnership
not mine, and by the time they came into public view I had long since
formed my own opinions about what I thought gay male partnerships were
about. That they made bucks pushing their bods and their partnership
strikes me as no worse than what thousands of other stars, celebrities,
professional role models and various nut jobs do. It strikes me as
the consumately American thing to do.
Health, long life and a lot of good fucking to the both of them.
Doogie
About 3 and a half years ago, the Lifeguard Project (an HIV
education service) had a fundraiser/dance. Bob and Rod
made a free promotional apprearance to help the event. I had
the opportunity to be their chaperon and guide for the
evening. They were an absolute joy to be with. Relaxed and
personable, ready to sign an autograph or take a picture,
they seemed very genuine. We had time before the event
to just shoot the breeze - the discussion in particular
that we had concerning drag was quite interesting.
For me personally, they will always be the first gay couple.
They really transcended a lot of preconceived notions about
gay marriage and gays in general.
The flaming concerning their breakup is really atrocious.
Regardless of the details of a breakup, its really sad
to hear someone basically state - "HaHa, you're no longer
in love, Haha". And I know for a fact that Rod surfs the
net and would have occassion to read this newsgroup.
--
| "doo...@cerf.net" \o/ "Catch a wave.." |
| _|___ |
| ------ |
| "CerfNet Punk" __/ \/ "SurfBoy Punk" |
Ken Rudolph
Christian Molick wrote:
> Charm is
> something else entirely, and fabulousness is in the eye
> of the beholder, ne pas?
I can't remember, was CM the fellow who invented the delightful
motss-franglish word "jenesequa" or was it Gary Phillips? Anyway, now
we have "nepas" to run with. One of these days the former is going to
enter the dictionaries (it's too delightful a word to go unrecognized)
and we were witness to its birth.
--Ken Rudolph (ke...@worldnet.att.net)
Ken Rudolph
ke...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> lib...@curly.cc.emory.edu (Richard Jasper) wrote:
>
> >
> >(just now noticing that nail polish smells an awful lot like poppers; are
> >they related...?)
>
> No. Either your nail polish or your poppers have gone queer, so to
> speak. Check your supplier. Revlon or the guy at the bookstore made a
> bad batch.
Since Richard's famous experience with poppers was thanks to the
mysterious Chicago sex trick, *NOW* we find out that it wasn't poppers
after all - it was nail polish (even kinkier!)
--Ken Rudolph (ke...@worldnet.att.net)
Jeffrey William Sandris
In article <4trr7e$1f...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
Jess Anderson <ande...@macc.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>Good grief! Once born into wealth, what would you have a
>person do, get unborn?
Actually, having the family trust administered by an inept banker can
cure that situation quite nicely.
--
[] Jeffrey William Sandris
[] san...@spdcc.com fuck...@mtcc.com
ABulous
In article <w4rk9vh...@banquo.csp.ee.memphis.edu> t-wi...@memphis.edu writes:
>In article <4tt7v5$f...@news.doit.wisc.edu> ande...@macc.wisc.edu
>(Jess Anderson) writes:
>
>>Muchnicer, I think,
>>than the current Mr. O, Dorian Yates, who (with apologies
>>to Tim Wilson) is butt-ugly.
>
Yes, in this case *ugh*. But in most cases, yumm, slurp, gurgle,
*pffflix*, zhloop, crunch. I'm pretty veiny and sinewy right now,
actually. Don't you think baby oil has a nice summery smell?
Harry
Tim Fogarty
I suppose I should jump in here somewhere...
Anthony J. Rzepela (rzep...@netaxs.com) wrote:
> Riddle me this, CM: being so "straight-acting", how will
> they manage to find dates now?
Too late. Bob's already seeing Drew (as I already reported here and in
m.f.w)
> (and the corollary: do they look more faggy alone or together?)
Well, I think Rod has a hard time passing for straight-acting.
--
Tim...who will be in Kotzebue on Saturday, Anchorage on Sunday, Whittier
on Wednesday, Denali on Thursday, Fairbanks on Friday, and Anchorage on
Saturday.
--
Tim Fogarty (fog...@netcom.com) (fog...@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov)
ke...@worldnet.att.net
ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) wrote:
>Muchnicer, I think,
>than the current Mr. O, Dorian Yates, who (with apologies
>to Tim Wilson) is butt-ugly.
Oh God! i'nt he? Grotesquely, superbly, unbelievably, hugely
and deliciously *ugly.* He is so beatifically not-pretty in every
way that he's damned near perfect. Lord, the man is a banquet for
swine. Oink, oink.
J.C., the other one
Greg Parkinson
In article <4ttt2r$5...@news.cerf.net>, doo...@nic.cerf.net (Doogie) wrote:
[...]
> The flaming concerning their breakup is really atrocious.
> Regardless of the details of a breakup, its really sad
> to hear someone basically state - "HaHa, you're no longer
> in love, Haha".
I agree. There's two fundamental points here - first, these
two guys made public, open statements about gay relationships.
Maybe not *your* relationship but a gay relationship. That
was, I think, tremendously important. If that level of
publicity led to their breakup then they have some responsibility
for it, of course, but the second point is that two people
who sincerely loved each other - and I believe them when they
say/said it - are no longer together. Taking joy in that is
really tacky and cruel.
-----------------------------------------------------
Greg Parkinson
g...@cinenet.net
-----------------------------------------------------
Christian Molick
In article <32027D...@worldnet.att.net>,
I am a fountain of culture, so utterly you are
having. Yes, the jenessequa thing was my fopa,
but I did get some mountains of supportive
e-mail out of it and I'm feeling much better
now, thanks.
Need I remind us all that language is a virus?
ChristianM
san...@usa.pipeline.com
Big YAWN............
Cheers, thanks a lot, sweetie, darling.
Anthony J. Rzepela
Riddle me this, CM: being so "straight-acting", how will
they manage to find dates now?
(and the corollary: do they look more faggy alone or together?)
--
____Tony "yeah, they were sad, but the bitter resentment towards
them seems sadder, non?" Rzepela (rzep...@netaxs.com)
Richard Jasper
I think Bob would make a great porn star, although God knows what his
PENIS is like, and that's usually a BIG deal, isn't it? When his hair is
cut short and he stops trimming his fur and he hasn't shaved in a day or
two, OH MY GOD, it's so delicious!
Richard
Tim Wilson
>Muchnicer, I think,
>than the current Mr. O, Dorian Yates, who (with apologies
>to Tim Wilson) is butt-ugly.
Is he all veiny and sinewy? Ugh.
--
Tim Wilson http://www.ee.memphis.edu/~tim/ mailto:t-wi...@memphis.edu
Jess Anderson
In article <w4rk9vh...@banquo.csp.ee.memphis.edu>,
Tim Wilson <t-wi...@memphis.edu> wrote:
>In article <4tt7v5$f...@news.doit.wisc.edu> ande...@macc.wisc.edu
>(Jess Anderson) writes:
>>Muchnicer, I think,
>>than the current Mr. O, Dorian Yates, who (with apologies
>>to Tim Wilson) is butt-ugly.
>Is he all veiny and sinewy? Ugh.
Just about any bodybuilder is very veiny and sinewy at
contest time. They use various strategies (to use an
uncontroversial euphemism) to get body fat down to the
absolute minimum, 5% or even 3% (it's rare for even fairly
skinny people to have a BF < 10%), then on the day in
question do everything they can to get rid of water in the
system. The idea is to be able to see the smallest
articulations of the muscles. In addition, the vigorous
exercise associated with being "pumped up" engorges the
muscles and veins with blood, making it all the more
prominent.
I rather like both things. I *like* seeing the veins, even
more, touching them. I like that ripped or cut look too,
where every muscle shows.
It certainly doesn't have to be to the degree one sees on
professional bodybuilders: I was quite glad to gaze upon
several of the gymnasts and other athletes in the Olympics
who had great veins and great cuts.
--
Jess's homepage URL is http://www-jsbach.macc.wisc.edu/~anderson/
Copyright 1996 Jess Anderson. *All rights reserved.* Copying in
whole or in part prohibited except for direct response on Usenet.
--
<> The best way to find something you've lost is to buy a
<> replacement.
<> -- Ann Landers
Tim Wilson
In article <4ttt2r$5...@news.cerf.net> doo...@nic.cerf.net (Doogie)
writes:
>For me personally, they will always be the first gay couple.
>They really transcended a lot of preconceived notions about
>gay marriage and gays in general.
How's that?
Greg Parkinson
In article <broudy-0208961526150001@nnrp>, bro...@bcf.usc.edu (david s.
broudy) wrote:
> In article <rwocknerD...@netcom.com>, rwoc...@netcom.com (Rex
> Wockner) wrote:
>
> - "For the public record, we have been broken up for the last
> - year and were separated for a year before that.
>
> So, does that mean they're going to give back all they money they made off
> that treacly book? I mean, seeing how they broke up (I believe the book
> came out (snort) what, two years ago?) and all...
Oh PLEASE.
There's this wierd idea that if someone is famous/notorious then
anything that happens to them is their fault and payback for their
daring to be so unknowing of their place as to put themselves in
the public eye.
Criticize the book if you want. Making fun of people because they
broke up - and they're famous - is a really poor choice.
Jess Anderson
In article <broudy-0208...@comserv-g-28.usc.edu>
bro...@mizar.usc.edu (david s. broudy) writes:
>In article <glp-020896...@ppp86.cinenet.net>,
>g...@cinenet.net (Greg Parkinson) wrote:
>>Criticize the book if you want. Making fun of people
>>because they broke up - and they're famous - is a really
>>poor choice.
>I have a problem with a pair of Famous Fags going on and on
>and on about how fabulous they and their relationship is (or
>was, and really, that was their big claim to fame)
Seems to me Bob Paris's big claim to fame was that he was a
Mr. Olympia who came out, the first and only, as far as I
know.
>and how much in luuuuuuuv they are, when it appears that
>during the height of the hype they had actually separated
>and were going through the motions, viz: TV appearances,
>book signings, etcetera, to preserve appearances/cash flow.
Maybe they were trying to preserve their relationship
through it all. Bodybuilding is rarely highly rewarding in
the monetary sense. As I understand it, they had been
lovers for quite a while before Bob came out. It seems
probable they didn't foresee all the consequences of that
step as it could affect their relationship.
>Now, that smacks of 1) hypocrisy and 2) fraud.
To me that seems an especially dark view of the situation,
the more so since you're speculating on what was *really*
happening in their lives.
>I could not care less about them or their breakup,
I took Greg to be saying he found such indifference to a
real human situation lamentable. I certainly do.
>but it appears to me that all of this free publicity they
>milked was obtained under false pretense.
Maybe the publicity wasn't all that free? And do you *know*
for sure whether it was pretense, false of otherwise?
--
Jess's homepage URL is http://www-jsbach.macc.wisc.edu/~anderson/
Copyright 1996 Jess Anderson. *All rights reserved.* Copying in
whole or in part prohibited except for direct response on Usenet.
--
<> The rich never feel so good as when they are speaking of
<> their possessions as responsibilities.
<> -- Robert Lynd
Anthony J. Rzepela
Doogie (doo...@nic.cerf.net) wrote:
> And I know for a fact that Rod surfs the
> net and would have occassion to read this newsgroup.
Which one is he - the cute brunette, or the blonde troll?
--
____Tony Rzepela (rzep...@netaxs.com)
Anthony J. Rzepela
> >they related...?)
>
> speak. Check your supplier. Revlon or the guy at the bookstore made a
> bad batch.
This is all suddenly surreal. I didn't realize there
were "house brands" of poppers.
--
____Tony "soda jerk" Rzepela (rzep...@netaxs.com)
Anthony J. Rzepela
Ken Rudolph (ke...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> Since Richard's famous experience with poppers was thanks to the
> mysterious Chicago sex trick, *NOW* we find out that it wasn't poppers
> after all - it was nail polish (even kinkier!)
How do you know when Richard Jasper's had an orgasm?
--
____Tony Rzepela (rzep...@netaxs.com)
Jeffrey William Sandris
In article <32027D...@worldnet.att.net>,
Ken Rudolph <ke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>I can't remember, was CM the fellow who invented the delightful
>motss-franglish word "jenesequa" or was it Gary Phillips?
David Kaye, if memory serves.
Jeffrey William Sandris
In article <4tuk25$a...@shellx.best.com>,
Christian Molick <mol...@best.com> wrote:
>I am a fountain of culture, so utterly you are
>having. Yes, the jenessequa thing was my fopa,
Looks like memory didn't serve me quite as well as I thought.
Tim Wilson
In article <4ttebl$1g...@news.doit.wisc.edu> ande...@macc.wisc.edu
(Jess Anderson) writes:
>In article <w4rk9vh...@banquo.csp.ee.memphis.edu>,
>Tim Wilson <t-wi...@memphis.edu> wrote:
>
>>Is he all veiny and sinewy? Ugh.
>
>Just about any bodybuilder is very veiny and sinewy at
>contest time.
Never mind. It was a joking reference to a conversation we had here a
year or so ago.
ke...@worldnet.att.net
bro...@mizar.usc.edu (david s. broudy) wrote:
>...it appears that during the height of the hype they had actually
>separated and were going through the motions, viz: TV appearances, book
>signings, etcetera, to preserve appearances/cash flow.
>
>Now, that smacks of 1) hypocrisy and 2) fraud. I could not care less about
>them or their breakup, but it appears to me that all of this free
>publicity they milked was obtained under false pretense.
You don't really suppose that the other people involved in their books,
e.g. the publisher, were going to say, "Gee, that's terrible guys. We'll
just recycle these happy gay marriage books that we've invested in and
expected to make big bucks off of." Not on your life. It wouldn't
matter if J&P were beating the shit out of each other with baseball bats
in their private lives they would be expected to get out there and push
the product, and may well have had provisions about publicity appearances
written into their various contracts, especially as these are people
whose appeal is largely visual.
Having worked for several years in the publicity business/racket I
have to say that for the most part publicity is about false pretenses,
illusions and bullshit, when it is not simply lies, misrepresentations,
and fabrications.
Jack Carroll
a flying squirrel
bro...@mizar.usc.edu (david s. broudy) wrote:
> when it appears that during the height of the hype they had actually
> separated and were going through the motions, viz: TV appearances, book
> signings, etcetera, to preserve appearances/cash flow.
>
> Now, that smacks of 1) hypocrisy and 2) fraud. I could not care less about
> them or their breakup, but it appears to me that all of this free
> publicity they milked was obtained under false pretense.
Gosh, you don't suppose they might have been trying to work through their
differences *while* they were "going through the motions", do?
I would hope that my friends would extend me the benefit of the doubt were
I ever to find myself in their position vis-à-vis my relationship. This
dark, gleeful snipping is rather ugly (and telling).
--
a flying squirrel Richard W. Johnson skw...@mtcc.com
"I got a new car in December and have already managed to destroy its
rear bumper. I think I am not gifted for driving." -- E McManus
John Whiteside
> The flaming concerning their breakup is really atrocious.
> Regardless of the details of a breakup, its really sad
> to hear someone basically state - "HaHa, you're no longer
> in love, Haha". And I know for a fact that Rod surfs the
> net and would have occassion to read this newsgroup.
Oh, please. You reap what you sow. I tell you what: If John P and I ever
publish a book about how our relationship is a Fabulous Union of Love Love
Love, not a shallow icky Sex thing, and fill the book with photos of
ourselves draped naked over rocks in alluring poses, just to show how
we're really all about deep emotional commitment, and we then break up,
you should feel free to make fun of us.
Yes, I think it is very sad for Bob and Rod that they have broken up. But
don't expect me to feel sorry for them because they chose to present
themselves as bland, banal people living their marriage in front of a
camera, and now people remember that.
----------------------------------------
John Whiteside / jwhi...@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~jwhitesi
John Whiteside
In article <4tuebi$a...@netaxs.com>, rzep...@netaxs.com (Anthony J.
Rzepela) wrote:
> Ken Rudolph (ke...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>
> > Since Richard's famous experience with poppers was thanks to the
> > mysterious Chicago sex trick, *NOW* we find out that it wasn't poppers
> > after all - it was nail polish (even kinkier!)
>
> How do you know when Richard Jasper's had an orgasm?
You read the post.
Michael Thomas
g...@cinenet.net (Greg Parkinson) writes:
> Oh PLEASE.
>
> There's this wierd idea that if someone is famous/notorious then
> anything that happens to them is their fault and payback for their
> daring to be so unknowing of their place as to put themselves in
> the public eye.
>
> Criticize the book if you want. Making fun of people because they
> broke up - and they're famous - is a really poor choice.
You know, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to this
sort of attitude if it weren't for the irony of
how they became "famous": their nauseating
testament to being a couple of trophy husbands.
Call it Schedenfreude and get all huffy if you
like, but I think it's rather amusing.
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
"Give me all of your money, you disgusting fruit!" --
Spats Ransom to Chaz after a fruitless search
for change between the sofa cushions.
Michael Thomas
lib...@curly.cc.emory.edu (Richard Jasper) writes:
> I think Bob would make a great porn star, although God knows what his
> PENIS is like, and that's usually a BIG deal, isn't it?
To whom?
Jess Anderson
In article
<jwhitesi-030...@cnc098039.concentric.net>
jwhi...@concentric.net (John Whiteside) writes:
>Yes, I think it is very sad for Bob and Rod that they have
>broken up. But don't expect me to feel sorry for them
>because they chose to present themselves as bland, banal
>people living their marriage in front of a camera, and now
>people remember that.
Never having even seen this book, much less read it, I have
no first-hand impressions one way or the other, but
recalling almost universal opprobrium in soc.motss when it
appeared, I nevertheless feel it very likely that the vast
majority of gay men, Mr. and Mr. Gay Middle America, so to
speak, would not consider that the Jackson-Parises presented
themselves as bland and banal.
It seems far more likely that they put in the book images
they both liked and could relate to. What I'm suggesting is
that you seem to have reached the judgement they they've
failed to meet some external standard, and in so doing
have therewith forfeited their right to basic compassion.
I do have Paris's "Beyond Built", a bodybuilding book, and
while others have twitted him for offering suggestions on
clothes and skin care in this book, the information was
basically useful, even if I didn't happen to need it
personally, having taken care of my skin since before Bob
Paris was born.
The book also shows a fair number of photos of Bob and Rod
doing (possibly not terribly serious) buddy training on a
beach, and I can readily imagine they had a lot of fun doing
that. Maybe they would feel a bit wistful about it now, in
light of what's happened. Why disparage that? I would bet
good money that the range of emotional highs and lows
they've endured considerably exceeds bland. And while
caring deeply for someone is arguably commonplace, calling
it banal seems excessively unsympathetic.
--
Jess's homepage URL is http://www-jsbach.macc.wisc.edu/~anderson/
Copyright 1996 Jess Anderson. *All rights reserved.* Copying in
whole or in part prohibited except for direct response on Usenet.
--
<> Derive happiness in oneself from a good day's work, from
<> illuminating the fog that surrounds us.
<> -- Henri Matisse
Shabari Kumar
On 3 Aug 1996, Jess Anderson wrote:
>
> In article <broudy-0208...@comserv-g-28.usc.edu>
> bro...@mizar.usc.edu (david s. broudy) writes:
>
> >In article <glp-020896...@ppp86.cinenet.net>,
> >g...@cinenet.net (Greg Parkinson) wrote:
>
> >>Criticize the book if you want. Making fun of people
> >>because they broke up - and they're famous - is a really
> >>poor choice.
>
> >I have a problem with a pair of Famous Fags going on and on
> >and on about how fabulous they and their relationship is (or
> >was, and really, that was their big claim to fame)
>
> Seems to me Bob Paris's big claim to fame was that he was a
> Mr. Olympia who came out, the first and only, as far as I
> know.
I think he wasn't. I remember reading a Bob Summer review of some
Jackson/Paris book in which he pointed out that some previous Mr. O, a
black man as I recall, had come out.
>
> >and how much in luuuuuuuv they are, when it appears that
> >during the height of the hype they had actually separated
> >and were going through the motions, viz: TV appearances,
> >book signings, etcetera, to preserve appearances/cash flow.
>
> Maybe they were trying to preserve their relationship
> through it all. Bodybuilding is rarely highly rewarding in
> the monetary sense. As I understand it, they had been
> lovers for quite a while before Bob came out. It seems
> probable they didn't foresee all the consequences of that
> step as it could affect their relationship.
>
> >Now, that smacks of 1) hypocrisy and 2) fraud.
>
> To me that seems an especially dark view of the situation,
> the more so since you're speculating on what was *really*
> happening in their lives.
>
> >I could not care less about them or their breakup,
>
> I took Greg to be saying he found such indifference to a
> real human situation lamentable. I certainly do.
>
> >but it appears to me that all of this free publicity they
> >milked was obtained under false pretense.
>
> Maybe the publicity wasn't all that free? And do you *know*
> for sure whether it was pretense, false of otherwise?
>
> --
> Jess's homepage URL is http://www-jsbach.macc.wisc.edu/~anderson/
> Copyright 1996 Jess Anderson. *All rights reserved.* Copying in
> whole or in part prohibited except for direct response on Usenet.
> --
> <> The rich never feel so good as when they are speaking of
> <> their possessions as responsibilities.
> <> -- Robert Lynd
Jess Anderson
In article <broudy-0308...@comserv-j-62.usc.edu>,
david s. broudy <bro...@mizar.usc.edu> wrote:
>Well, speculation is as speculation does, suh. Wockner's story reports
>that they separated two years ago, and they officially split one year ago.
>Now, if my memory serves, it was about 1.5-2 years ago that they became
>media darlings for a period. So, by inference, it's certainly plausible
>that they were in fact "going through the motions" and presenting a public
>persona far removed from what really existed.
>That's what I have a problem with.
So you're having a problem with a mere plausibility as though
they were *clearly* defrauding anyone? That's not cynical,
David, that's plain ridiculous.
>I'm speculating based on what has been reported, and I'm a
>cynical black-hearted bastard, so there you are.
Correction: there *you* are.
--
Jess's homepage URL is http://www-jsbach.macc.wisc.edu/~anderson/
Copyright 1996 Jess Anderson. *All rights reserved.* Copying in
whole or in part prohibited except for direct response on Usenet.
--
<> It is dangerous for a national candidate to say things
<> that people might remember.
<> -- Eugene McCarthy
Greg Parkinson
In article <broudy-0208...@comserv-g-28.usc.edu>,
bro...@mizar.usc.edu (david s. broudy) wrote:
[...]
> Relax, Big Guy. I have a problem with a pair of Famous Fags going on and
> on and on about how fabulous they and their relationship is (or was, and
> really,that was their big claim to fame) and how much in luuuuuuuv they
> are, when it appears that during the height of the hype they had actually
> separated and were going through the motions, viz: TV appearances, book
> signings, etcetera, to preserve appearances/cash flow.
I'm glad that you know for certain that you, in similar circumstances,
would have done just the right thing. I've been in relationships that
were breaking up. I know what it's like to "keep up appearances" to
each other and to others while trying to figure out what's going on.
I've made public appearances with someone I knew I was breaking up
with. I've separated from someone on a trial basis but I didn't
go around broadcasting it to everyone because I hoped that things
might work out. I can't imagine that you haven't been though
similar circumstances.
I'd much rather give them the benefit of the doubt that they were
muddling through as best they could - and weren't just sitting back
laughing as they counted their piles of cash on their way to
separate apartments. It's a difficult enough situtation without
a spotlight trained on you; it's got to be even more confusing and
painful when it is.
> Now, that smacks of 1) hypocrisy and 2) fraud. I could not care less about
> them or their breakup, but it appears to me that all of this free
> publicity they milked was obtained under false pretense.
I think your comments, taking the worst possible interpretation of
a situation that you don't have any first-hand knowledge of but
probably do have your own, similar experience of, are just
mean-spirited.
Jeffrey William Sandris
In article <4tuebi$a...@netaxs.com>,
Anthony J. Rzepela <rzep...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>
>How do you know when Richard Jasper's had an orgasm?
Is this the one that ends with the line, "Did you think that was as
good for me as I did?"
Richard Jasper
Jess Anderson (ande...@macc.wisc.edu) wrote:
: Seems to me Bob Paris's big claim to fame was that he was a
: Mr. Olympia who came out, the first and only, as far as I
: know.
Bob never won the Mr. Olympia title.
-- rpj
Richard Jasper
:
@worldnet.att.net> <4tuebi$a...@netaxs.com>
<jwhitesi-030...@cnc098039.concentric.net>
Organization: Emory University
Distribution:
John Whiteside (jwhi...@concentric.net) wrote:
: > How do you know when Richard Jasper's had an orgasm?
:
: You read the post.
:-)
There aren't enough photons...
-- rpj
Jess Anderson
In article <4u1l3f$g...@lendl.cc.emory.edu>,
Richard Jasper <lib...@curly.cc.emory.edu> wrote:
>Jess Anderson (ande...@macc.wisc.edu) wrote:
Right. Sorry. He won the American National and Mr.
Universe in 1983 (amateur shows), but never got above 5th in
the (professional) Mr. O.
--
Jess's homepage URL is http://www-jsbach.macc.wisc.edu/~anderson/
Copyright 1996 Jess Anderson. *All rights reserved.* Copying in
whole or in part prohibited except for direct response on Usenet.
--
<> One evening at the home of Dorothy and Richard Rodgers,
<> dinner guests were happily and lengthily denigrating Clare
<> Boothe. Her sole defender at the table was Ilka Chase, who
<> protested that Clare was always loyal to her friends.
<> Moreover, added Chase, Clare was always kind to her
<> inferiors. "And where does she find them?" asked Dorothy
<> [Parker], without looking up from her plate or missing a
<> bite.
<> -- (Dorothy Parker)
Michael Urban
In article <4u1l3f$g...@lendl.cc.emory.edu>,
Richard Jasper <lib...@curly.cc.emory.edu> wrote:
>Jess Anderson (ande...@macc.wisc.edu) wrote:
>: Seems to me Bob Paris's big claim to fame was that he was a
>: Mr. Olympia who came out, the first and only, as far as I
>: know.
>
>Bob never won the Mr. Olympia title.
>
But Chris Dickerson did ('82). He is an "everyone knows" case, but
was there ever a public for-the-record acknowledgement?
Nick Jacobi
In article <broudy-0308...@comserv-j-62.usc.edu>, bro...@mizar.usc.edu (david s. broudy) wrote:
>It would be silly to think they didn't, wouldn't it?
>
>- I would hope that my friends would extend me the benefit of the doubt were
>- I ever to find myself in their position vis-à-vis my relationship. This
>- dark, gleeful snipping is rather ugly (and telling).
>
>My complaint is not with their relationship in and of itself; it's with
>the packaging of it as a product sold as a model of Happy Coupleness when
>the relationship it depicted was failing. I suppose this is nothing new
>but it still makes me a bit angry, and if read me as as a dark, gleeful
>snipper, then that's the way it it'll have to be.
I must admit my first reaction to this report was "fraud". But then, I
thought about it, and wondered how long would you work at keeping an 8 year
relationship - your marriage no less - intact? How many of us are at that
point? Not many I dare say.
I'm at the 4 year point, and I certainly would keep trying for the first year.
And I certainly would NOT work at it by telling people that I was breaking
up. So, thinking about it, it probably wasn't fraud, deception, or even those
delightful publicity people. It was probably two guys hoping to make "for the
rest of our lives" actually work.
Mike G.
In article <rwocknerD...@netcom.com> Rex Wockner,
rwoc...@netcom.com writes:
> "For the public record, we have been broken up for the last
>year and were separated for a year before that. The past two
>years have been an extraordinarily difficult time for both of us
>as we have faced the dissolution of our marriage. The details and
Oh goody.
Well, I wonder who'll star in the TV movie version...
Mike G.
>The flaming concerning their breakup is really atrocious.
>Regardless of the details of a breakup, its really sad
>to hear someone basically state - "HaHa, you're no longer
>in love, Haha". And I know for a fact that Rod surfs the
>net and would have occassion to read this newsgroup.
Yeah - sorta like the heat you took when you saw Dean Cain naked in the
gym.
FJ!!
In article <4trr7e$1f...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
Jess Anderson <ande...@macc.wisc.edu> wrote:
>Do you know the difference between using steroids and
>abusing them,
My boss in an endocrinologist. He knows this shit. He prescribes them
when necessary. And he will quite happily tell you that use in human
healthy males in their 20s and 30s to augment muscle growth, consitutes
abuse.
FJ!!
"It's always time for a Holocaust joke." - Jeffrey Sandris.
Greg Parkinson
> In article <4trr7e$1f...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
> Jess Anderson <ande...@macc.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >Do you know the difference between using steroids and
> >abusing them,
> My boss in an endocrinologist. He knows this shit. He prescribes them
> when necessary. And he will quite happily tell you that use in human
> healthy males in their 20s and 30s to augment muscle growth, consitutes
> abuse.
What's his opinion on plastic/reconstructive surgery?
Mike Jankulak
Jess Anderson <ande...@macc.wisc.edu> wrote:
>Seems to me Bob Paris's big claim to fame was that he was a
>Mr. Olympia who came out, the first and only, as far as I
>know.
What's a "Mr. Olympia?" I thought Rob'n'Bod were some kind
of marketing trick for jeans or long-distance telephone
carriers or something. Like, y'know, gay(Fabio) x 2, and
to be reviled as such. If there was any kind of *substance*
to their story, any kind of relevance to gay history and
culture and coming out, it died before it got through their
marketing machine.
--
__
\/ Mike Jankulak (Dania, Florida) ==== m...@shadow.net
Jess Anderson
In article <Dvo8L...@spdcc.com> f...@spdcc.com (FJ!!)
writes:
>In article <4trr7e$1f...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
>Jess Anderson <ande...@macc.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>Do you know the difference between using steroids and
>>abusing them,
>My boss in an endocrinologist. He knows this shit.
Hm. Ask him if steroids caused Lyle Alzedo's death.
If he says yas, maybe he knows less than he should.
>He prescribes them when necessary. And he will quite
>happily tell you that use in human healthy males in their
>20s and 30s to augment muscle growth, consitutes abuse.
I don't propose to debate what constitutes abuse, but I
think it's relevant and will note that there are
endocrinologists and physicians who don't agree with your
boss.
--
Jess's homepage URL is http://www-jsbach.macc.wisc.edu/~anderson/
Copyright 1996 Jess Anderson. *All rights reserved.* Copying in
whole or in part prohibited except for direct response on Usenet.
--
<> Never tell people how to do things; tell them what to do and
<> they will surprise you with their ingenuity.
<> -- Gen. George S. Patton Jr.
ABulous
Ah, mais non mon cheri.
Like it or not, Bob Paris is a gay icon of much more relevance to gay
history than Fabio, who really did nothing except parade around his
long tresses and udders for the camera.
On the contrary, Bob was a high profile athlete, who not only created a
great *controversy* within the "sport" by doing what he did but then
chose to dedicate the next years to speaking tours and charity events
promoting himself and his partner as images for a new gay lifestyle.
This had not been done before.
I think it was very important and his impact especially upon young
people at the time is not to be lightly poo-pooed.
There is still a big, big taboo about direct reference to anything
*definitively homosexual* with regard to celebrities and public
figures, be they RuPaul or Lily Tomlin or Richard Simmons et. al. Fabio
in this regard is a total null cipher.
Harry
--
Harry A. Kaplan, Ph.D., IRC nick: ABulous
e-mail: hka...@panix.com, web: <http://www.panix.com/~hkaplan>
ke...@worldnet.att.net
hka...@panix.com (ABulous) wrote:
>On the contrary, Bob was a high profile athlete, who not only created a
>great *controversy* within the "sport" by doing what he did but then
>chose to dedicate the next years to speaking tours and charity events
>promoting himself and his partner as images for a new gay lifestyle.
>This had not been done before.
Shame, shame.
He didn't do it in drag, or an Act Up tee shirt or in
leather so it doesn't count in the PC gay diversity sweepstakes.
Jack Carroll
BuggboyDC
>Ah, mais non mon cheri.
Since this thread has "Wockner" in the subject line, shouldn't this have
at least three more "non"s in it?
Sean, feeling strangely dizzy
"Nothing enhances a man's beauty like not knowing exactly what he looks
like."
Sean Bugg
B Slinker
In article <4u5cg7$p...@freenet-news.carleton.ca> Mike Jankulak wrote:
: Jess Anderson <ande...@macc.wisc.edu> wrote:
: >Seems to me Bob Paris's big claim to fame was that he was a
: >Mr. Olympia who came out, the first and only, as far as I
: >know.
: What's a "Mr. Olympia?"
the most well-built man in the state of washington.
-beth, fairly certain you'd have known this if you didn't scoff at
the sports page (hi, sim!)
--
Beth Linker (bsli...@unix.amherst.edu)
http://www.amherst.edu/~bslinker/
"if greg louganis didn't need a personality, neither do I" - jeff sandris
Exile on Market Street
Ken Rudolph <ke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I can't remember, was CM the fellow who invented the delightful
>motss-franglish word "jenesequa" or was it Gary Phillips?
I wasn't on hand at the creation, but after exchanging observations on
Indian tribes with Miss LaMotte, upon seeing this, I couldn't help but
think:
Here's another tribe people can join along with the Wannabes.
--Sandy "an old Iroquois word meaning 'We don't know what the fuck it
is either'" Smith
____________________________________________________________________________
Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia smi...@pobox.upenn.edu
Univ of Pennsylvania, News and Public Affairs 215.898.1423/fax 215.898.1203
I speak for myself here, not Penn http://pobox.upenn.edu/~smiths/
Practice safe food -- always use a condiment when eating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exile on Market Street
mol...@best.com (Christian Molick) wrote:
>I am a fountain of culture, so utterly you are
>having. Yes, the jenessequa thing was my fopa,
>but I did get some mountains of supportive
>e-mail out of it and I'm feeling much better
>now, thanks.
"Do you not be happy with me as the translator of the books of you?"
>Need I remind us all that language is a virus?
Is that why my spell-checker crashes all the time?
Jess Anderson
In article <4u7nlc$9...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>
ke...@worldnet.att.net writes:
>hka...@panix.com (ABulous) wrote:
>Shame, shame.
Honestly, Jack, you're *such* a recidivist; you've been told
a thousand times now: before 1980 There Was Nothing of Note.
--
Jess's homepage URL is http://www-jsbach.macc.wisc.edu/~anderson/
Copyright 1996 Jess Anderson. *All rights reserved.* Copying in
whole or in part prohibited except for direct response on Usenet.
--
<> We expect them [Salvadoran officials] to work toward the
<> elimination of human rights.
<> -- J. Danforth Quayle
<> El Salvador, Feb 1989
Mike Jankulak
ABulous <hka...@panix.com> wrote:
>Like it or not, Bob Paris is a gay icon of much more relevance to gay
>history than Fabio, who really did nothing except parade around his
>long tresses and udders for the camera.
I never heard of or saw Rob'n'Bod doing anything but parading
around their (occasionally) long tresses and udders (long udders?)
for the camera. I'm not pretending that my experience is the
norm, but I don't think I live in a vaccuum, either.
>On the contrary, Bob was a high profile athlete, who not only created a
>great *controversy* within the "sport" by doing what he did but then
>chose to dedicate the next years to speaking tours and charity events
>promoting himself and his partner as images for a new gay lifestyle.
>This had not been done before.
Okay. Which one is Bod, and which is Rob? Athlete in what
sport? What controversy, when?
Fabio got famous because of his romance-novel covers. Bod'n'Rod,
I thought, got famous because of their greeting-card industry and
"daring" gay-couple marketing. I didn't realize until recently
that their coupledom was off-camera, too.
>I think it was very important and his impact especially upon young
>people at the time is not to be lightly poo-pooed.
<grin> I think that's "pooh-poohed." Maybe I'm the wrong age,
or the wrong nationality, or something, but I remain unenlightened
wrt any "impact" they may have had. I can't respect something
that I've never heard of. I'm just saying that their marketing
was shallow and kinda obnoxious (from where I sit), and I won't
miss it, or them. I'll probably get all nostalgic when they show
up in the next Jill Sobule video, or naked in bed with Roseanne.
Anthony J. Rzepela
ke...@worldnet.att.net wrote (of Bob Paris, I'm guessing
the cute brunette at this point, although I'm still not sure...):
> Shame, shame.
>
> He didn't do it in drag, or an Act Up tee shirt or in
> leather so it doesn't count in the PC gay diversity sweepstakes.
That retort would comfortably fit in in some of the past
threads on Messrs. Paris-Jackson and Jackson-Paris, but
I haven't seen too much in this thread that warrants it.
While Bob's coming out in his chosen field
had something with some meat on its bones
(so to speak) of interest to everyone,
as a team, I didn't see them offering much
besides "We're a happy, loving couple" than
"and damn easy on the eyes doing it, too".
If there's some spite and (sorry for this spelling)
schaudenfreude appearing over this episode, perhaps
it's not so much the immature irritation and
jealousy of anyone who goes around saying
"We're a happy loving couple, tra la lee!", as
much as it is the equally unpleasant and unattractive
(but highly satisfactory) follow-up emotion of
"I thought so!" when it turns out that it was a
sham the whole time they bothered to tell anyone
about it - famous or not.
--
____Tony Rzepela (rzep...@netaxs.com)
Jess Anderson
In article <4u7ghd$b...@panix.com> hka...@panix.com
(ABulous) writes:
>In article <4u5cg7$p...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
>xx...@freenet5.carleton.ca (Mike Jankulak) writes:
>>Jess Anderson <ande...@macc.wisc.edu> wrote:
>>>Seems to me Bob Paris's big claim to fame was that he was a
>>>Mr. Olympia who came out, the first and only, as far as I
>>>know.
>>What's a "Mr. Olympia?"
Top of the heap for professional bodybuilders, though I was
wrong about Paris: he didn't win the O, only the top amateur
competitions.
>>I thought Rob'n'Bod were some kind of marketing trick for
>>jeans or long-distance telephone carriers or something.
>>Like, y'know, gay(Fabio) x 2, and to be reviled as such. If
>>there was any kind of *substance* to their story, any kind
>>of relevance to gay history and culture and coming out, it
>>died before it got through their marketing machine.
Breathtakingly wrong, to a discouraging degree. Listen up:
>Ah, mais non mon cheri.
>Like it or not, Bob Paris is a gay icon of much more
>relevance to gay history than Fabio, who really did nothing
>except parade around his long tresses and udders for the
>camera.
[see note below]
>On the contrary, Bob was a high profile athlete, who not
>only created a great *controversy* within the "sport" by
>doing what he did but then chose to dedicate the next years
>to speaking tours and charity events promoting himself and
>his partner as images for a new gay lifestyle. This had not
>been done before.
And has been done very little since.
>I think it was very important and his impact especially upon
>young people at the time is not to be lightly poo-pooed.
>There is still a big, big taboo about direct reference to
>anything *definitively homosexual* with regard to
>celebrities and public figures, be they RuPaul or Lily
>Tomlin or Richard Simmons et. al. Fabio in this regard is
>a total null cipher.
There has been real progress, but it is *oh* so small, and
it has been going on a lot longer than many people think.
Note: I *have* to know, Harry: was that "long" associative?
I hope so, because I was ROTFL at the thought of Fabio's
long udders.
--
Jess's homepage URL is http://www-jsbach.macc.wisc.edu/~anderson/
Copyright 1996 Jess Anderson. *All rights reserved.* Copying in
whole or in part prohibited except for direct response on Usenet.
--
<> I hate straight people who think stories about themselves
<> are "universal" but stories about us are only about
<> homosexuality.
<> -- ("Queers Read This")
Mike Reaser
ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) wrote:
>In article <4u7ghd$b...@panix.com> hka...@panix.com
>(ABulous) writes:
>>Like it or not, Bob Paris is a gay icon of much more
>>relevance to gay history than Fabio, who really did nothing
>>except parade around his long tresses and udders for the
>>camera.
>
>[see note below]
[ .. major, *MAJOR* snip .. ]
>Note: I *have* to know, Harry: was that "long" associative?
>I hope so, because I was ROTFL at the thought of Fabio's
>long udders.
I ,too, lost it with the simple mental picture of Fabio's udders,
but -- his *long* udders?
Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww.
-- Mike Reaser, Atl., GA B5/6 f+tw+cdvg+k+vs+l+ aka HickBear on IRC
m...@mindspring.com m...@spdcc.com m...@photobooks.atdc.gatech.edu
What makes me think I could start clean slated
The hardest to learn was the least complicated -- Emily Saliers
David W. Fenton
david s. broudy (bro...@mizar.usc.edu) wrote:
: In article <skwirl-0308...@skwirl-gw.skwirl.org>, skw...@mtcc.com
: (a flying squirrel) wrote:
: - I would hope that my friends would extend me the benefit of the doubt were
: - I ever to find myself in their position vis-à-vis my relationship. This
: - dark, gleeful snipping is rather ugly (and telling).
:
Might I also point out that Bob & Rod are not our friends?
David W. Fenton |
New York University | The way of stylistic tolerance
dfe...@bway.net | dwf...@is2.nyu.edu | may lead to the final horror of
http://www.bway.net/~dfenton | John Tesh. --Alex Ross, NYTimes
ABulous
In article <4u8mui$r...@news.doit.wisc.edu> ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>
>Note: I *have* to know, Harry: was that "long" associative?
>I hope so, because I was ROTFL at the thought of Fabio's
>long udders.
Well, no. I guess I should have balanced out the phrase with "pendulous
udders" to make it less ambiguous.
Harry, on that note seeking out a copy of the Pit and the Pendulum for
bedtime reading
ABulous
In article <4u7lnf$i...@freenet-news.carleton.ca> am...@freenet5.carleton.ca (Mike Jankulak) writes:
>
>>I think it was very important and his impact especially upon young
>>people at the time is not to be lightly poo-pooed.
>
Oops. I guess I extrapolated the spelling from the nickname of my dog,
"poo-poo".
>Maybe I'm the wrong age,
>or the wrong nationality, or something, but I remain unenlightened
>wrt any "impact" they may have had. I can't respect something
>that I've never heard of.
Maybe you're just not a big gym guy, eh?
>I'm just saying that their marketing
>was shallow and kinda obnoxious (from where I sit), and I won't
>miss it, or them. I'll probably get all nostalgic when they show
>up in the next Jill Sobule video, or naked in bed with Roseanne.
Bob is quite charming in person, despite the impression produced
by whoever ghost-wrote their book. Hmmm... did I say that now?
Harry
Jess Anderson
In article <4u8s8q$s...@news.nyu.edu>, David W. Fenton
<dwf...@is2.nyu.edu> wrote:
>david s. broudy (bro...@mizar.usc.edu) wrote:
>>In article <skwirl-0308...@skwirl-gw.skwirl.org>,
>>skw...@mtcc.com (a flying squirrel) wrote:
>>>I would hope that my friends would extend me the benefit
>>>of the doubt were I ever to find myself in their position
>>>vis-`-vis my relationship. This dark, gleeful snipping is
>>>rather ugly (and telling).
>>My complaint is not with their relationship in and of
>>itself; . . .
>Might I also point out that Bob & Rod are not our friends?
You might. But you would be exceeding the scope of your
domain if you did.
--
Jess's homepage URL is http://www-jsbach.macc.wisc.edu/~anderson/
Copyright 1996 Jess Anderson. *All rights reserved.* Copying in
whole or in part prohibited except for direct response on Usenet.
--
<> Don't worry about things that you have no control over,
<> because you have no control over them. Don't worry about
<> things that you have control over, because you have control
<> over them.
<> -- Mickey Rivers
Christian Molick
In article <4u7lnf$i...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Mike Jankulak <am...@freenet5.carleton.ca> wrote:
>I never heard of or saw Rob'n'Bod doing anything but parading...
>...but I don't think I live in a vaccuum, either.
You live in a vacuum. Bob was big in the bodybuilding scene
for quite a while.
>Bod'n'Rod, I thought, got famous because of their...marketing
Bob was already famous. They got more famous because
they turned heads. In a society dominated by straight
love images they seemed to be an impossible couple.
>Maybe I'm the wrong...something...
Culture. The sports and bodybuilding scenes and the
hoopla that surrounds them may not be your thing, but
you shouldn't trivialize their importance to the
society that surrounds you.
ChristianM
Mike Reaser
mol...@best.com (Christian Molick) wrote:
>Mike Jankulak <am...@freenet5.carleton.ca> wrote:
>>I never heard of or saw Rob'n'Bod doing anything but parading...
>>...but I don't think I live in a vaccuum, either.
>
>You live in a vacuum. Bob was big in the bodybuilding scene
>for quite a while.
Hey, Christian, *guess* *what*! Not all gay men are interested
in "the bodybuilding scene", believe it or not!
I'd never heard of Bob before the great coming-out-aren't-we-
just-a-*precious*-couple think hit.
[ .. snip .. ]
>>Maybe I'm the wrong...something...
>
>Culture. The sports and bodybuilding scenes and the
>hoopla that surrounds them may not be your thing, but
>you shouldn't trivialize their importance to the
>society that surrounds you.
I've never before felt that bodybuilding was as "important" to
the society which surrounds me as, say, medical advances or
art. I'm glad to know just *how* *important* and *earthshaking*
the contributions of "the bodybuilding scene" have been.
ABulous
In article <3208c77b...@news.mindspring.com> m...@mindspring.com writes:
>I've never before felt that bodybuilding was as "important" to
>the society which surrounds me as, say, medical advances or
>art. I'm glad to know just *how* *important* and *earthshaking*
>the contributions of "the bodybuilding scene" have been.
>
Actually, you have defined its importance precisely, "medical
advances" in the service of "art".
Earthshaking, I don't know, but tremors would be the least worry if the
Rock Center Atlas should drop the ball.
FJ!!
In article <glp-050896...@ppp68.cinenet.net>,
Greg Parkinson <g...@cinenet.net> wrote:
>In article <Dvo8L...@spdcc.com>, f...@spdcc.com (FJ!!) wrote:
>What's his opinion on plastic/reconstructive surgery?
I'll be sure to ask him when he returns from Geneva.
In the meantime, though, I say that if you are trying to set up an
analogy, it is a wierd one to me (eventhough I am not schooled in
either endocrinology or reconstructive surgery): the results of
surgery are not usually attainable by other means, while it is entirely
possible to attain most of the muscle gains created by steroids, as
far as I know - it "just" takes a hell of a lot more of a commitment
(or so the "natural" movement would like to make us believe).
I do think that if we are going to compare steroid use to surgery,
we should focus on reconstructive surgery that would need to be
performed under full sedation, ie the more invasive procedures.
My reason is that those procedures would compare best to the effects of
taking a substance over a period of time that influences the endocrin
systems in the whole body, although far more reversibly so than
surgery.
FJ!!
"Nothing is forbidden"
Mike Jankulak
Jess Anderson <ande...@macc.wisc.edu> wrote:
>hka...@panix.com (ABulous) writes:
>>xx...@freenet5.carleton.ca (Mike Jankulak) writes:
[ Mike J ]
>>>What's a "Mr. Olympia?"
[ Jess ]
>Top of the heap for professional bodybuilders, though I was
>wrong about Paris: he didn't win the O, only the top amateur
>competitions.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with "bodybuilder" = "athlete,"
but I'll let that pass for now.
[ Mike J ]
>>>I thought Rob'n'Bod were some kind of marketing trick for
>>>jeans or long-distance telephone carriers or something.
>>>Like, y'know, gay(Fabio) x 2, and to be reviled as such. If
>>>there was any kind of *substance* to their story, any kind
>>>died before it got through their marketing machine.
[ Jess ]
>Breathtakingly wrong, to a discouraging degree. Listen up:
I dunno that what I said was "wrong," breathtakingly or no.
I never said that there was *no* substance to their story,
which is (I think) what you're arguing with. I said that
whatever substance there may have been did not survive their
approach to self-promotion, and I haven't seen much argument
on this point. Anyone?
Perhaps I should try to be clearer. I'm not trying to argue
that Bod'n'Rob were fluff, game over, end of story. I'm
certainly not interested in dancing on the grave of their
love, a la david broudy.
What I *am* saying is this -- my own personal awareness of
Rob'n'Bod came about as a result of their mass-media self-
promotional marketing machine -- in countless numbers of
greeting cards and ads and gifs and jpegs and picture-books.
[And now I find I'm not even sure that it was *them* I've
seen in man-man scantily-clad ads. *Did* they do product
endorsements? Jeans, or something? Maybe not.]
If there was something of more substance to their story, and
it seems indeed that there was, then it died a messy death
before their marketing plan took over. And I'm sorry, because
those kinds of coming-out stories are still all too rare.
As I said, I'm not claiming my own experience is at all
representative. I'm in my mid-20's, I came out only 6 years
ago, and I was *never* one for following real sports, much
less bodybuilding. [Oops, and I was *trying* not to sneer....]
But I think there are likely to be more people who, like me,
see Rob'n'Bod as nothing more than gay(Fabio) x 2, and will
breath a quick sigh of relief at any sign that their cloyingly
vapid marketing machine has run out of steam.
And I think that *is* a kind of tragedy, I guess, if it means
that the gay population has lost a potential role model. Or
if it means that a personal, human loss (end of a longterm
relationship) will be trivialized and/or sensationalized.
[Eh, well, who's Christie Brinkley dating these days?]
[When *were* they in bodybuilding, and when did they come out?
Why did they come out? Did everyone wink-wink-nudge-nudge *know*
about them before they went public, or was it a surprise? How
big of a story was it at the time?]
Mike, prolly substantially *qualifying* what I said before, oh well
Christian Molick
In article <3208c77b...@news.mindspring.com>,
Mike Reaser <m...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I'd never heard of Bob before the great coming-out-aren't-we-
>just-a-*precious*-couple think hit.
Your envy of Bob and Rod is out of place. Your assumption
at they thought too highly of themselves is also way off:
they were proud of having a pleasant relationship and made
some attempt to explain that. Maybe if you were aware of
how many times Bob was asked which of them was the wife you
would understand why they wanted to explain their relationship.
The point isn't that they are great, but that gays can be
happy together like anyone else. It's too bad that and the
manner in which athletes become role models for people so
completely escapes you. It's also really surprizing to me
that you appear to have asked yourself why Bob and Rod got
famous and come up with the answer that it is because they
are egomaniac gymbunnies. The truth is more mundane: Bob
was a famous athlete and they had a very out relationship.
Why don't you make a long list of the other famous athletes
who have come out publicly and made a point of discussing
their relationships?
>I've never before felt that bodybuilding was as "important" to
>the society which surrounds me as, say, medical advances or art.
At a general level sports play a huge role in this society.
Wishing things otherwise does not make them so.
>I'm glad to know just *how* *important* and *earthshaking*
>the contributions of "the bodybuilding scene" have been.
Spite and trivialization aren't going to get you where you
want to be. I'm sorry you hate the whole business as much
as you do, but sports like bodybuilding do play a defining
role in many people's lives. That's the kind of thing that
you should learn to coexist with. Just because you brag
about how arcane some of the math you've worked with is
doesn't necessarily mean that you are an arrogant, ivory
tower snob. Just because this arcane math that you've
worked on is almost entirely without value to the society
as a whole doesn't mean that you yourself are worthless.
ChristianM
ABulous
In article <4ua76p$g...@freenet-news.carleton.ca> am...@freenet5.carleton.ca (Mike Jankulak) writes:
>
>[When *were* they in bodybuilding, and when did they come out?
>Why did they come out? Did everyone wink-wink-nudge-nudge *know*
>about them before they went public, or was it a surprise? How
>big of a story was it at the time?]
Mike, I can't *BELIEVE* you missed the whole story on this one. Why,
with *RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISTS* posting here there was surely a detailed
description of the events leading up to the break up, throwing the
whole affair into proper context. Wasn't there? I mean, we have *REX*
on our side, don't we?
FJ!!
In article <4u64ia$8...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
Jess Anderson <ande...@macc.wisc.edu> wrote:
>I don't propose to debate what constitutes abuse, but I
We have been there before, you and I. We indeed might not want to
repeat that.
>think it's relevant and will note that there are
>endocrinologists and physicians who don't agree with your
>boss.
Two scenes come to my mind here:
Last time I was on the west coast, I spent a day with an old friend of
mine, who full of glee described to me how surprised the
trainee/assistant/whatever looked on as his phisician wrote out a new
prescription of steroids, mainly for the express purpose of maintaining
mass. I think he even got Kaiser to pay for them. Later that night
we celebrated my birthday by him giving me a blowjob on the roofgarden
of his appartment complex in the middle of the city. I'll never forget
what that looked like: the lights, the sign, the streets, the cars, the
pool, his shoulders...
A few weeks after I started my new job at The Institution here, my boss
took us to meet another group he had a project with. This was the day that
the news broke that a new endocrin regulatory system for bodyfat storage
had been discovered, and that said storage could be crudely manipulated
in rats by using the proper chemicals. They were all excited about the
advancement of the field, speculating on human uses. "If this ever
comes to market as a slimming aid, people will dissappear," one of them
said. "It will be hit and some wont know when to stop and vanish into
thin air."
- "Won't this then be available on prescription only?" I asked.
"It won't matter. People will dissappear."
FJ!!
The bible is a collection of UFO reports.
Shawn Hicks
In article <4u94te$l...@panix.com>, hka...@panix.com (ABulous) wrote:
>In article <4u7lnf$i...@freenet-news.carleton.ca> am...@freenet5.carleton.ca
(Mike Jankulak) writes:
>>Maybe I'm the wrong age,
>>or the wrong nationality, or something, but I remain unenlightened
>>wrt any "impact" they may have had. I can't respect something
>>that I've never heard of.
>Maybe you're just not a big gym guy, eh?
Naw, he's a big Sim guy!
<ducking>
========================================================
Shawn Hicks bali...@wizard.com
Las Vegas, NV, USA http://www.wizard.com/~balistik/
John Whiteside
In article <4uae0c$l...@shellx.best.com>, mol...@best.com (Christian
Molick) wrote:
> In article <4u7lnf$i...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
> Mike Jankulak <am...@freenet5.carleton.ca> wrote:
> >I never heard of or saw Rob'n'Bod doing anything but parading...
> >...but I don't think I live in a vaccuum, either.
>
> You live in a vacuum. Bob was big in the bodybuilding scene
> for quite a while.
So anyone who isn't into the bodybuilding scene is living in a vacuum? Right.
I never heard of Bob and Rod before they became famous for being a gay
couple, because I don't give a shit about professional bodybuilders. This
does not mean that I live in a vcauum, anymore than someone who doesn't
know about subjects dear to my heart is living in a vacuum.
> Culture. The sports and bodybuilding scenes and the
> hoopla that surrounds them may not be your thing, but
> you shouldn't trivialize their importance to the
> society that surrounds you.
Is it trivializing them to point out that fame in this small arena does
not make someone well known the the world at large?
Although I'm kind of curious about the importance of bodybuilding to the
rest of society. I mean, I don't think there's anything bad or strange
about bodybuilding, I just think on the scale of society-wide importance,
it ranks with the "Single Guy" fan club, reruns of "Ellen," and soc.motss.
----------------------------------------
John Whiteside / jwhi...@concentric.net
http://www.concentric.net/~jwhitesi
John Whiteside
In article <4ub2j3$p...@shellx.best.com>, mol...@best.com (Christian
Molick) wrote:
> Your envy of Bob and Rod is out of place. Your assumption
> at they thought too highly of themselves is also way off:
> they were proud of having a pleasant relationship and made
> some attempt to explain that.
Explain. Cash in on. Explain. Cash in on. Hmmm.
> At a general level sports play a huge role in this society.
I don't think Mike implied otherwise.
> Spite and trivialization aren't going to get you where you
> want to be. I'm sorry you hate the whole business as much
> as you do, but sports like bodybuilding do play a defining
> role in many people's lives.
Christian, that is certainly true, but that doesn't make bodybuilding
tremendously important to society at large. It makes it tremendously
important to certain people.
> Just because this arcane math that you've
> worked on is almost entirely without value to the society
> as a whole doesn't mean that you yourself are worthless.
What was that you were saying about "spite," Christian?
You're being much more of a simpering little twit than usual. Did someone
make you wear a tie?
Anthony J. Rzepela
Mark Roberts (tran...@crl.com) wrote:
>
> Well, Sister Christian []
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
____Tony Rzepela (rzep...@netaxs.com)
John Whiteside
In article <4ubtg7$9...@netaxs.com>, rzep...@netaxs.com (Anthony J.
Rzepela) wrote:
> Nooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually, this thread's subject line brings up two questions, and I'm not
sure which to ask.
1. When did Bob Paris change his first name to Wockner/Bob?
or
2. When did Wockner join the Jackson-Paris relationship? Why did the three
of them break up? Did Bob and Rod adopt Rex?
David Stevenson
m...@mindspring.com writes:
>
>I've never before felt that bodybuilding was as "important" to
>the society which surrounds me as, say, medical advances or
>the contributions of "the bodybuilding scene" have been.
>
in combating wasting in AIDS cases, nor about whatever-was-the-name
-of-that-damn-picture-book, two not insignificant contributions of
the bodybuilding scene to the society which surrounds you.
David Stevenson
f...@spdcc.com (FJ!!) writes:
>Greg Parkinson <g...@cinenet.net> wrote:
>>In article <Dvo8L...@spdcc.com>, f...@spdcc.com (FJ!!) wrote:
>>> My boss in an endocrinologist. He knows this shit. He prescribes them
>
>>What's his opinion on plastic/reconstructive surgery?
>
>analogy, it is a wierd one to me (eventhough I am not schooled in
>either endocrinology or reconstructive surgery): the results of
>surgery are not usually attainable by other means, while it is entirely
>possible to attain most of the muscle gains created by steroids, as
>far as I know - it "just" takes a hell of a lot more of a commitment
>(or so the "natural" movement would like to make us believe).
>
>I do think that if we are going to compare steroid use to surgery,
>we should focus on reconstructive surgery that would need to be
>performed under full sedation, ie the more invasive procedures.
>My reason is that those procedures would compare best to the effects of
>taking a substance over a period of time that influences the endocrin
>systems in the whole body, although far more reversibly so than
>surgery.
I assumed that Greg was talking about (female) breast implants
(as in after mastectomy).
So, putting words in Greg's mouth, would your boss recommend boys
use silicone "muscle implants" rather than steroids to achieve the
desired "look"?
Mike Reaser
mol...@best.com (Christian Molick) wrote:
>In article <3208c77b...@news.mindspring.com>,
>Mike Reaser <m...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>I'd never heard of Bob before the great coming-out-aren't-we-
>>just-a-*precious*-couple think hit.
>
Your reading comprehension problems are *always* out of place.
"Envy"? I *don't* think so. If they felt a compulsion to
present themselves to the world as The Most Perfect Couple
Ever Created, more power to them. To insist that they were
a pillar on which civilization was maintained, to whom we
owe supreme loyalty, simply shows (*again*) your own limited
world view.
>Your assumption
>at they thought too highly of themselves is also way off:
>they were proud of having a pleasant relationship and made
>some attempt to explain that. Maybe if you were aware of
>how many times Bob was asked which of them was the wife you
>would understand why they wanted to explain their relationship.
And explain. And explain. And exploit. And explain.
>The point isn't that they are great, but that gays can be
>happy together like anyone else. It's too bad that and the
>manner in which athletes become role models for people so
>completely escapes you.
Then perhaps you'd like to modify that "envy" claim above?
>It's also really surprizing to me
>that you appear to have asked yourself why Bob and Rod got
>famous and come up with the answer that it is because they
>are egomaniac gymbunnies.
Their public personae said little else to me. You've got a
somewhat unique perspective, since you also seem to be
familiar with their private personae.
>The truth is more mundane: Bob
>was a famous athlete and they had a very out relationship.
>Why don't you make a long list of the other famous athletes
>who have come out publicly and made a point of discussing
>their relationships?
Why don't you? After all, you're the one wanting the list.
>>I've never before felt that bodybuilding was as "important" to
>>the society which surrounds me as, say, medical advances or art.
>
>At a general level sports play a huge role in this society.
>Wishing things otherwise does not make them so.
"Sports", yes. "The bodybuilding scene", no.
Bodybuilding may play a huge role in *your* society, perhaps,
but not the more global society.
>>I'm glad to know just *how* *important* and *earthshaking*
>>the contributions of "the bodybuilding scene" have been.
>
>Spite and trivialization aren't going to get you where you
>want to be. I'm sorry you hate the whole business as much
>as you do, but sports like bodybuilding do play a defining
>role in many people's lives.
So there are differences between "sport" and "bodybuilding"?
That's not what you've been saying (see your previous words,
quoted above).
>That's the kind of thing that
>you should learn to coexist with. Just because you brag
>about how arcane some of the math you've worked with is
>doesn't necessarily mean that you are an arrogant, ivory
>tower snob.
Sure it does. You just don't know this because I'm not the
manly he-man type with whom you prefer to associate.
>Just because this arcane math that you've
>worked on is almost entirely without value to the society
>as a whole doesn't mean that you yourself are worthless.
The arcane math I've worked on has benfitted "the society"
through applications in civil engineering and structural
analysis. "Bodybuilding" seems to have benefitted "the
society" as a whole -- not just *your* society -- precisely
how?
Mike Reaser
jwhi...@concentric.net (John Whiteside) wrote:
>In article <4ub2j3$p...@shellx.best.com>, mol...@best.com (Christian
>Molick) wrote:
>
If I did, it was certainly unintentional. Hell, I've just gone
thru 3 weeks of purgatory while one of the premiere sports events
in the world was held around me (in one case, quite literally in
my own back yard).
I know the role *sports* plays in our society; what I'm questioning
is the role *bodybuilding* plays in that same society.
>> Spite and trivialization aren't going to get you where you
>> want to be. I'm sorry you hate the whole business as much
>> as you do, but sports like bodybuilding do play a defining
>> role in many people's lives.
>
>Christian, that is certainly true, but that doesn't make bodybuilding
>tremendously important to society at large. It makes it tremendously
>important to certain people.
Yup, yup, yup.
>> Just because this arcane math that you've
>> worked on is almost entirely without value to the society
>> as a whole doesn't mean that you yourself are worthless.
>
>What was that you were saying about "spite," Christian?
John, you *know* Christian can never grok that "potkettleblack"
concept.
>You're being much more of a simpering little twit than usual. Did someone
>make you wear a tie?
I figured someone made him spend time with some of those icky
queens.
Jess Anderson
In article <4u7pq4$3...@netaxs.com> rzep...@netaxs.com
(Anthony J. Rzepela) writes:
>ke...@worldnet.att.net wrote (of Bob Paris, I'm guessing the
>cute brunette at this point, although I'm still not
>sure...):
The dark-haired one is Bob Paris, the blond one is Rod
Jackson.
>>Shame, shame.
>>He didn't do it in drag, or an Act Up tee shirt or in
>>leather so it doesn't count in the PC gay diversity sweepstakes.
>That retort would comfortably fit in in some of the past
>threads on Messrs. Paris-Jackson and Jackson-Paris, but I
>haven't seen too much in this thread that warrants it.
Granting that, much of the earlier fuss here over the
coffeetable photobook was redolent of their not being "out
enough", faulting them for *merely* indicating they were
gay, as though that were nothing, especially in the
fitness/weightlifting/bodybuilding milieu that was central
to their lives.
Most of what was said here then about them (it was a couple
years ago) was remarkably intolerant. Intolerance, I would
say, is the tie that gives some aptness to Jack's comment.
>While Bob's coming out in his chosen field had something
>with some meat on its bones (so to speak) of interest to
>everyone, as a team, I didn't see them offering much besides
>"We're a happy, loving couple" than "and damn easy on the
>eyes doing it, too".
Apart from the macho-manly chosen field itself, there may
well not have been much more to them than that, as public
personae. But it seems to me that alone ought to be enough
or more than enough to earn them the basic respect of other
LGB people, and especially not to merit the derision we've
seen here over their private troubles finally made public.
>If there's some spite and (sorry for this spelling)
>schaudenfreude appearing over this episode, perhaps it's not
No 'u' after the 'a'.
>so much the immature irritation and jealousy of anyone who
>goes around saying "We're a happy loving couple, tra la
>lee!", as much as it is the equally unpleasant and
>unattractive (but highly satisfactory) follow-up emotion of
>"I thought so!" when it turns out that it was a sham the
>whole time they bothered to tell anyone about it - famous or
>not.
Well, as you say, equally unpleasant and unattractive. As
to satisfactory, I think the nexus of the current thread is
that deriving satisfaction from the troubles of others,
especially others whose efforts seem on the whole positive,
is essentially corrupt and devoid of basic human kindness.
--
Jess's homepage URL is http://www-jsbach.macc.wisc.edu/~anderson/
Copyright 1996 Jess Anderson. *All rights reserved.* Copying in
whole or in part prohibited except for direct response on Usenet.
--
<> We fight for men and women whose poetry is not yet written.
<> -- Robert Gould Shaw
<> abolitionist
Mike Reaser
jwhi...@concentric.net (John Whiteside) wrote:
>In article <4uae0c$l...@shellx.best.com>, mol...@best.com (Christian
>Molick) wrote:
>> In article <4u7lnf$i...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
>> Mike Jankulak <am...@freenet5.carleton.ca> wrote:
>> >I never heard of or saw Rob'n'Bod doing anything but parading...
>> >...but I don't think I live in a vaccuum, either.
>> You live in a vacuum. Bob was big in the bodybuilding scene
>> for quite a while.
>
>So anyone who isn't into the bodybuilding scene is living in a vacuum? Right.
John, it *must* be so, since Christian has proclaimed it to be.
>I never heard of Bob and Rod before they became famous for being a gay
>couple, because I don't give a shit about professional bodybuilders. This
>does not mean that I live in a vcauum, anymore than someone who doesn't
>know about subjects dear to my heart is living in a vacuum.
Same here. The first time I heard of BobNRod was when they
started presenting themselves as The Most Perfect Couple That
Ever Existed because I, too, don't give a shit about bodybuilders,
professional or amateur.
Since we can proclaim that others live in a vacuum if they don't
share our same interests, I guess that means everyone else is in
a vacuum if they don't share my love of science fiction, computers,
arcane math, and movies (well, on movies I guess it's "everyone
else but Arne" :-).
>> Culture. The sports and bodybuilding scenes and the
>> hoopla that surrounds them may not be your thing, but
>> you shouldn't trivialize their importance to the
>> society that surrounds you.
>
>Is it trivializing them to point out that fame in this small arena does
>not make someone well known the the world at large?
"Big fish in a little pond" comes to mind.
>Although I'm kind of curious about the importance of bodybuilding to the
>rest of society. I mean, I don't think there's anything bad or strange
>about bodybuilding, I just think on the scale of society-wide importance,
>it ranks with the "Single Guy" fan club, reruns of "Ellen," and soc.motss.
Precisely. People will get their ego-boosts from whatever source
they find most convenient. Just because someone is a "name" in
one field of enveavour doesn't mean that they have achieved the
same "name" recognition in society at large.
ABulous
In article <4u7pq4$3...@netaxs.com> rzep...@netaxs.com (Anthony J. Rzepela) writes:
>
>I didn't see them offering much besides "We're a happy, loving couple"
>than "and damn easy on the eyes doing it, too".
There was more than this.
Were you a student who went to hear them talk about their life in your
high school auditorium?
It's so easy to know everything when you hit the Post key.
Sister ABulous and Sister Christian *WILL* tell all and they are going
to take it on the road, so watch it.
Mark Roberts
mol...@best.com (Christian Molick) had written:
| In article <3208c77b...@news.mindspring.com>,
| Mike Reaser <m...@mindspring.com> wrote:
| >I'd never heard of Bob before the great coming-out-aren't-we-
| >just-a-*precious*-couple think hit.
|
| Your envy of Bob and Rod is out of place.
Well, Sister Christian Molick *explains* *it* *all* *for*
*you*. *snap*
sheeesh....
Mark (who thinks Mike R. is on-target)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Roberts | Kansas City, Missouri (USA) | http://www.crl.com/~transvox/
"4. Your child has lots of unlabeled floppy disks scattered around the room.
This indicates he has been downloading pornographic pictures to view while
you aren't around" -- from "How to Tell If Your Teen Computer Buff Is a
Dirty Nerd", the _Weekly World News_, August 13, 1996
=============================================================================
ABulous
In article <jwhitesi-080...@cnc098048.concentric.net> jwhi...@concentric.net (John Whiteside) writes:
>I mean, I don't think there's anything bad or strange about
>bodybuilding, I just think on the scale of society-wide importance, it
>ranks with the "Single Guy" fan club, reruns of "Ellen," and soc.motss.
Chaos theory tells us that it is often the most seemingly trivial
elements which eventually prove to be of the greatest importance. Are
you prepared to make that judgement (for any of the above)?
Tim Wilson
>In article <jwhitesi-080...@cnc098048.concentric.net>
>jwhi...@concentric.net (John Whiteside) writes:
>
>>I mean, I don't think there's anything bad or strange about
>>bodybuilding, I just think on the scale of society-wide importance, it
>>ranks with the "Single Guy" fan club, reruns of "Ellen," and soc.motss.
>
>Chaos theory tells us that it is often the most seemingly trivial
>elements which eventually prove to be of the greatest importance. Are
>you prepared to make that judgement (for any of the above)?
I don't think you need chaos theory to support the observation that
seemingly trivial -- seemingly trivial in the existing social context
-- situations (sometimes real, sometimes fabricated) have long term
social impact.
Is there any reason to believe that such a model is appropriate for
social interactions? Sure, it's got to be better than System
Dynamics, but that's not saying much.
--
Tim Wilson http://www.ee.memphis.edu/~tim/ mailto:t-wi...@memphis.edu
ABulous
In article <3209dc8c...@news.mindspring.com> m...@mindspring.com writes:
>
>The arcane math I've worked on has benfitted "the society"
>through applications in civil engineering and structural
>analysis. "Bodybuilding" seems to have benefitted "the
>society" as a whole -- not just *your* society -- precisely
>how?
Okay. Sister ABulous is stepping in here with a little personal
insight. She knows whereof she speaks because her father was an
amateur, competition bodybuilder for many years and she helped to
manage the some dozen-odd gyms he built in the greater Southern
California megalopolis during the seventies, when the "fitness craze"
first began to wrestle itself free from its origins in nudist colonies,
Hollywood health-food fasts and rejuvenation spas with Greeky statues
and fig leaves everywhere.
In the same way that affluent homosexuals reached down and adopted the
dress code of an essentially lower class subculture, that of biker
gangs, and brought leather with all its glory into popular culture,
culminating in the great apotheosis of Malcom and Liz on their Harleys,
the same group boosted the economics of what were essentially the big
dumbbell pits of the early seventies and formed enough of an economic
backbone to allow gym owners to start buying "designer" gym equipment
like Nautilus that allowed the physically uncoordinated to start
lifting heavy poundages in a controlled manner. It all took
off from there.
The supplement industry (a.k.a. Weider Inc.) followed quickly on the
heels of this increasingly middle-class recreation, and it is *in fact*
responsible for not only Arnold (the Oak not the Mammoth) and his
consequent mega-zillion dollar revenues for Hollywood but also every
little "aerobic" class that is held around the globe today, "low-fat"
and "no-fat" Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream, and so many things I cannot
even begin to enumerate.
It's not just an esthetic, ego thing I'm talking about. Professional
bodybuilding itself is just the tip of what has become the "fitness"
mega-industry, from American Gladiators to Kiana's workout show from
Hawaii to the AB roller plus to gay circuit party packages including
hotel, clubs and temporary gym memberships.
If you don't think there's any benefit there, fine, but Sister
ABulous better not catch *you* on a LifeCycle anytime soon.
Greg Parkinson
In article <Dvs13...@spdcc.com>, f...@spdcc.com (FJ!!) wrote:
> In article <glp-050896...@ppp68.cinenet.net>,
> Greg Parkinson <g...@cinenet.net> wrote:
> >In article <Dvo8L...@spdcc.com>, f...@spdcc.com (FJ!!) wrote:
> >> My boss in an endocrinologist. He knows this shit. He prescribes them
>
> >What's his opinion on plastic/reconstructive surgery?
>
> I'll be sure to ask him when he returns from Geneva.
>
> In the meantime, though, I say that if you are trying to set up an
> analogy, it is a wierd one to me (eventhough I am not schooled in
> either endocrinology or reconstructive surgery): the results of
> surgery are not usually attainable by other means, while it is entirely
> possible to attain most of the muscle gains created by steroids, as
> far as I know - it "just" takes a hell of a lot more of a commitment
> (or so the "natural" movement would like to make us believe).
This is where you're wrong. Not that _some_ people who have used
steroids couldn't have achieved the same results via exercise,
but there is a point beyond which you need steroids.
I made the analogy because I think it's odd that modifying the
body using mechanical instruments is A-OK, whereas modifying the
body using drugs and exercise isn't.
> I do think that if we are going to compare steroid use to surgery,
> we should focus on reconstructive surgery that would need to be
> performed under full sedation, ie the more invasive procedures.
Asserting that steroid use is as risky as general anaesthestia
and major surgery. Is this a qualified opinion?
> My reason is that those procedures would compare best to the effects of
> taking a substance over a period of time that influences the endocrin
> systems in the whole body, although far more reversibly so than
> surgery.
What's your opinion on hormone replacement therapy for women
who are past menopause?
-----------------------------------------------------
Greg Parkinson
g...@cinenet.net
-----------------------------------------------------
Jess Anderson
In article <4ub2j3$p...@shellx.best.com> mol...@best.com
(Christian Molick) writes:
>In article <3208c77b...@news.mindspring.com>, Mike
>Reaser <m...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>I'd never heard of Bob before the great coming-out-aren't-
>>we-just-a-*precious*-couple thing hit.
>Your envy of Bob and Rod is out of place. Your assumption
>at they thought too highly of themselves is also way off:
I went back to check Mike's whole article and didn't find
a basis for the charge of envy or egocentricity, but on the
whole I agree with the thrust of what you're saying here.
>they were proud of having a pleasant relationship and made
>some attempt to explain that.
Probably.
>Maybe if you were aware of how many times Bob was asked
>which of them was the wife you would understand why they
>wanted to explain their relationship.
Almost certainly.
>The point isn't that they are great, but that gays can be
>happy together like anyone else.
I too took that to be the point of the book.
>It's too bad that and the manner in which athletes become
>role models for people so completely escapes you.
Athletics, beyond any doubt, is a wonderful and valuable
thing. Health is really a very special attribute of
humanity; other animals may or may not be healthy, but for
human beings it is central. Physical work is essential to
maintaining health, the more so as you get older, I think.
Work in the form of athletic enterprise, obviously, offers
additional benefits for those who value such benefits.
Lots of people are anti-athletic, which is of course a kind
of mass throwing of baby out with bathwater. But it's also
understandable, since much early experience with gym
classes, peers who are bullies and maybe also bigots, etc.,
is so negative. Then as adults the childhood negativity is
buttressed by much that is awful in the world of sport. In
such instances, people often stop thinking about it in any
useful way. In most cases, I feel, they are the losers, the
more so as it's unnecessary.
For those who *do* think about it, athletic achievement is
both real and positive, of course.
>It's also really surprizing to me that you appear to have
>asked yourself why Bob and Rod got famous and come up with
>the answer that it is because they are egomaniac gymbunnies.
As I say, I didn't see that in Mike's post.
>The truth is more mundane: Bob was a famous athlete and they
>had a very out relationship.
Yes.
>Why don't you make a long list of the other famous athletes
>who have come out publicly and made a point of discussing
>their relationships?
It would be a very short list. More prominent than Bob
Paris, naturally, would be Marina Navratilova. There was a
baseball player who wrote a book and an NFL football player
as well.
But you can also imagine the headlines and sensationalism
that would result if Michael Johnson or Dan O'Brien came
out, right on the heels of their impressive achievements at
the Olympics.
>>I've never before felt that bodybuilding was as "important"
>>to the society which surrounds me as, say, medical advances
>>or art.
I fail to see *any* relevance in that remark, actually.
>At a general level sports play a huge role in this society.
>Wishing things otherwise does not make them so.
Not only do they, but indeed they should. This is not to
say the role they play is uniformly a good thing -- I don't
think it is -- but there is *a* role and it *should* be
viewed as a positive contribution to the general welfare, in
ways, for example, that Beavis and Butthead are not.
I think it's true that many young people (especially) find
role models among athletes. It's usually a somewhat mixed
blessing, to be sure, but a blessing nonetheless.
>>I'm glad to know just *how* *important* and *earthshaking*
>>the contributions of "the bodybuilding scene" have been.
No one I've seen has overstated the importance of Paris's
chosen sport. But clearly you are understating it.
>Spite and trivialization aren't going to get you where you
>want to be. I'm sorry you hate the whole business as much
>as you do, but sports like bodybuilding do play a defining
>role in many people's lives. That's the kind of thing that
>you should learn to coexist with.
I dunno about how many people could legitimately claim it
played a defining role in their lives -- that's going pretty
far -- but it is important to quite a few people, and in any
case you're right that one can easily co-exist with it.
>Just because you brag about how arcane some of the math
>you've worked with is doesn't necessarily mean that you are
>an arrogant, ivory tower snob. Just because this arcane
>math that you've worked on is almost entirely without value
>to the society as a whole doesn't mean that you yourself are
>worthless.
This must be a reference to some other subject in the past.
It doesn't seem especially relevant here.
--
Jess's homepage URL is http://www-jsbach.macc.wisc.edu/~anderson/
Copyright 1996 Jess Anderson. *All rights reserved.* Copying in
whole or in part prohibited except for direct response on Usenet.
--
<> Some stock mechanisms for side-stepping:
<> 1. :-) Just kidding! Really!!
<> 2. Oh yeah? What about the Democrats?
<> 3. You just hate me because I'm a bougie white guy.
<> 4. You made rash assumptions about my attitudes, never mind
<> what I actually wrote.
<> 5. I'm using "abnormal" in its statistical sense.
<> -- Melinda Shore
Greg Havican
In message <4ua76p$g...@freenet-news.carleton.ca> -
am...@freenet5.carleton.ca (Mike Jankulak)7 Aug 1996 13:54:33 GMT writes:
:>
:>
:>Jess Anderson <ande...@macc.wisc.edu> wrote:
:>>hka...@panix.com (ABulous) writes:
:>>>xx...@freenet5.carleton.ca (Mike Jankulak) writes:
:>
:>[ Mike J ]
:>>>>jeans or long-distance telephone carriers or something.
:>>>>Like, y'know, gay(Fabio) x 2, and to be reviled as such. If
:>>>>there was any kind of *substance* to their story, any kind
:>>>>died before it got through their marketing machine.
:>
:>[ Jess ]
:>>Breathtakingly wrong, to a discouraging degree. Listen up:
:>
:>I dunno that what I said was "wrong," breathtakingly or no.
:>I never said that there was *no* substance to their story,
:>which is (I think) what you're arguing with. I said that
:>whatever substance there may have been did not survive their
:>approach to self-promotion, and I haven't seen much argument
:>on this point. Anyone?
:>
:>Perhaps I should try to be clearer. I'm not trying to argue
:>that Bod'n'Rob were fluff, game over, end of story. I'm
:>certainly not interested in dancing on the grave of their
:>love, a la david broudy.
:>
:>What I *am* saying is this -- my own personal awareness of
:>Rob'n'Bod came about as a result of their mass-media self-
:>promotional marketing machine -- in countless numbers of
:>greeting cards and ads and gifs and jpegs and picture-books.
:>[And now I find I'm not even sure that it was *them* I've
:>seen in man-man scantily-clad ads. *Did* they do product
:>endorsements? Jeans, or something? Maybe not.]
I've never seen them in ads for merchandise myself.
:>If there was something of more substance to their story, and
:>it seems indeed that there was, then it died a messy death
:>before their marketing plan took over. And I'm sorry, because
:>those kinds of coming-out stories are still all too rare.
:>
:>As I said, I'm not claiming my own experience is at all
:>representative. I'm in my mid-20's, I came out only 6 years
:>ago, and I was *never* one for following real sports, much
:>less bodybuilding. [Oops, and I was *trying* not to sneer....]
It should probably be pointed out that Bob Paris was a bodybuilder. Rod
Jackson was a male model.
:>But I think there are likely to be more people who, like me,
:>see Rob'n'Bod as nothing more than gay(Fabio) x 2, and will
:>breath a quick sigh of relief at any sign that their cloyingly
:>vapid marketing machine has run out of steam.
:>
:>And I think that *is* a kind of tragedy, I guess, if it means
:>that the gay population has lost a potential role model. Or
:>if it means that a personal, human loss (end of a longterm
:>relationship) will be trivialized and/or sensationalized.
Personally, I never considered them a roll model except for people who are
first starting to realize what their feelings towards motss are. For
people who, like me, have been out for a long time, I don't know if you
could really consider them roll models. I think the value their
outspokeness about their relationship had for people like me is their
visibility to the straight world. That visibility may have helped change a
few people's minds about homosexuality and stereotypes.
What *I* think was unfortunate was that they choose to capitalize on their
situation for profit. Ultimately, I think that did more damage than good.
What I find interesting in this thread is that some people are objecting
because others couldn't care less whether the two of them were together or
not. Those who are objecting to this are using words such as "your
celebrating their breaking up", etc. My question would be, "What's wrong
with breaking up?" Perhaps breaking up has meant more happiness for both
of them. Now, some people might say that they're sad because of "love
lost". How do they know that love has been lost? People break up for
other reasons you know.
It seems to me that those who are objecting to other people's attitudes
about Bob and Rod breaking up are in some ways reinforcing the belief that
no one can be truly happy if they're not in some type of relationship. I
find *that* objectionable, and ultimately more damaging than "love lost".
Greg
----------------------/----------------------------------------------------
Greg Havican / http://www.io.com/~topman4u
topm...@io.com / Finger for PGP key
----------------/----------------------------------------------------------
ABulous
In article <32096fc0...@nnrp.crl.com> tran...@crl.com (Mark Roberts) writes:
>
> Well, Sister Christian Molick *explains* *it* *all* *for*
>*you*. *snap*
>
> sheeesh....
You betta listen to yo' sistah o you gonna getta blistah.
Sister ABulous, rap artiste
Ken Rudolph
Jess Anderson wrote:
> But you can also imagine the headlines and sensationalism
> that would result if Michael Johnson or Dan O'Brien came
> out, right on the heels of their impressive achievements at
> the Olympics.
Um, sort of like what would have happened if Greg Louganis had come out
immediately after one of his Olympics triumphs? As it actually
happened, it made plenty of headlines and sensationalism anyway.
--Ken Rudolph (ke...@worldnet.att.net)
Greg Havican
In message <320A1C...@worldnet.att.net> - Ken Rudolph
<ke...@worldnet.att.net>Thu, 08 Aug 1996 09:57:59 -0700 writes:
:>
:>Jess Anderson wrote:
:>
:>> But you can also imagine the headlines and sensationalism
:>> that would result if Michael Johnson or Dan O'Brien came
:>> out, right on the heels of their impressive achievements at
:>> the Olympics.
:>Um, sort of like what would have happened if Greg Louganis had come out
:>happened, it made plenty of headlines and sensationalism anyway.
As did Rudy Galindo shortly after winning the World Cup (or whatever the
hell it was) in skating.
BTW, the name of the football star is Dave Kopay.