Jp
Junior Member
"Well, back in my wild days I didn't really care if they were men or women." - Gregor Mann
Posts: 385
|
Post by Jp on Dec 30, 2008 12:28:14 GMT -5
Thore talk a lot about girls, both past relationships and what kind of girls he would like in the future. He has also talked about how about first the thought of doing a gay storyline was really hard on him because it just is easier for him if there is a girl he finds hot getting undressed in front of him. www.youtube.com/watch?v=plNkV9bgZOo(btw, I don't particularly agree with the translation. I think Thore's uh-oh, mm, tja is closer to "slightly uncomfortable" rather than "nothing special"; Or where the translation says "If I could handle the challenge and people are convinced of my play" what Thore actually says about how he felt about the storyline is "I can't do it. Play affection for a man. For me that is..." and then he goes into the comparison about how a woman undressing for him is "Wow, cool!" and a guy undressing is "uh-oh". There is like three lines in the translation that Thore doesn't say at all. But I guess that that is the Ollian hopeful wishful thinking kind of interpretation/translation) Of course it is everybody's privilege to think that Thore is lying through his teeth, but either way, he is pretty consistent in constantly making girl references in his interviews (like the Streetwalk interview where he got the choice if Christian should get with a man or a woman again he said woman, he said that the Penthouse booth was his favorite part about IFA, and the famous person he would like to get to know personally is Scarlett Johansson). I do tend to think that maybe he is more talk than action, but I do think that his, eeeerrrr, enthusiasm for girls is pretty believable. As for straight guys and everybody being a bit bi... one thing that I found interesting is that whenever I have met straight guys who have a crush on another guy or who have a guy they would go gay for, it's always somebody who is even more manly and more straight than they are. Like, when you have fanfiction stories, most people write straight guys as falling in love with a guy because the guy is so soft and feminine but in real life the straight guys I met were into the Jack Bauers and Bruce Willises of the world and not the "pretty" Orlando Blooms. It seems almost more like a ranking order/pack kind of thing, who is the guy who is so awesome and manly I would go gay for him, not who is so sweet and pretty. Thanks lolaruns for the video. It is everyone's obligation to think that Thore is lying through his teeth, you are right. Hey, if he is straight, then he's straight, if he's gay he's gay. Who knows? Whatever! Your right about the whole 'straight man wanting to go gay for another totally macho man' thing. I think that straight men are attracted to those types of men because, in a way, they want to be like them. For example, say one really muscular man was the best weight lifter in the world (I don't know) the other 'straight' man might find that really cool, and might want to be like him, which would develop a crush. That's one way I look at it. I've had more friends, girls, that have said that they would go lesbian for another girl, and it was the same thing (as the male reference) except the girl was more 'attractive' than they were.
|
|
|
Post by lolaruns on Dec 30, 2008 12:54:44 GMT -5
I really think it is some sort of really old fashioned pack mentality. Who is strong/impressive/majestic enough that I would submit to his rule, who would I acknowledge to be superior to me. But it's fairly amusing to think that straight men aren't interested in feminine, girly, goodlooking guys. They are interested in men who make THEM feel all weak kneed and outmatched.
Of course chances are that they are not too serious with their "I'd go gay for him" jokes, but it's still interesting that it is those type of guys who provoke a "That's hot" reaction. And often guys who women wouldn't necessarily consider all that hot. Seems it's an acquired taste.
I'm not even sure if it just about muscles. It seems to be more about somebody who is kick ass and rushless and for lack of a better word awesome. Again, the Jack Bauer type. (Jack Bauer from 24 as played by Kiefer Sutherland who can kill terrorists with his knee)
For girls, I often wonder if it is a bit of a vanity thing that they think they could score a lesbian who is more hot than they are because lesbians somehow have to be grateful that a straight girl might be interested in them.
I think it's harder to pinpoint with women though because women are much more ready to dish out opinions about how they find beautiful or not. While most men don't really talk much about which guys they find physically attractive. But when women list their favorite female actors, imo, they often lean towards the one who are a similar (albeit idealized) type they are. Hence the love for "girl next door" beautiful girls while a lot of very sexual hot actresses are sneered at. So if women made a list of who the prettiest actresses are and males made a list there probably would be quite some differences in opinion, mostly that men might rank more "bombshells" and women might rank more "girl next door" (like Reese Witherspoon, Sandra Bullock back in the day, Jennifer Aniston, etc).
|
|
|
Post by matan4il on Dec 30, 2008 14:07:23 GMT -5
It is everyone's obligation to think that Thore is lying through his teeth... Okay. Just kidding. I can see how it could all be a case of 'the lady doth protest too much', but whatever. I think Thore's sexuality is Thore's business and I won't bother myself guessing (especially since I believe gay-dar is culturally dependent. And if I cannot apply my one tool due to being from a different culture, then I really have no way of knowing what I'm talking about anyway). I have a straight male friend who has a man crash for Paul McCartney because he thinks the man is a God on stage, and I doubt anyone would consider Paul to be the 'more macho than you' type. I have a straight female friend who had a girl crush for a butch lesbian (MAJOR girl crush). People come in all sorts of shapes and rainbow colors, even straight ones. No need to generalize anyone. And for whatever reason, I'm sure it's not the "make THEM feel all weak kneed and outmatched" feeling that gets straight men going, it's the "he's so awesome, even I can see his shine being all shiny" factor, which then begs the question, what does one consider to be awesome? For most straight guys it's probably being super-macho, yes, but not all are the same and it's not the macho factor in and of itself or its belittling effect. /gets off soap box and wonders where it popped from (only now noticed Lolaruns also brought up the word 'awesome'. Heee, synced! In a way...)
|
|
|
Post by lolaruns on Dec 30, 2008 14:16:05 GMT -5
Personally, I find it quite easy to buy Thore as straight because he makes a lot of what I would call typical straight guy mistakes. Not necessarily mean spirited but with a certain "doh!" factor. Like you can't help but think that they have never really thought about what they are talking about. Like when they asked him about out gay athletes and he started off saying something along the lines of asking if it is really necessary to parade your gayness and be all public about it and about halfway in he seemed to realize that what he was saying was bullshit and changed his stance to "of course there is nothing wrong with being gay and people who think so are backward". [paraphrasing wildly here]
He really seems to me like a friendly, but originally clueless straight guy who got quite the crash course in gay studies because of all the storylines and the fan reactions to it.
He actually reminds me a lot of a friend of mine who is all talk about girls and down with feminism and who then gets all shy with the girl he actually likes. And who when very drunk will admit that the number of girls he slept with actually do not exceed the fingers of one hand. There is nothing more unsettling than gushily in love straight guys. Like when my ex military 30 plus big bear of a brother spent Christmas cuddling a toy dolphin I had given him for his later wife.
Straight guys, all blab and bluster and then they suddenly turn into a bunch of little kittens.
|
|
|
Post by matan4il on Dec 30, 2008 15:43:46 GMT -5
I know what you mean and it could be, but I think those can also be seen as intentional on his part. I just mean, both are options. I haven't seen anything that makes me feel anything definitive, but I also pointed out that there's the difference of culture that might affect my ability to feel that way about anything they'd do. Which is why I don't care all that much. I accept that I don't and won't know. And for all it's worth, being that you and Thore do come from the same culture, it's very possible that your assessment is far more accurate than anyone else's here. I love gushily in love straight guys! That straight male friend of mine has fallen in love not that long ago and being that he was convinced he will never get to experience that, it's so much fun to hear him gush about it. And I suspect those little kittens that they turn into are the best creatures ever. I mean, I can't think of one straight couple that I know, which strike me as a good couple and where the husband/boyfriend isn't one big snuggly bear, underneath all his bravado. 'k, time for my meds. No, real ones. Have a good night and sweet dreams!
|
|
|
Post by lolaruns on Dec 30, 2008 16:03:07 GMT -5
Well he would have to be quite the mastermind to get all of those details right, especially considering that he's been doing it since long before Ollian ever since he joined VL (bascially ever since his first interview).
But that's the whole problem. If somebody doesn't talk about girls they are secretly gay. If somebody talks only a little about girls they are secretly gay. If somebody talks a lot about girls they are secretly gay.
I dunno, maybe sometimes if something talks like a duck, quacks like a duck, says it is a duck maybe it is duck no matter how badly somebody people wish it was an antilope.
It always struck me as a bit unfair that in the reverse it is considered inappropriate to speculate that somebody might be secretly straight or might harbour feelings for a certain special woman or maybe they are just finding themselves or maybe they will change their mind for that certain woman (even though that too has happened with some bisexual singers). Who knows? Maybe Dennis Grabosch or Tom Chroust isn't really gay, he just keeps saying so because he wants the attention and he is afraid of being straight because he worries it might make him boring and he is shy with girls. After all, why should the fact that they say they are gay, are in gay relationships and frequently talk about gay issues convince me that they are gay? Maybe they aren't gay at all and have secret straight relationships and are just pretending to be gay in order to be more popular with the gay and f*ghag fanbase.
Wait, the more I'm talking about the more completely realistic it sounds to me. I guess that is the danger of conspiracy theories like that.
It just strikes me as a bit unfair that on one hand people complain that some actors are afraid to take gay roles or are afraid to fully committ to gay roles or emphasize their straightness in interviews, but at the same time they reinforce the stereotype that the fanbase won't take no for an answer and that they apparently do see it as suspect when somebody takes a gay role. That they are the spreading the stereotype that if you take a gay role that must mean you are gay. It's almost like people are being punished for playing gay roles well by their word suddenly no longer having any value and their statements are no longer being respected.
Regardless of whether Thore could be a normal guy or an obsessive meticulous liar nobody cared enough to question his statements before this storyline started. Is that what it comes to? That only straight actors who preferably have wives preferably with multiple babies to present can take gay roles? Or that they should always hold back to make sure that they are not too realistic and not give the storyline the same committment they would give a straight storyline (quite impressive considering how Thore talked a lot about how it was not easy for him at all to act the role, how he felt it wasn't realistic, how a lot of German fans have critisized him for not acting gay enough or treating Olli more like a good buddy or how he occasionally has been critisized even here for not being affectionate enough). But that seems to be the morale here, if you take a gay storyline, kiss any respect for your real life goodbye, it's much safer most of the time to only act in straight storylines because at least then nobody will care.
Heck not even acting borderline homophobic like the guy from Les Bleus seems to stop people chattering. They will just assume that somebody is an asshole but still continue thinking that he might be gay and protesting too much. Really, whether gay or straight, if that is how the fanbase is, who in their right mind would ever take a gay role? Seems like the moment you decide to act in a popular gay storyline the judgement has been made and wishful thinking will trump any sort of respect. What's next, doubting an actor when he says the sky is blue? Or that he likes eggs more than vegetables? That he prefers skiiing to volleyball? After all they could be lying about any of those things too for their own personal reasons. [eggs = want to appear more sportive; skiing = are hoping for an advertising contract]
For the record, I don't care whether Thore is gay or straight. But for the time being it seems like he wants to be straight/portray himself as straight, so, whatever he prefers, let's talk again if he ever changes his mind on that.
[and again, we aren't talking a Clay Aiken or Wentworth Miller type [or even Jo in this case where you could frequently people who claimed they had seen him with a boyfriend in "the scene"] situation where there were rumours about specific or less specific real life gay relationships, all we are talking about are guys who are good at playing a role on a tv show]
|
|
|
Post by amber80 on Dec 30, 2008 16:40:13 GMT -5
He really seems to me like a friendly, but originally clueless straight guy who got quite the crash course in gay studies because of all the storylines and the fan reactions to it. My thoughts exactly. ;D He actually reminds me a lot of a friend of mine who is all talk about girls and down with feminism and who then gets all shy with the girl he actually likes. And who when very drunk will admit that the number of girls he slept with actually do not exceed the fingers of one hand. There is nothing more unsettling than gushily in love straight guys. Like when my ex military 30 plus big bear of a brother spent Christmas cuddling a toy dolphin I had given him for his later wife. Straight guys, all blab and bluster and then they suddenly turn into a bunch of little kittens. So recognizable...
|
|
|
Post by matan4il on Dec 31, 2008 4:31:11 GMT -5
1. It wouldn't be that big of a challenge. It especially shouldn't be one for an actor.
2. So what if this talk pre-dates Ollian? He might have been trying to pass for straight because he isn't, not just because he's been cast in a gay storyline when he isn't.
3. I don't want him to be any sort of an animal. I'd like people to remember anything's possible.
4. I do believe in gay-dar, where you don't decide whether a person's gay or not based on his/her amount of talking about the opposite sex, but rather based on interactions with other of the same and of the opposite sex. It's why I do allow myself not to believe certain people when they tell me they're straight. It has nothing to do with ducks.
5. Which actually reminds me that when a friend at uni was implying one of our professors was gay because he was extremely effeminate, she said "if it looks like a barvaz [duck], talks like a barvaz and walks like a barvaz..." and I said, "it can still be a barvazan [platypus]". My friend laughed, by the way, and it was the last time she brought that idea up.
6. I think that the other way around isn't the same because we still live in a heteronormative society where people struggle to come out as gay and then they sometimes still get the "it's just a phase you'll grow out of" response, so telling them they might actually be secretly straight is more offensive for obvious reasons. But like you said, with some bisexual people, it really isn't set in stone, which sex their next relationship will be with, so again, anything's possible.
8. While I agree that taking a gay role shouldn't make the actor in RL suspect of being gay, I think a lot of actors aren't being suspected of being gay because of their choice of roles. I suspect plenty of actors who have never played gay of being gay themselves. There really is no correlation, nor should there be. But that means I also won't automatically "unsuspect" every actor who plays gay.
9. And I wouldn't consider someone being closeted as being a meticulous liar. I do find it understandable that people wanna protect their job.
10. Ah, but I'm not privy to the gossip from Germany, nor do I find such rumors more accurate than my gay-dar (with all due cultural limitations. Within my own culture, I would say it is pretty close to accurate).
Have a good day and don't fret about it. I feel like I'm upsetting you when that's honestly not my intention. I'm not trying to say anyone is definitively straight or gay or should stay away from gay storylines or straight storylines or homophobic storylines. I'd just like us to be able to entertain different options.
|
|
|
Post by lolaruns on Dec 31, 2008 4:42:56 GMT -5
But there is closet and there is closet. There are actors who don't talk about it at all. There are actors who give vague answers. There are actors who occasionally have outburts of proclaiming their straightness to the extent of making press statements.
If Thore was gay it WOULD amount to meticulous lying. It would mean that he was lying about his past girlfriends, about the hot swedish girls he wants to meet during vacation, about liking Penthouse, about feeling hubba, hubba when an actress undresses in front of him, about all the other throwaway references he makes in pretty much every interview, heck even the kind of music likes. It would also mean that he was intentionally lying about his own character traits when he says of himself that he is very direct and honest and folksy (like when he is asked to describe his best characterstics or to describe himself in three words).
But most of them are suspected because there are specific rumors about them and they are known in "the scene". Or because they are known to be very vague or evasive in interviews.
|
|
|
Post by matan4il on Dec 31, 2008 5:06:54 GMT -5
But there is closet and there is closet. There are actors who don't talk about it at all. There are actors who give vague answers. There are actors who occasionally have outburts of proclaiming their straightness to the extent of making press statements. If Thore was gay it WOULD amount to meticulous lying. It would mean that he was lying about his past girlfriends, about the hot swedish girls he wants to meet during vacation, about liking Penthouse, about feeling hubba, hubba when an actress undresses in front of him, about all the other throwaway references he makes in pretty much every interview, heck even the kind of music likes. I work in a religious kindergarden, in a city where 50% of the population (more or less) is religious and I tell no one about myself at my job, because I know I may very well lose it. I don't lie about anything, but I correct no one either. It feel like lying just as much because I know exactly what kind of an impression I leave people with. But despite feeling like I am lying, I don't feel like I am a liar. And I think QaF's Brian summed up why - "it's not lying when they make you lie". There are other ways, yes, but if you feel like one is too obvious (like the guys I served with in the army commented on the way X never mentions girls and is very unspecific about gender when he's asked about relationships point blank, and X was probably aware enough to know that he was fooling no one), you wouldn't take it. And it still wouldn't constitute as being a liar, at least in my own mind. No, not in my case (and the case of many of the people I know). I suspect someone when they ping my gay-dar. Simple as that. Rumors and stuff are nice, but you can't base yourself on 'em. Are we, by any chance, nearing understanding each other?
|
|
|
Post by lolaruns on Dec 31, 2008 5:27:25 GMT -5
But nobody is making you lie if you have just as many non straight options to answer a question. Somebody asks Thore what he liked best about IFA, he says "The penthouse booth" when "meeting the fans", "all the electronic gadgets", "the food" would have been just as acceptable straightguy answers. Same for a whole bunch of times when he brought up girls when it wasn't necessarily necessary. Conclucsion: either he is trying to hard, or maybe girls are just on his mind.
Not really.
To me it's pointless to argue on a basis of gayday because it is extremely subjective, particularly when you leave the trodden paths of "acts effeminate", "has a lisp", "is a bit too artsy" . I would put Dennis G as somebody who looks a bit too ethereal and sensitive in his straight roles, even though he doesn't fit into the effeminate/lispy category.
Personally, Thore hits my straightdar, but what point is there in asking you to trust my straightdar (or amber08's) when we all know it's entirely subjective anyway? Personally, there are tons of little touches in his actions and his answers that just belt out clueless straightguy to me (falling into a lot of the typical straight traps, having very fanboy-ish, un-deep tastes in tv, books and movies) and that's why I say that he would have to be a meticulous plotter to always hit the right straight notes on all those things. And I would dare say he would have to be a better actor than he is, if you look at what a clumsy wooden actor he was when he joined VL.
|
|
|
Post by matan4il on Dec 31, 2008 5:40:13 GMT -5
non straight options But there you have it, they will be seen precisely as non-straight and if one feels that will call attention to it...
Argh, sorry, just re-read your answer. So yeah, in some cases, he might have been trying too hard, who knows? But it's not a crime and it doesn't make him a liar in my opinion. Just someone who might have been scared and felt the need ro re- and re-affirm his "straightness". POSSIBLY. It's just an option I'm suggesting.
Not really. Shame. I didn't think we were in agreement, just hoped we could at least understand where each is coming from.
but what point is there in asking you to trust my straightdar (or amber08's) There isn't but in the sense that to me it's not a discussion about Thore at all and never was. I really am not interested in whether he, Jo or whoever else actor on VL is or isn't gay. I just felt the need to comment that some of the arguments used to support the idea that he's straight aren't quite so definitive and that the things one can rely on are entirely different.
|
|
|
Post by lolaruns on Dec 31, 2008 5:57:32 GMT -5
"the awesome electronic gadgets"? Totally also a straightboy answer too (especially since it was hardly a porn convention; in fact all the other answers would probably have been the more polite straightguy answers). And during some of those little interviews they did about where they'll go on vacation or how they liked Octoberfest, there were always other (also presumably straight) actors like "Constantin" or "Gregor" being interviewed and they all gave normal, non-girl related answers. Or any of his actions could be explained by him being an alien from Alpha Centauri. POSSIBLY. I'm not saying it's true. It's just an equal option I'm suggesting. Or just maybe making suggestions with no basis of evidence or claim to rightness and letting other people argue against something that can't be argued is sort of the coward option? Saying something without really saying something. To be intangible and intentionally obscurist? But that's the whole point. Nothing ever is definitive. It could always be a vast elaborate conspiracy (both Thore's supposed straightness or Elton John's supposed gayness). It makes even gaydar pointless because it is possible that somebody displays all the supposed gayness indicators and still be straight. The arguments are not quite so definitive because there ARE no definitive arguments. You can't look into anybody's heart and even if you could there could still be people claiming the person in question was just in denial. We could maybe even drag out a stream of ex-girlfriends and random hookups who swear they had sex with the person and he enjoyed it and people could still say that wasn't definitive. Which makes the whole thing really moot. But it technically makes next to any discussion on any subject moot. Because maybe all gay guys are also lying about being gay even though I have no solid evidence to think so. Maybe the earth does not resovlve around the sun it really is just an elaborate optic elusion and is intentionally sophisticated to coincide with our calculations. There is always a chance that everything is a vast conspiracy. Or you know, maybe neither Jo or Thore are gay OR straight and they are secretly undercover silicone lifeforms from Alpha Centauri. After all, do you have any definite arguments that exclude this option? Because they totally ping my Alpha Centauri-dar. But I guess that is why people came up with Occam's razor. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of relativism. But if you never do anything except stand around and point out at the potential relativity it makes any discussion completely pointless. It's just an empty argument. In the end you have to go with an answer. So if somebody asks about Thore, all there is to say is that to our knowledge, by his own words he is straight and for now nothing has ever come out that suggested otherwise. Again, I don't care if Thore is straight/gay or whatever and I certainly wouldn't consider it an egg on my face if he suddenly came out as gay, bi or goatfucking. What bugs me is the style of argumentation. And how it seems to be used just when it benefit one's own wishful thinking, but never the other side. How with straight people we are supposed to accept that everybody is a little bi, but if somebody declares themselves gay (even while saying that had a girlfriend even after already being out) we are supposed to accept that we are never allowed to question it? So absolute relativism in one direction or never in the other? IMO the poor oppression factor only carries so far. In German one would say "Da richtet es sich einer so wie es ihm passt" (somebody arranges things in a way that fits/benefits him). Of course there are always options. But can you point to any indicators that would suggest that this or that particular option would be in effect in this particular case?
|
|
|
Post by matan4il on Dec 31, 2008 14:23:17 GMT -5
Okay, I can take your post and reply point by point (and I will, if you would prefer me to), but I feel like we're losing sight of the big picture here. So let me try and sum up our POVs as I understood them, and you tell me if I got you correctly, okay? And then we'll see where we're going with this discussion or even if it's still a productive one.
You have three points you argue. (1) You don't care about Thore's sexuality, but you tend to believe he is straight and are pointing out the evidence that you think supports it. (2) You feel like people questioning him saying he is straight are doing so merely because Thore plays a gay character and you're opposed to this, because you find it to be a response which may cause actors to shy away from gay roles and make them feel like they are being demanded too much from in the name of a role. Also, because it's never done to gay actors like it is to straight actors. (3) You feel that nothing is definitive, but for discussion to be possible, you find that it's okay to set out to make a point, as long as we're using evidence to support it.
I'm arguing that (1) I don't care or even have an opinion on Thore's sexuality, but I don't mind playing Devil's Advocate and presenting a theory that he's gay, just to show that any 'evidence' can be understood in either way. (2) I don't like it when people try to prove actors are definitively gay or straight (adding my motivation for this, which I haven't discussed yet) because it always feels like somewhere underlying that position is the possibility that if the actor's sexual orientation turns out to be different than that which was "proven", then that somehow makes them a lesser person (in this case, if Thore turned out to be gay and covering up, he would be a liar) or less likable, whatever. I've seen it happen, I do not like it. (3) I feel that nothing is definitive. For discussion to be possible, I think speculating together is alright and even nice, so long as we don't try to "prove" things, when we really can't and when that may lead to over-involvement with a particular view.
|
|
|
Post by lolaruns on Dec 31, 2008 15:39:31 GMT -5
But even speculation has to be based on evidence somewhere. Otherwise it is just random words out of thin air.
There is devil's advocate with an actual point and there is devil's advocate in a way that contributes nothing to the discussion.
My take is that while there is evidence that Thore is straight (his own words for starters) there is none that he is gay. So I wondered why people might still think he is gay other than that they wish he was gay? I postulated that this is directly linked to him doing a gay role because nobody ever questioned his sexuality before the Ollian storyline started. Normally people get speculated on because there is evidence. Smoke that suggests fire. Real life rumor. Displaying stereotypical supposed gay traits.
While concurr that it is possible that people are in the closet, I also postulate that when somebody is there are still signs/smoke/evidence. Everything leaves a trace. So I'm asking for evidence that suggests that this particular scenario exists in this case and why you think that Thore might be the perfect guy for that kind of thing.
If we are talking speculation and it has in no way relate to any fact I could just as strongly suggest that maybe what Thore is really hiding is a deep sexual attraction to barn animals. It is unlikely. But it is possible. And somebody who is attracted to barn animals would surely experience a lot of shame and have a real motivation to pretend to be heterosexual.
I have no reason at all to think that this might actually be the case with Thore, but I surely can't definitvely rule it out. After all he has talked about his love for horseback riding and frequently travels back to his family. See, I have suggested actual evidence.
Btw, I don't mean to equate homosexuality with having sex with barn animals. My point is to make a point about arguing without either having evidence or without being willing to share that evidence.
Think of it as the theory of evolution vs. the theory of creationism. They are not equal theories. One has evidence and one doesn't. That doesn't mean that theory of evulition is perfect. It could easily disproven if just one new fact of evidence shows up. It is the job of creationism to prove that it is actually the superior explanation because it has more evidence or explains the existing evidence better and more efficiently (Occam's razor). The fact we'll never know whether evolution really is the last development there will ever be (and knowing science, chances are good that it won't be) doesn't free people from having to carry sound arguments. Think of evolution of a working theory. We don't know if it is the definite end of it all and we can keep studying to find something more and better, but in the meantime we need working theories to navigate through the world.
There is speculation and there is just randomness. Why would anybody bother to even discuss with a Devil's Advocate if the Devil's Advocate admits that he is not actually trying to prove anything and has no actual opinion. That's why this type strikes me as either counter productive to discussion and/or just a sneaky way of people trying to get out having to actually argue sensibly.
[For more on this I reccommend Michael Shermer's (head of the Skeptics Society btw) "Why people believe weird things" on the proper methology of skepticism]
Again, I don't claim that this is definitive. Especially since obviously the pool of source material is limited and flawed [and let's face it, the subject matter is kind of ridiculous]. I just postulate that this kind of argumentation contributes zero to the discussion. If you speculate without evidence you can speculate anything.
If we ask for definitiveness then we wouldn't be able to live because definitiveness is going to non-existant. And if we ask for definitveness then by the same logic we also shouldn't be allowed to say that Dennis Grabosch is gay or that Tom Chroust is gay. By that definition one should should protest this whole post even existing. Since in theory is is possible that every single person in the entertainment industry is lying.
I don't try to prove that DG is gay. I just state the current amount of information we have on this subject matter, the current level of knownledge that is accessible to us.
I'm confused by this statement. Wouldn't saying untruths be pretty much be the defintion of lying? You can argue back and forth how much sympathy you have for lying, but the definition would still be liar. Same if DG suddenly revealed that he was actually straight all along, wouldn't that affect your opinion on him? Or if he only after the fact became born again, got married to a woman and announced that he is the proof that you don't have to be gay?
Again, regardless of how much sympathy you have for lying or not (personally, I'm rather indifferent to it other than thinking that it's a bit silly in certain Western cultures), the question is not whether it makes person X a better or worse person if it turns out they were lying, but what evidence you have to suggest that this (value neutral) scenario applies in this particular situation.
|
|
|
Post by matan4il on Dec 31, 2008 15:49:25 GMT -5
Okay, maybe I'm just tired, but I think we've passed productive discussion.
Have a Happy New Year! I hope you have better plans than me, I'm going to go sleep now...
|
|
|
Post by matan4il on Jan 2, 2009 8:33:17 GMT -5
Right, so reading this again at a normal hour, I definitely think that if you, Lolaruns, don't see what was my point in playing Devil's Advocate and think I was only doing it to, to what, to needle you on? That I had no actual point? Then we were definitely beyond productive discussion.
So let me try and sum up my point, then go away never to return to this thread.
~ I would like people to speculate rather than to try and 'prove' things. ~ To me, the difference lies in the ability to entertain the possibility that one is completely wrong and that if someone came along suggesting the opposite from one's opinion, since that would be understood to be a possibility, no one would attack that someone for speculating something entirely different. ~ Yes, speculation can be just words out of thin air. It's part of the nature and freedom of speculation. ~ "Evidence" can be nice, but also dangerous and bad for your health, especially when they are not definitive and people take them as if they were.
|
|
|
Post by overtherainbow on Jan 2, 2009 11:49:22 GMT -5
Why even discuss this?
Jo is gay and Thore is straight.. It's so obvious.
|
|
|
Post by aussie54 on Jan 3, 2009 15:20:48 GMT -5
Why even discuss this? Jo is gay and Thore is straight.. It's so obvious. Well, that's short and to the point. Knowing that Jo and Thore could possibly be reading this, I'm happy to say nothing at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2009 12:50:03 GMT -5
The latest comments on gaydaytime Made me think. How many of the guys who play our guys are confirmed gay and confirmed straight? How many are undefined? How many are in a long term relationship? Any other soap actors who are out gay, but don't play gay characters? GayDennis Grabosch (Roman, AWZ) [talking about anti-gay violence here] Georg Uecker (Carsten, Lindenstrasse) Claus Vincon (Kaethe, Lindenstrasse) David Wilms (Theo, Lindenstrasse) Luke MacFarlane (Scotty, Brothers&Sisters) Undefined/UnknownLikely straight (info not recent)Andreas Stenschke (Ulli, VL) [ this article and interview claims he isn't gay, girlfriend Karo] Kay Böger (Tom, VL] [ this article claims that he was attacked even though he isn't gay] [ another interview] Jo Weil (Oliver, VL) [mentioned he kissed a guy only for the role in VL in this interview and that he put himself in situations he has never been in before] Straight (to our knowledge)Igor Dolgatschew (Deniz, AWZ) [girlfriend Stefanie Juling of loccoco.de says wikipedia] [Dennis Grabosch about working with ID: Heterosexual men can be so cute! [/url] Giovanni Arvineh (Sülo, Marienhof) [talks about preparing for the Mischa/Sülo storyline by researching homosexuality] [sounds single] James Sutton (JP, HO) [talked about girlfriend in an interview] _____________________ Thore only mentioned he was single in this one youtube ARD interview, but I'm gonna take a stab at it and assume that he is straight. What about Van Hansis and Jake Silbermann? I heard some claim that Van is gay and Jake is straight, but I couldn't find any source for those claims. What about the HO guys? What about "Ulli" and "Tom" from VL? The one article that reported on Kay Böger (Tom) being gaybashed noted that he was gaybashed for his role even though he is straight (which surprised me a lot, is this a sure thing?). What about Matthias Beyer (Mischa, Marienhof) [/quote] Hey I tried the links for the articles and they didn't work. Do you know where I can find them?
|
|
|
Post by MtnDewCodeRedFreak on May 31, 2009 15:58:07 GMT -5
Hmm - one wonders why playing gay "has become a cool thing to do" .....
I think it might have something to do with the "gay revolution" since the 1960s.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2009 10:53:59 GMT -5
For some actors I think it is the shock value, they like the idea of shocking people.
For others they do it because it is part of their craft.
When you become an actor you should realize that it doesn't matter what you are or what you yourself believe in. As an actor it is your JOB to convey anything a director, producer, writer, etc asks of you. It is your JOB.
For those who say, I don't believe in doing nude scenes well I'm sorry but why did you choose this job then?
I don't want to have to make coffee for meetings or talk to students who are rude and sometimes threaten you, but I do these things because they are my JOB.
(Sorry I just watched an interview with a female actress who said that kissing anybody on screen was disgusting she hated it and din't see why she should have to, she also said being nude was tacky and that sometimes she changed the script because she didn't like it)
I'm sorry but it shouldn't matter how you feel it is work and you have to do what your boss asks you to (unless it would cause bodily harm or death)
|
|
|
Post by chrolliforever7 on Jun 19, 2009 15:45:24 GMT -5
Why even discuss this? Jo is gay and Thore is straight.. It's so obvious. I totally agree
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2009 19:39:50 GMT -5
I don't agree with the above statement I know there is a possibility that I am living in denial but from Jo's reFRESH article I think he is straight.
But either way I love them both for just being them.
|
|
wenn
New Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by wenn on Jul 9, 2009 0:12:48 GMT -5
I did find out thast Jo and Thore are both......... homosapiens! At least that is how I see them...good ole fashion human beings...
|
|