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