From: owner-oztori-digest@smoe.org (oztori-digest) To: oztori-digest@smoe.org Subject: oztori-digest V2 #233 Reply-To: oztori@smoe.org Sender: owner-oztori-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-oztori-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk oztori-digest Sunday, August 11 2002 Volume 02 : Number 233 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [oztori] fjord of the rings - ot of course [AndrewR ] [oztori] The whole world needs to get spayed (if you couldn't tell this was Off-Topic before reading the contents of these parentheses, your "OT-dar" is seriously fucked) [] Re: [oztori] lord of the rings - ot of course [Nathan "®" ] Re: [oztori] lord of the rings - ot of course ["Too Much" <2much@elvis.co] Re: [oztori] The whole world needs a good enema [AndrewR Subject: Re: [oztori] fjord of the rings - ot of course At 16:52 10/08/2002 +1000, riot poofter wrote: >>I disagree totally with your assessment of my comment. > >well, der... > >the point was that in *context* that remark was dodgy. the point is that >"friendship" is used to obscure queerness and that people only ever get >upset about friendship being construed as more when it involves charactyers >of the opposite sex... i mean noone seems to question the idea that arwen >and strider (sorry if thats wrong character... the dark haired spunk i mean) >are more than friends... Actually - I'm going to disagree again :) Based on the fact that there aren't many movies out there that have ever had true FRIENDS... friends until the last. If they are friends they are for the sake of the plot and that means they will eventually turn against each other as a source of conflict leading to a resolutiona and a reaffirmation of their friendship that existed at the beginning of the movie. Frodo and Sam are a different kettle of fish - they start out 'friends' but more Master/Servant and that friends ship grows and grows until the end. OK maybe it might be a little idealistic, but what is wrong with having such romantic notions of friendship (and I don't use romantic in the 'sex/romance' way)?? I can't think of many other movies/books out there that have two characters with such a wonderful friendship. Yes of course you can 'gay it up' and yeah people have for a long time, like the whole Kirk/Spock (but probably more so) thang... but I'm talking about pure friendship here. These two share something harrowing, fantastic and life-altering and it doesn't involve sex/romance etc. I mean look at that abomination of a show "Friends" they aren't friends they are a bunch of overpaid sexed-up Manhattanites, with nothing better to do than fuck anything that moves. I mean, imagine the tensions that would exist in such a real-life group of people - it would be unbearable - unless they were all very, very liberated and had no problems with their friends being ex's and ex's becoming friends etc. etc. I think something like Seinfeld - as 'wierd' as it was probably displayed a more accurate view of a group of good friends. They all pissed each other off - Jerry and Elaine were even ex's... but at the end of the day they were still all good friends. OK this seems to be turning into some sort of essay... :) An interesting topic though "The Depiction of true friendship in the media" or something!?! :) Andrew np: "Cowboys" - [P]ortishead - live from the Roseland Ballroom. (Haven't put this CD on for AGES - so good.) Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 18:50:16 +1000 From: AndrewR Subject: Re: [oztori] lord of the rings - ot of course At 00:06 10/08/2002 -0700, Too Much wrote: >On Fri, 09 August 2002, "riot poofter" wrote: > >> >> >Sigh ;o) Why >> >can't good friends be just good friends anymore? >> >> and "just good friends" has been the >biggets way in >> which homosexuality has >> always been silenced! hello!! >> > >I would just like to add: "Hear, hear" OK, so you think Friendship = sexual preference?? Cause most of the time if two charaters are GAY they state or show pretty obviously they are gay. Really, unless it is a movie/show that is dealing specifically with a character and relates to an aspect of them being gay, what is the point of 'showing off' having a gay character? Then you get 'token gays'. Hello "Will and Grace". Yes, yes even though that is a comedy, but didn't Are You Being Served do they whole 'camp gay' joke to death back in the Seventies? People say that they should "have a gay character" in Star Trek. Fair enough, but really what is the point of having a character that is there for the sole purpose of being a 'gay character' anyway in the "Future" especially one like Star Trek's things such as someone's sexual preference wouldn't bat an eye-lid. PLUS again, apart from obvious and shallow characters (homo and heterosexual) if a story or movie doesn't require a 'sexual scene' or a discussion of anything sexual - why would it even be brought up? Again we come back to 'token x' character. Yes this has deviated quite a bit from Sam and Frodo getting it on. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 02:18:27 -0700 (PDT) From: "Too Much" <2much@elvis.com> Subject: Re: [oztori] lord of the rings - ot of course On Sat, 10 August 2002, AndrewR wrote: > > OK, so you think Friendship = sexual preference?? > > Cause most of the time if two charaters are GAY they > state or show pretty > obviously they are gay. Really, unless it is a > movie/show that is dealing > specifically with a character and relates to an aspect > of them being gay, > what is the point of 'showing off' having a gay > character? PLUS again, apart from obvious > and shallow > characters (homo and heterosexual) if a story or movie > doesn't require a > 'sexual scene' or a discussion of anything sexual - why > would it even be > brought up? And why is this? Because if a character doesn't explicitly shout out "I'M GAY" then they are automatically assumed to be heterosexual--NOT "asexual". Unless the character is "shown off" as non-straight, I bet you most of the audience would say that character is hetero. In my opinion, your sexuality doesn't just mean who you fuck... it is a label that summarises a multitude of identity-signifiers. It's funny how being queer is irrelevant unless it's something containing explicit sex scenes, whereas being straight is so important that we are constantly bombarded with images of heterosexuality from G to NVE ratings. Henry. too much of a diary: http://2much.livejournal.com/ and you can laugh a spineless laugh we hope your rules and wisdom choke you - ------------------------------------------------- Get your free @Elvis e-mail account at Elvis.com! http://www.elvis.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 02:18:27 -0700 (PDT) From: "Too Much" <2much@elvis.com> Subject: Re: [oztori] lord of the rings - ot of course On Sat, 10 August 2002, AndrewR wrote: > > OK, so you think Friendship = sexual preference?? > > Cause most of the time if two charaters are GAY they > state or show pretty > obviously they are gay. Really, unless it is a > movie/show that is dealing > specifically with a character and relates to an aspect > of them being gay, > what is the point of 'showing off' having a gay > character? PLUS again, apart from obvious > and shallow > characters (homo and heterosexual) if a story or movie > doesn't require a > 'sexual scene' or a discussion of anything sexual - why > would it even be > brought up? And why is this? Because if a character doesn't explicitly shout out "I'M GAY" then they are automatically assumed to be heterosexual--NOT "asexual". Unless the character is "shown off" as non-straight, I bet you most of the audience would say that character is hetero. In my opinion, your sexuality doesn't just mean who you fuck... it is a label that summarises a multitude of identity-signifiers. It's funny how being queer is irrelevant unless it's something containing explicit sex scenes, whereas being straight is so important that we are constantly bombarded with images of heterosexuality from G to NVE ratings. Henry. too much of a diary: http://2much.livejournal.com/ and you can laugh a spineless laugh we hope your rules and wisdom choke you - ------------------------------------------------- Get your free @Elvis e-mail account at Elvis.com! http://www.elvis.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 19:22:56 +1000 From: "nina riddel" Subject: Re: [oztori] the whole world's gone gay >>He probably contracted the virus from shooting up with >>Bert & Ernie. > >No, in South Africa he (or she?) would have almost certainly contracted HIV >via heterosexual sex. S/he would also statistically be very likely to be >black and poor... Actually, because it's a kids' show, the explanation for how the muppet got HIV will be either a blood transfusion or childbirth story. Hmmm.... I don't think they have black muppets (in the same context), since they're all different colours anyway. nice. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 19:39:23 +1000 From: "nina riddel" Subject: Re: [oztori] lord of the rings - ot of course > > love and kisses > >You just *had* to throw in a Dannii reference, didn't >you? i was actually thinking of Sam Phillips myself. (does anyone know who i'm talking about?) _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 20:05:01 +1000 From: "nina riddel" Subject: Re: [oztori] lord of the rings - ot of course for anyone who hasn't seen/read Mamma Mia or 48 Shades of Brown, there are SPOILERS below. >I guess I've yet to understand why, just because I'm queer, I >should start disregarding the efforts of filmmakers to communicate >something, in favour of reading into it whatever I feel the need to >see. For me, that's not necessarily anything to do with it. I just pick up on suggestions of same-sex attraction, like everyone finds things they relate to. When I saw Mamma Mia, and the guy who ended up being gay said something about his 'other half' without using a gender pronoun, I noticed, because i'm careful to do the same thing in my speech. When it turned out he was gay, I already knew. (I have gaydar even with fictional characters - it's just that i'm sensitive to ambiguity). Same with the girl in 48 Shades of Brown - I predicted during interval that she had a crush on her flatmate, and in that case, too, i was right. In some movies/shows, like LOTR, i pick up on that stuff and it doesn't get stated at the end that yes, they were gay so I'm left with these ideas of my own about the characters. For me, the fact that this wasn't the director's obvious intention doesn't make my ideas any less valid. It's not as if I claim everyone's gay in everything I see. It tends to be specific examples that LOTS of people see this in. That doesn't mean you HAVE to. Everyone has their own points of view. That was just another explanation I thought of after sending the first. whew. i think we're all taking this a little too seriously. Peace, love and a hard cock? _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 20:50:04 GMT From: Rebecca Appleton Subject: Re: [oztori] lord of the rings - ot of course On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 20:05:01 +1000, nina riddel wrote: >for anyone who hasn't seen/read Mamma Mia or 48 Shades of Brown, >there are >SPOILERS below. > >>I guess I've yet to understand why, just because I'm queer, I >>should start disregarding the efforts of filmmakers to communicate >>something, in favour of reading into it whatever I feel the need to >>see. > >For me, that's not necessarily anything to do with it. I just pick >up on >suggestions of same-sex attraction, like everyone finds things they >relate >to. When I saw Mamma Mia, and the guy who ended up being gay said >something >about his 'other half' without using a gender pronoun, I noticed, >because >i'm careful to do the same thing in my speech. When it turned out he >was >gay, I already knew. Yeh, I've had long drunken conversations with people about this before (ones who believe me and ones who don't), because I'm the same way; I've had friends say, "He's hitting on me" and I tell them he's not, he's gay, and they don't believe me, then weeks later he mentions his partner and, lo and behold, he's a he. I expect a lot of queer people are the same. Hence the term 'gaydar'. My opinion on the matter (though I'm not going to generalise, cuz I dunno what your experience is) is that we learn pretty quickly to pick up on the subtlties that tell us who is and who isn't going to crucify us if we stop pretending to be straight. I'm afraid, though, that I'm missing the connection between this and interpreting the close male-male friendship between two characters in a certain movie as a gay relationship. If anything, this casts *doubt* on your gaydar, cuz they're *not* gay. :P ~R. - -- www.crappism.org ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 23:41:45 +1000 From: AndrewR Subject: Re: [oztori] lord of the rings - ot of course At 02:18 10/08/2002 -0700, Too Much wrote: >On Sat, 10 August 2002, AndrewR wrote: > >> >> OK, so you think Friendship = sexual preference?? >> >> Cause most of the time if two charaters are GAY they >> state or show pretty >> obviously they are gay. Really, unless it is a >> movie/show that is dealing >> specifically with a character and relates to an aspect >> of them being gay, >> what is the point of 'showing off' having a gay >> character? >PLUS again, apart from obvious >> and shallow >> characters (homo and heterosexual) if a story or movie >> doesn't require a >> 'sexual scene' or a discussion of anything sexual - >why >> would it even be >> brought up? > >And why is this? Because if a character doesn't >explicitly shout out "I'M GAY" then they are >automatically assumed to be heterosexual--NOT >"asexual". Unless the character is "shown off" as >non-straight, I bet you most of the audience would say >that character is hetero. > >In my opinion, your sexuality doesn't just mean who you >fuck... it is a label that summarises a multitude of >identity-signifiers. It's funny how being queer is >irrelevant unless it's something containing explicit >sex scenes, whereas being straight is so important that >we are constantly bombarded with images of >heterosexuality from G to NVE ratings. > >Henry. Woah Hen, I've REALLY gotta disagree here. This is where the worlds of "homosexual" and "queer" cross. True, more 'coverage' :) of Homosexuality as not being a BAD thing is good - but why - really - should SEX dominate everything? Why should being homosexual mean you have to wave a rainbow flag, walk around limp-wristed or watch "Queer as Folk"!!??!! There are a lot of homosexual, bisexual, transgendered people out there who don't necessarily want to attend each Mardi Gras and would happily go on with their lives with out it having to revolve around SEX every second. I'm sorry but too much sexually orientated anything gets tiresome. Maybe that's why a 'queer culture' evolved along with the struggle for 'gay and lesbian rights'? "It's funny how being queer is >irrelevant unless it's something containing explicit >sex scenes, whereas being straight is so important that >we are constantly bombarded with images of >heterosexuality from G to NVE ratings." Well that's the problem with the system... but gay characters doesn't = MA ratings... (NVE = Non Violent Erotica?) The rating system has a lot to be desired, so we won't debate the pros and cons of that here. What I am saying... Why is everything that is not FLAMBOYANT (and equally the reverse everything that is) Heterosexual?/Homosexual? So does it come back to what Roozi? was saying that gay people need something there to identify with? Then gay people become stereotypically represented, like as I said before "Are you being served" and "Mr. Humphries". SO why is everything that is not 'Queer' "Heterosexual"!?! I'm sure a lot of both homosexual AND heterosexual people might not agree there. OK what I'm getting at (yes a lot of prattle) that SEX shouldn't have anything to do with who or what a person is. And YES a lot of the 'queer' factor is "SEX SEX SEX". OK I said a lot of - not all, but think about other 'gay stereotypes'... "cultured, well groomed individuals". A lot of 'heterosexual' people can be that and not be gay. So does this then force THESE sort of people into the 'Queer' scene or should they just live life as they see fit? OK, what I'm getting at is why the fuck (heh) does there have to be sexual overtones in a lot of things. Why can't Sam and Frodo just be the best of friends with out people going "ohhh they're SO gay" (not that we haven't all thought of it Bevan, in reguards to our Samwise and Frodo or Captain Kirk and Lt. Commander Spock. - I remember seeing a book in the bookstore once "Captain Quirk" :) ) I hope this sorta made sense, and you can see where I'm coming from. (ok now minds out of the GUTTER people :) ) Andrew Still playing Portishead live in NYC WOW!!! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 23:44:06 +1000 From: AndrewR Subject: Re: [oztori] the whole world's gone gay At 19:22 10/08/2002 +1000, nina riddel wrote: >>>He probably contracted the virus from shooting up with >>>Bert & Ernie. >> >>No, in South Africa he (or she?) would have almost certainly contracted HIV >>via heterosexual sex. S/he would also statistically be very likely to be >>black and poor... > >Actually, because it's a kids' show, the explanation for how the muppet got >HIV will be either a blood transfusion or childbirth story. Hmmm.... I don't >think they have black muppets (in the same context), since they're all >different colours anyway. nice. Yeah, and aren't most of the muppet characters kids anyway? Maybe all except Ernie and Bert?? Cause isn't Big Bird just a big baby bird?? Well at least juvenile? OK Telly SP? (I really never liked that character) and Oscar probably are more 'adult' characters... OH OH and Guy Smiley!! :) Maybe Oscar could get HIV/AIDS from a needle-stick injury from the Rubbish Dump!?! :) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 04:11:22 GMT From: Rebecca Appleton Subject: Re: [oztori] lord of the rings - ot of course On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 16:52:19 +1000, riot poofter wrote: >but i still think queer >people should >only encourage queer readings of things like this... Bah, labels shit me, especially when they require me to behave in certain ways. Even if those ways are ways I would ordinarily behave in, I vehemently disagree with having expectations lumped on me because of other things I do or am. I am more than my sexuality. ~R. :) - -- www.crappism.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 10:52:37 +0800 From: "Bevan Burkin" Subject: [oztori] jesus wept oh my god what did i start?! lol okay, a few things. i wasn't interested in what the "facts" are about frodo and sam, i was commenting on the way in which the relationship was portrayed *in the movie*, in my opinion there were gay undertones. i voiced that opinion on oztori - whoops! Andrew said: >but really what is the point of having a character that is there >for the sole purpose of being a 'gay character' I believe it increases awareness and acceptance. People aren't scared of the familiar. Less gay people get harrassed. Andrew said: >Why can't Sam and Frodo just be the best of >friends with out people going "ohhh they're SO gay" (not that we >haven't >all thought of it Bevan, in reguards to our Samwise and Frodo Um, because Elijah is gorgeous and I want to fuck him. Why do you care if somebody thinks they are gay? It may not be a nice thing that the world revolves around money and sex but it is a reality. And for the Queers Among Us: Converted a 19 year old last night ;) Me berry tired and probably a little nasty ;) peaceloveandahardcock Bevan ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:58:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Nathan "®" Subject: [oztori] The whole world needs to get spayed (if you couldn't tell this was Off-Topic before reading the contents of these parentheses, your "OT-dar" is seriously fucked) Intr'sting debate re: "friends" thing. But a bit too heavy for my brain to make much sense of on this woooozy Sun'dy arvo. AndrewR wrote: > PLUS again, apart from > obvious and shallow > characters (homo and heterosexual) if a story or > movie doesn't require a > 'sexual scene' or a discussion of anything sexual - > why would it even be > brought up? Has there been a SINGLE movie made in the history of time where there is not a glimpse of: - -a sex/kissing scene - -a gun - -somebody getting killed or nearly getting killed - -two (or more) people/animals falling in love - -a 'bad' guy/gal. I don't think so. Bevan Burkin wrote: > And for the Queers Among Us: > > Converted a 19 year old last night ;) Me berry > tired and probably a little > nasty ;) Well I got pinned down to a table in a pub by a married woman last night so :P Nathan. Nathan. ===== "They don't expect boys to pretend to be nice, but they do with girls, and I'm not a nice person!" - Siobhan Fahey. _______________________________________________________________________ HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:01:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Nathan "®" Subject: Re: [oztori] lord of the rings - ot of course Rebecca Appleton wrote: > On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 16:52:19 +1000, riot poofter > wrote: > >but i still think queer > >people should > >only encourage queer readings of things like > this... > > Bah, labels shit me, especially when they require me > to behave in > certain ways. Yes I totally agree 'sistah'. The only lable I care to throw on myself is "recluse", and dare I say I'm fucking proud of it :P *waves newly-invented 'recluse' flag* Nathan. ===== "They don't expect boys to pretend to be nice, but they do with girls, and I'm not a nice person!" - Siobhan Fahey. _______________________________________________________________________ HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 15:10:57 +1000 From: AndrewR Subject: Re: [oztori] lord of the rings - ot of course At 04:11 11/08/2002 GMT, Rebecca Appleton wrote: >On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 16:52:19 +1000, riot poofter wrote: >>but i still think queer >>people should >>only encourage queer readings of things like this... > >Bah, labels shit me, especially when they require me to behave in >certain ways. Even if those ways are ways I would ordinarily behave >in, I vehemently disagree with having expectations lumped on me >because of other things I do or am. I am more than my sexuality. LOL! Becc just summarised in four lines what it took me 15 to do :o) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 15:15:54 +1000 From: AndrewR Subject: Re: [oztori] under jesus swept At 10:52 11/08/2002 +0800, Bevan Burkin wrote: >oh my god what did i start?! lol > >okay, a few things. i wasn't interested in what the "facts" are about frodo >and sam, i was commenting on the way in which the relationship was portrayed >*in the movie*, in my opinion there were gay undertones. i voiced that >opinion on oztori - whoops! Bevs, the discussion has moved beyond Sam and Frodo. > >Andrew said: > >>but really what is the point of having a character that is there >>for the sole purpose of being a 'gay character' > >I believe it increases awareness and acceptance. People aren't scared of >the familiar. Less gay people get harrassed. > >Andrew said: > >>Why can't Sam and Frodo just be the best of >>friends with out people going "ohhh they're SO gay" (not that we >>haven't >>all thought of it Bevan, in reguards to our Samwise and Frodo > >Um, because Elijah is gorgeous and I want to fuck him. Why do you care if >somebody thinks they are gay? I don't... we've moved on... why do people care I Sam and Frodo are really great friends? And that they don't have to be fucking each other? > >It may not be a nice thing that the world revolves around money and sex but >it is a reality. > >And for the Queers Among Us: > >Converted a 19 year old last night ;) Me berry tired and probably a little >nasty ;) > !?! WTF? Do you just go "hey wanna play on our team?" :o) If you can 'convert' someone - I wonder if you can be 'excommunicated'!! ;o) >peaceloveandahardcock > >Bevan ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:14:34 -0700 (PDT) From: "Too Much" <2much@elvis.com> Subject: Re: [oztori] lord of the rings - ot of course On Sat, 10 August 2002, AndrewR wrote: > SO why is everything that is not 'Queer' > "Heterosexual"!?! I'm sure a lot > of both homosexual AND heterosexual people might not > agree there. OK what > I'm getting at (yes a lot of prattle) that SEX > shouldn't have anything to > do with who or what a person is. And YES a lot of the > 'queer' factor is > "SEX SEX SEX". > Ummm, Andy, a lot of LIFE is "SEX SEX SEX". I disagree a lot with Freud but I think he hit the nail on the head when he said (I paraphrase) that everything is about sex. Perhaps I'm betraying my very active libido here, but I certainly find that I mostly judge my initial impression of others (whether I want to or not) based on whether they could be a potential sexual partner, & hence sex does have something to do with what I think of other people. (& knowing how flirtatious you can get on #oztori, I don't think you can really deny you don't go through a similar process. *wink*) What I meant to say about one's sexuality being an identity was that, for example, you are not only heterosexual when you actually have cock up someone's vagina & then cease being heterosexual when the act's over. It is something you carry around with you all the time & influences a lot of what you do. It's just probably not that obvious to you because the society you live in priveleges heterosexuality. To take one legal example, why is marriage defined as something that can only be undertaken by a man & a woman? The reproductive & moral explanations seem somewhat lacking in a largely athiest & childless Australian society. That has little to do with sex, but a lot to do with sexuality. > OK I said a lot of - not all, but think about other > 'gay stereotypes'... > "cultured, well groomed individuals". A lot of > 'heterosexual' people can be > that and not be gay. So does this then force THESE sort > of people into the > 'Queer' scene or should they just live life as they see > fit? Don't be ridiculous, being queer has nothing to do with gay stereotypes (which are largely constructed by heterosexuals). It is a self-definition which resists labelling. There are quite a few queers out there who have never slept with a member of the same sex. Likewise, there are a lot of "heterosexuals" & staunch homosexuals who do "gay" things (like sleeping with other men) but would never define themselves as queer. > OK, what I'm getting at is why the fuck (heh) does > there have to be sexual > overtones in a lot of things. You know I'm beginning to think you would be better off living in the early 1950s... ;) Henry. too much of a diary: http://2much.livejournal.com/ and you can laugh a spineless laugh we hope your rules and wisdom choke you - ------------------------------------------------- Get your free @Elvis e-mail account at Elvis.com! http://www.elvis.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 15:53:30 +1000 From: AndrewR Subject: Re: [oztori] The whole world needs a good enema At 21:58 10/08/2002 -0700, Nathan "." wrote: >Intr'sting debate re: "friends" thing. But a bit too >heavy for my brain to make much sense of on this >woooozy Sun'dy arvo. > > >AndrewR wrote: > >> PLUS again, apart from >> obvious and shallow >> characters (homo and heterosexual) if a story or >> movie doesn't require a >> 'sexual scene' or a discussion of anything sexual - >> why would it even be >> brought up? > >Has there been a SINGLE movie made in the history of >time where there is not a glimpse of: > >-a sex/kissing scene >-a gun >-somebody getting killed or nearly getting killed >-two (or more) people/animals falling in love >-a 'bad' guy/gal. A Troma film... LOL! They have all of those things and more! ;o) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 15:58:14 +1000 From: AndrewR Subject: Re: [oztori] lord of the rings - ot of course At 22:01 10/08/2002 -0700, Nathan "." wrote: >Rebecca Appleton wrote: > >> On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 16:52:19 +1000, riot poofter >> wrote: >> >but i still think queer >> >people should >> >only encourage queer readings of things like >> this... >> >> Bah, labels shit me, especially when they require me >> to behave in >> certain ways. > >Yes I totally agree 'sistah'. > >The only lable I care to throw on myself is "recluse", >and dare I say I'm fucking proud of it :P > >*waves newly-invented 'recluse' flag* Nathan, can I have one of those flags!?! :) Imagine a recluse Mardi Gras... you can only fit so many floats in a house!/backyard! ;o) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:04:24 +1000 From: AndrewR Subject: Re: [oztori] lord of the rings - ot of course At 22:14 10/08/2002 -0700, Too Much wrote: >On Sat, 10 August 2002, AndrewR wrote: >> OK, what I'm getting at is why the fuck (heh) does >> there have to be sexual >> overtones in a lot of things. > >You know I'm beginning to think you would be better off >living in the early 1950s... ;) > >Henry. Umm, I could get annoyed at that - but yeah you're joking (I hope) ;o) Of course there is a lot of 'sex' thangs in the world... but why does the world have to revolve around a hard cock or an engorged vagina!?! OK for the sake of a joke - the whole Sam/Frodo thing... but I just have to sit back and wonder why some people have to apply sex to EVERYTHING!?! It all becomes just a little bit too... boring? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:05:42 +1000 From: Jonceski Jasmina Subject: Re: [oztori] lord of the rings - ot of course > but I > just have to > sit back and wonder why some people have to apply sex to > EVERYTHING!?! It > all becomes just a little bit too... boring? That is life. Sex will always be a part of life whether you like it or not. It is one of the fundamentals that the world revolves around today (it has for years and years, probably since time began) As much as I personally don't like that fact it is life. So just life with it. JJ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 23:40:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Nathan "®" Subject: Re: [oztori] lord of the rings - ot of course AndrewR wrote: > >The only lable I care to throw on myself is > "recluse", > >and dare I say I'm fucking proud of it :P > > > >*waves newly-invented 'recluse' flag* > > Nathan, can I have one of those flags!?! :) Yup. If you like you can be inducted into the inaugural Austalian Branch of 'Recluse International' - - and we'll hold a special meeting to mark the occasion, only nodboy will turn up :P (ho ho ho). Nathan. ===== "They don't expect boys to pretend to be nice, but they do with girls, and I'm not a nice person!" - Siobhan Fahey. _______________________________________________________________________ HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com ------------------------------ End of oztori-digest V2 #233 ****************************