Ricky Martin has come out of the closet, not GAFF so much as....

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

The other option is to assume the person is gay for absolutely no reason. And considering a greater percentage of people are straight, it makes no sense to assume some random person is gay.

No, Mikey, the other option is not to assume at all. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

SirDixonDongs wrote:

says the person with not one but two pix of david tennant in her post

David Tennant is in her signat-- Oh.
I was too busy imagining myself wooing John Barrowman.

Oh, oh yeah no I mean... PAYING ATTENTION TO CELEBRITIES IS FOR YOU MORONSTREAMERS HURRR.

Fairlight wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

The other option is to assume the person is gay for absolutely no reason. And considering a greater percentage of people are straight, it makes no sense to assume some random person is gay.

No, Mikey, the other option is not to assume at all. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

But people simply don't do that is our point. Your way would be all well and good if thats what people are inherently like, but alas... they are not.

Jesus. wrote:

Fairlight wrote:

No, Mikey, the other option is not to assume at all. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

But people simply don't do that is our point. Your way would be all well and good if thats what people are inherently like, but alas... they are not.

That's absolutely no excuse.

Verandering wrote:

Jesus. wrote:

Fairlight wrote:

No, Mikey, the other option is not to assume at all. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

But people simply don't do that is our point. Your way would be all well and good if thats what people are inherently like, but alas... they are not.

That's absolutely no excuse.

I didn't say that makes it fine or acceptable. I just said that it's the way people are.

Edited to clarify- people make assumptions about people they meet/see, end of story. They put people into categories and act on them accordingly. Its just how the human brain works. However, what should change is what these categories MEAN to the person. Lets say to put a person sees another person and assumes they are a woman, and therefore puts that person in their brain into the category of woman. This is all unconscious mind you- not one does this on purpose. Having that person put in that category can mean anything to the observer, from "not as strong as men" to "wears skirts". Or it could mean nothing at all. And that affects how they act around them. I think thats called heuristics... not entirely sure, need to look that up. But the point is that what needs to change is what that category means to the observer, because you cannot change the instinct to make assumptions. Only what those categories mean to the observers feelings about the other and the actions that result.

Again, rambling, but tis my point. If I'm not clear just shout.

Jesus. wrote:

Edited to clarify- people make assumptions about people they meet/see, end of story. They put people into categories and act on them accordingly. Its just how the human brain works. However, what should change is what these categories MEAN to the person.

But sexuality doesn't have to be one of the categories that you apply to strangers. When you see or meet someone, you don't make assumptions about what they like to do with their chosen partners, or what their favourite food is, or what kind of car they drive, so why assume anything about their choice of partner?

Exactly.

What's associated with gay by most mainstream, ignorant people has fuck all to do with sexuality; sexuality is purely who you fancy. Transvestism has nothing to do with sexuality, neither does behaving or acting feminine as a man and masculine as a woman. Neither does thinking in a certain manner "atypical" to those obnoxious stereotypes of men and women.

That's not to say they're mutually exclusive, but they're also not one in the same thing.

Sexuality is a category because it is something that sets people apart and involves a certain amount of variety, just like your sex, like your gender identity, like your race, like your ethnic background, like your class position, like where you live, like where you are from. etc etc. It means different things to different people. The personal is political- what you do privately affects other people. These things are not just traits. They affect your lives and they affect how you are with other people and how other people are with you. This is not to say that that means that discrimination is inherent in these encounters, but sexuality is a part of your social position. And it is a category that people segment others into. Its not the same thing as sushi-eaters vs non-sushi eaters. It's about how you interact and affect others rather than personal preference. And when I say that, I'm not saying it means that if you're gay, you have inherent personality traits. But it does affect how you interact with other people and how they interact with you, just as much as any other category.

Good parent, bad parent, how many kids you have, religion, political party, etc etc. Personal social divisions that affect how you see things and react to other people and how they react to you.

Dr. Professor Science wrote:

I'd rather talk about James Randi. At least he's cool.

I agree. Given the amount of work he's done over the years debunking people like Uri Geller and Christian Faith Healers, the man should've at least got a couple of paragraphs.

Though I suppose when you tell people you're gay when you're in your 70s, nobody really cares, because your not hot anymore. America is notorougly squeemish about the idea of straight people over the age of 50 having sex; I imagine it only increases if you happen to be gay.

YOU SHUT UP JAMES RANDI IS FINE AS HELL

SirDixonDongs wrote:

YOU SHUT UP JAMES RANDI IS FINE AS HELL

Oh I agree, and if he weren't gay, I'd do him in a heartbeat. But a lot of people aren't that open-minded.

old dudes best dudes

I'm very rarely surprised when someone comes out anymore. Even if I had no clue they were gay. Like David Ogden Stiers. Watched him on Mash for years, watched him in other movies, had no clue he was gay. But when he came out, it wasn't a big deal. Same with George Takei.
Now if someone like the President or some dictator came out, that would be a surprise.
But for the most part, I don't care about a person's sexual orientation or who they may be bumping uglies with. If it isn't me or somebody in my family, it's none of my concern. And if it was someone in my family, it would be a concern to me only in certain circumstances.

Rabid Badger wrote:

I agree. Given the amount of work he's done over the years debunking people like Uri Geller and Christian Faith Healers, the man should've at least got a couple of paragraphs.

Though I suppose when you tell people you're gay when you're in your 70s, nobody really cares, because your not hot anymore. America is notorougly squeemish about the idea of straight people over the age of 50 having sex; I imagine it only increases if you happen to be gay.

Goddamnit, Badger, stop putting images in my head I can only take out with a bullet.

gaijinguy wrote:

Rabid Badger wrote:

I agree. Given the amount of work he's done over the years debunking people like Uri Geller and Christian Faith Healers, the man should've at least got a couple of paragraphs.

Though I suppose when you tell people you're gay when you're in your 70s, nobody really cares, because your not hot anymore. America is notorougly squeemish about the idea of straight people over the age of 50 having sex; I imagine it only increases if you happen to be gay.

Goddamnit, Badger, stop putting images in my head I can only take out with a bullet.

Ah. The plan is working, then.

gaijinguy wrote:

Goddamnit, Badger, stop putting images in my head I can only take out with a bullet.

Your parents are having noisy, passionate sex as we speak.

Dick Powers wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

Goddamnit, Badger, stop putting images in my head I can only take out with a bullet.

Your parents are having noisy, passionate sex as we speak.

...my parents actually ARE. Like, right now.

Dick Powers wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

The other option is to assume the person is gay for absolutely no reason. And considering a greater percentage of people are straight, it makes no sense to assume some random person is gay.

I'm not really talking about making a conscious judgment of "Oh, he's straight/gay." I'm talking about how normally, when you meet someone you take it so for granted they're straight it never crosses your mind.

It's like assuming someone who was born and raised in Pittsburgh is a Steelers fan to some degree. The odds heavily favor it.

Mikey, stop being not unfunny.

. . .

Knock knock.

Ceres wrote:

Even though he's no longer important in the US, he's still the most
important star in Latin America. That Americans don't know it speaks of
more of American insular thinking and lack of worldview than his
musical talent.

Or maybe it's because the rest of the world has godawful taste in music. Which explains half of the British Invasion, Michael Jackson being popular in Europe 20 years after anyone with a brain (i.e. not Europeans) stopped giving a fuck, all J-Pop ever, Celine Dion, and the half of Guns 'n' Roses songs that blew.

Not to say they don't occasionally get lucky with Black Sabbath or Motorhead or Rammstein or AC/DC. Just that if you give a blind baseball player five decades, he's going to reach base once or twice by accident.

Also, only people from countries that have contributed something other than arrogant bitching and whining and failure in the past century get to be smug. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Or maybe it's because the rest of the world has godawful taste in music. Which explains half of the British Invasion, Michael Jackson being popular in Europe 20 years after anyone with a brain (i.e. not Europeans) stopped giving a fuck, all J-Pop ever, Celine Dion, and the half of Guns 'n' Roses songs that blew.

Not to say they don't occasionally get lucky with Black Sabbath or Motorhead or Rammstein or AC/DC. Just that if you give a blind baseball player five decades, he's going to reach base once or twice by accident.

Yeah, ´cause, y´know, Taylor Swift, that annoying Bieber-kid, the Jonas-Brothers, Miley Cyrus - those are all European music idols.
Also, I love how you equate 'the rest of the world' with 'Europe'.

Jay/Cris wrote:

Also, I love how you equate 'the rest of the world' with 'Europe'.

You mean there are other places?


But seriously, I kid.

Unfortunately, Mikey isn't.

Mikey, nobody cares what you think. Kindly remove yourself from the universe.

Jay/Cris wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Or maybe it's because the rest of the world has godawful taste in music. Which explains half of the British Invasion, Michael Jackson being popular in Europe 20 years after anyone with a brain (i.e. not Europeans) stopped giving a fuck, all J-Pop ever, Celine Dion, and the half of Guns 'n' Roses songs that blew.

Not to say they don't occasionally get lucky with Black Sabbath or Motorhead or Rammstein or AC/DC. Just that if you give a blind baseball player five decades, he's going to reach base once or twice by accident.

Yeah, ´cause, y´know, Taylor Swift, that annoying Bieber-kid, the Jonas-Brothers, Miley Cyrus - those are all European music idols.
Also, I love how you equate 'the rest of the world' with 'Europe'.

I mentioned Australia. Well, AC/DC. Which is the only contribution Australia has made to the rest of the world.

Celine Dion is Canadian. Canada isn't a part of Europe.

If we want to talk about the rest of the world, we can talk about how Latin America loves a dipshit like Ricky Martin. Or how good music is probably banned by law in Islamic countries. Or how nothing good in terms of music (or anything else) has come out of Africa in centuries.

Clearly, America is still supreme is every conceivable way. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Also, Americans have apologized numerous times for the Disney Coperation's crimes against entertainment. I'd like to apologize again for The Shaggy Dog and My Favorite Martian.

Edit: KNOCK KNOCK GOD DAMN IT

whose their

Jesus. wrote:

Sexuality is a category because it is something that sets people apart and involves a certain amount of variety, just like your sex, like your gender identity, like your race, like your ethnic background, like your class position, like where you live, like where you are from. etc etc. It means different things to different people. The personal is political- what you do privately affects other people. These things are not just traits. They affect your lives and they affect how you are with other people and how other people are with you. This is not to say that that means that discrimination is inherent in these encounters, but sexuality is a part of your social position. And it is a category that people segment others into. Its not the same thing as sushi-eaters vs non-sushi eaters. It's about how you interact and affect others rather than personal preference. And when I say that, I'm not saying it means that if you're gay, you have inherent personality traits. But it does affect how you interact with other people and how they interact with you, just as much as any other category.

Good parent, bad parent, how many kids you have, religion, political party, etc etc. Personal social divisions that affect how you see things and react to other people and how they react to you.

Is sexuality part of one's social position? I suppose I have a hard time envisioning that being largely asexual in practice. I just don't see how the mechanics of fenagling have much to do with non-romantic/sexual interactions.

Anyway, I get what you're saying, and yeah.

Lots of people seem to have objected to my comments on American insularism. Why should you care about a celebrity that’s not famous on your shores, after all?

Look, I’m compelled to defend RM’s e-honor because the media circus reveals lots of ugliness about the perceptions of race and sexuality in the media. Most Americans first heard of Ricky during the MTV awards, but the rest of the Spanish-speaking universe was already well-aware of him.

For the longest, longest time, Latino music and Gringo music ran on parallel tracks. American music had no problem playing all over the Latin world, but Latin music never seemed to make it to American radio, so it was always a one-way track. And the way that media works, if you don’t hear it, it might as well not exist. If you don’t know any brown people or gay people or X-or Y people on the TV, they’re abstractions and easy to ignore.

In 1999, to see Ricky slay them all in the MTV Awards and speaking perfect English in VH1 specials, well, that was huge. To see other people like Jennifer López and Shakira make it big, it was unheard of at the time. Finally, a Puerto Rican who made the news because good and honorable reason, and wasn’t portrayed as Indian in a headdress. Or a Colombian like Shakira, who wasn’t a drug dealer.

But to have Beyonce try to sing in Spanish! And Nelly Furtado releasing a whole album in Spanish! That would’ve been unimaginable just 10 years ago.

Popular in the states or not, here's how it looks like from where I'm sitting: here's a gay brown Latino guy who only wants to make dance, from the glorified American colony that is our Puerto Rico, getting roasted alive in mainstream media for being gay and out of their spotlight, by a bunch
of news organizations who don't care about him, really! but who kept harassing him for 10 years until he finally gave up.

You see an irrelevant celebrity, I see a Latino person’s accomplishments getting pushed aside because he’s no longer amusing and he’s no longer popular so therefore it’s ok to nag him over his sexuality for over 10 years, only to turn around and dismiss it with a handwave and an “Oh, we
already knew he was gay! SNOOZE!”

It makes it even more insulting when you notice that Ricky and Shakira and all of them had to essentially dumb down their music for the mainstream. One top-ten Shakira song was a cry against abortion; can you imagine Shakira doing that now? RM was a respected balladeer, now he’s stuck forever with “Livin’ la vida loca”.

So why are these two mediocre pop singers important and not some mediocre pop singer from Germany? Because Germany has been doing pretty well for itself, while Latin America has been a victim of misguided American expansionism in the first half of the 20^th century, then ignored
completely after the fall of communism.

But aren't all celebrities and pop culture mostly irrelevant? They are, until suddenly they aren't anymore. So yeah. Reading that Ricky Martin is washed up? That he keeps trying to get back into the spotlight and it’s “obvious” that he doesn’t belong anymore? He may be annoying to you, but I hope he does come back, stronger and more annoying than ever.