Ace of Spades HQ

« And the Media Shall Yawn: Killing Field of Babies Unearthed in Kite-Flyin' Iraq | Main | Was Kerry Honorably Discharged? »

October 13, 2004

Oliver Stone: A "More Honest Time" of Bisexuality

Defending the bisexuality in his "Alexander":

“Alexander lived in a more honest time,” the controversial filmmaker, who directed the big-budget flick starring Colin Farrell, tells the upcoming issue of Playboy magazine. “We go into his bisexuality. It may offend some people, but sexuality in those days was a different thing. Pre-Christian morality. Young boys were with boys when they wanted to be.”

First of all, I don't know how much the man's bisexuality needs defending. He was gay. The film has to note that, I suppose. Especially these days, when to elide over it would cause a furor.

But look-- what's Stone trying to tell us, here?

I know from a gay friend that there is an idea among gays that everyone is pretty much gay, but only some are "brave" enough to act on their gay desires. People universalize from their own situations, I guess; just as gays can't imagine that some people aren't gay, some straights have an awful lot of difficulty imagining life as someone physically attracted to the same sex.

But if the right is to be faulted for not being understanding enough about gays' hard-wired, almost-impossible-to-thwart sexual drives, can the left lay off with this crap about how we'd all exist in some sort of Pansexual Pandemonium if it weren't for "Christianity" and our "society" telling boys not to have sex with boys?

Any time anyone says something like this, he gets hit immediately with the kneejerk charge of "overcompensating" or "hiding something" or "secretly gay," but who cares: If you're attracted to boys, that's fine and all, but trust me, there are an awful lot of other men who have never once even thought about having sex with a guy.* It's not a deep secret urge being restrained by some Christian superego; it's just not on the fuckin' menu, okay, Oliver?**

I think it's very nice that some on the left are/have been attracted to the same sex, and maybe have been a little more than attracted. I'm not going to "deny your sexuality" or whatnot.

But do me a favor and don't deny mine. Not everyone's gay, you know. I know you sort of want to believe that, but it's just not true.

* I can only offer the straight male take on this. I'd extend my analysis to women, but I'm restrained by the wisdom of a remark by Dennis Finch on Just Shoot Me: "Every woman's just a few drinks away from some hot girl-on-girl action."

Is this true? Well, one can only hope. Let's just say it doesn't seem entirely untrue. But maybe I just went to a really fun college.

** Okay, perfect candor requires me to admit that my record of virulent heterosexuality is almost umblemished, but only almost.

Look, yes, I do dress up as Nick Rhodes every Saturday night, but that's only because I play air-synthesizer in my lip-sync Duran Duran cover group, Wild Boys. I swear to you, I do not enjoy wearing eyeliner and lipstick and fingerless gloves.

Okay, I don't exactly hate it, either. But I assure you it's all for the sake of art.

And okay, fine, I did shack up for a time with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. But power is an aphrodisiac, and besides, when I was young and sexually confused, I was young and sexually confused.

Plus, I got a kick-ass recommendation out of it. A nice recommendation from Dr. Henry Kissinger (or "Doctor Kissyface," as I know him) makes up for an awful lot of shame and emotional scars.

You curl up into the fetal position in the shower a couple of times like Glenn Close in The Big Chill and seriously, the water just washes the tears away.

posted by Ace at 01:19 PM

Comments

Why are you investing so much time and energy into this particular issue, Ace?

Hmmmm. It makes me wonder about you. You know what they say about 'protesting too much...'

Mwaa ha ha haaa

Posted by: lauraw on October 13, 2004 01:27 PM

Aaargh. Et tu, LauraW?

You're just mad about the Dennis Finch remark at the end.

Posted by: ace on October 13, 2004 01:28 PM

Well said Ace, boy I sure...well...I've never felt this way about a man before...you're just so...I...I have to go...

Posted by: Ken J on October 13, 2004 01:32 PM

I find it amusing that it is some sort of indictment against Christianity that it has repressed the urge for men to have sex with boys ... let me get this straight? That is/was a bad thing? (I'm hiding my boys away in a closet ... NOT that closet ... a closet that keeps 'em away from the likes of Oliver Stone.)

Posted by: Carin on October 13, 2004 01:41 PM

So far as it goes, I think most women are a little easier going on the whole matter than men. I also suspect that being a California girl makes me think that. Oh, well.

On the other hand, well, who would you rather think about in the act of stuffing classified documents in his/her undies, Fawn Hall or Sandy Berger?

I'm pretty seriously hetero, and I'm here to tell you the answer is definitely Fawn.

As for Alexander's sexuality, he definitely prefered guys by the historical accounts, and nobody cared, much, at the time.

Posted by: Dianna on October 13, 2004 02:07 PM

A-hem.

Mm-hmm. Mmmm-hm.

Posted by: ace on October 13, 2004 02:23 PM

Ace--

The real scandal is that Stone's movie may depict Alexander as some sort of hero, and not the butcher he was (or, if they *do* depict him as a butcher, it'll be of those innocent little brown people to the East).

Don't take my word for it, take Victor Davis Hanson's word for it:

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson100904b.html

Cheers,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge on October 13, 2004 03:04 PM

I'm pretty sure you can see one of Glenn's nipples in that shot, by the way. That seems relevant, doesn't it?

Posted by: mikeski on October 13, 2004 03:44 PM

Huh?!

Is this the right thread for Glenn's nipples?

(Is ANY thread the right thread for Glenn's nipples?)

Posted by: ace on October 13, 2004 04:16 PM

Whoa! Where's my head at? For some reason I thought you were talking about Glenn Reynold's nipples.

I completely forgot I mentioned Glenn Close in this post.

I guess you probably can see her nipples there, sort of. I've never really looked. Glenn Close has always had about as much sex appeal to me as a Sports Illustrated football phone.

Posted by: ace on October 13, 2004 04:23 PM

Good post.

James

Posted by: James R. Rummel on October 13, 2004 07:21 PM

James,

Good comment.

Frances

Posted by: Frances S. Travermeier on October 13, 2004 07:26 PM

Frances,

Good surrebuttal.

Ace

Posted by: ace on October 13, 2004 07:29 PM

Generally speaking, i have the `Eeeuw, yuck!` reaction to male homosexuality. But I don't want to stone them, or even keep them from visiting a partner in the Intensive Care Unit (because they are not "family", as is a heterosexual with a form from the State).

With the possible exception of Sparta, I think most societies frowned upon - but tolerated - homosexuality. Until something prompted the Leviticus book to proclaim it an "abomination" (far worse than a mere "sin" like murder).

Of course, according to that book, if you've ever had a ham sandwich or eaten lobster, you have also committed an "abomination".

Posted by: John Anderson on October 13, 2004 11:32 PM

Yeah, I agree with all that. I think men have an inborn revulsion to touching other men, which is why you don't hug your father much after you're past 12 years old.

Women don't have that, with the caregiver thing and all, which is why they braid each other's hair, walk arm in arm, and occasionally have some hot girl-on-girl action.

Posted by: ace on October 14, 2004 12:08 AM

"I think it's very nice that some on the left are/have been attracted to the same sex, and maybe have been a little more than attracted. I'm not going to "deny your sexuality" or whatnot."

This is a freaking amazing comment and it went unchallenged. So homosexuality is "peculiar" to those on the left? I think I speak for every thinking person when I say WHAAAAAAATTTTTTTTT?????

Posted by: patrick gorseI think it's very nice that some on the left are/have been attracted to the same sex, a on November 18, 2004 09:22 PM

Historically, Alexander and Hephaestion's relationship was unusual because they were the same age. But the norm then was boy & man (which I bet Stone doesn't even mention in the movie), not boy & boy. But he also had a wife, with whom he (apparently, pre blood-tests) conceived a child.

Historically, Stone seems to be correct; but the rumours suggest the movie is a turkey.

Posted by: Fontboy on November 20, 2004 11:37 AM

Amazon.com Widgets

Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]

Top Headlines

TJM definitively ranks the films of Alfred Hitchcock

@KFILE 21m

Politico is reporting that multiple people have abruptly resigned from Eric Swalwell's gubernatorial campaign: "Members of senior leadership have departed the campaign, including Courtni Pugh, a strategic adviser who served as Swalwell's top liaison to organized labor groups."

So the campaign is collapsing due to the truth of the sexual harassment allegations.
That hissing sound you hear is the air going out of the Swalwell campaign. UPDATE: No it wasn't, it was just Swalwell one-cheek-sneaking out a fart on camera
Eric Swalwell more like Eric Farewell amirite
thanks to weft-cut loop.

This is the dumbest AI bullslop I've seen in a while: the CIA can use "quantum magnetometry" to track an individual man's heartbeat from twelve miles away
I wouldn't click on it, it's not interesting, it's just stupid clickslop. I just want to share my annoyance with you.

Oil prices plunge on bizarre realization that Eric Swalwell may actually be straight. A rapey molester, allegedly, but a straight one.

Artemis II Crew releases clearest images of the Far Side yet recorded

Classic Rock Mystery Click
This is super-obscure and I only barely remember it. Given that, I'll give you the hint that it's by the Red Rocker.
And I guess you think you've got it made
Oh, but then, you never were afraid
Of anything that you've left behind
Oh, but it's alright with me now
'Cause I'll get back up somehow
And with a little luck, yes, I'm bound to win
Now twenty people will tell me it's not obscure, it was huge in their hometown and played at their prom. That's how it usually goes. When I linked Donnie Iris's "Love is Like a Rock," everyone said they knew that one and that his other song (which I didn't know at all) Ah Leah! was huge in their area.

Sarah Longwell spotting

Tuq'r's makeover is 100!

Alfred Hitchcock learns to talk with TJM

Ryan Long goes to the No Kings rally to pick up young liberal hotties and is greatly disappointed in the quality of the mish
thanks to stevey

You know we "joke" about the GOPe just "conserving" leftist things?
David French just posted:

Populists ask what conservativism has ever conserved?
Well its about to conserve birthright citizenship!
Posted by: 18-1

I couldn't hate this queen of the cuck-chair more if it paid seven figures and came with a corner office.

TJM definitively ranks the films of John Boorman.

Kid punks CNN chump by speaking truth to retard

Podcast: CBD and Sefton talk birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment and SCOTUS, no boots in Iran, Artemis II and refocusing NASA, the NBA's hatred of everything non-woke, and more!

In more marketing for Project Hail Mary, scientists say they've found the biosigns indicating life growing on an alien planet. It's not proof, just signatures of chemicals that are produced by biological metabolism, and it could be nothing, but scientists think it's a strong sign that this planet is inhabited by something.

In a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, a team of scientists announced the detection of dimethyl sulfide (along with a similar detection of dimethyl disulfide) in the atmosphere of an exoplanet called K2-18b. This is actually the second detection of dimethyl sulfide made on this planet, following a tentative detection in 2023.
Tons of chemicals are detected in the atmospheres of celestial objects every day. But dimethyl sulfide is different, because on Earth, it's only produced by living organisms.
"It is a shock to the system," Nikku Madhusudhan, first author on the paper, told the New York Times. "We spent an enormous amount of time just trying to get rid of the signal."

He means they tried to prove the signal was caused by things other than dimethyl sulfide but they could not.

Artemis moon shot a go, scheduled for 6:24 Eastern time tonight
Great marketing arranged by Amazon to promote Project Hail Mary. Okay not really but it does work out that way.

TJM talks John Boorman, director of Excalibur

Good rickroll

What? Skeleton of the most famous Musketeer, D'Artagnan, possibly discovered in Dutch church closet.
Dumas picked four names of real musketeers out of a history book, D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. So there was an actual D'Artagnan, though he made most of the story up. (Or, you know, all of it.)*

Charles de Batz de Castelmore, known as d'Artagnan, the famous musketeer of Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV, spent his life in the service of the French crown.
The Gascon nobleman inspired Alexandre Dumas's hero in "The Three Musketeers" in the 19th century, a character now known worldwide thanks to the novel and numerous film adaptations.
D'Artagnan was killed during the siege of Maastricht in 1673, and there is a statue honoring the musketeer in the city. His final resting place has remained a mystery ever since.

A lot of Dumas's stories are based on bits of real history. The plot of the >Three Musketeers, about trying to recover lost diamonds from the queen's necklace, was cribbed from the then-almost-contemporaneous Affair of the Queen's Necklace. And the Man in the Iron Mask is based on real accounts of a prisoner forced to wear a mask (though I think it was a velvet mask).
* Oh, I should mention, Dumas says all this, about finding the names in an old book, in the prologue to his novel. But authors lie a lot. They frequently present fictions as based on historic fact. The twist is, he was actually telling the truth here. At least about these four musketeers having actually existed and served under Louis XIV.
Fun fact: You know the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars where the local gunslingers make fun of Clint Eastwood's donkey and Eastwood demands they apologize to the donkey? That's lifted from The Three Musketeers. Rochefort mocks D'Artagnan's old, brokedown farm horse and D'Artagnan is incensed.

A commenter asked which should be read first, The Hobbit of LOTR?
Easy, no question -- read The Hobbit first. It's actually the start of the story and comes first chronologically. It sets up some major characters and major pieces in play in LOTR.
Also, the Hobbit is Beginner-Friendly, which LOTR isn't. The Hobbit really is a delightful book, and a fast read. It's chatty, it's casual, it's exciting, and it's funny. In that dry cheeky British humor way. I love that the narrator is constantly making little asides and commentary, like he's just sitting next to you telling you this story as it occurs to him.
LOTR is a very long story. Fifteen hundred pages or so. The Hobbit is relatively short and very punchy and easy to read. If you don't like The Hobbit, you can skip out on LOTR. If you do like it, you'll be primed to read LOTR.
Oh, I should say: The Hobbit is written as if it's for children, but one of those smart children's stories that are also for adults. Don't worry, there's also real fighting and violence and horror in it, too.
LOTR is written for adults. (It's said that Tolkien wrote both for his children, but LOTR was written 17 years later, when his children were adults.) Some might not like The Hobbit due to its sometimes frivolous tone. Me, I love it. I find it constantly amusing. Both are really good but there is a starkly different tone to both. LOTR is epic, grand, and serious, about a world war, The Hobbit is light and breezy, and about a heist. Though a heist that culminates in a war for the spoils.