Today on Blogcritics
Home » Why Are Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen Treated So Differently?

Why Are Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen Treated So Differently?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I have been watching the reaction to Charlie Sheen’s recent escapade at the Plaza Hotel here in New York City, and I am only surprised by one thing: how come the press treats him differently than someone like Lindsay Lohan, who seems to be constantly vilified in the media?

Of course, this is a rhetorical question, ladies and gentlemen. The reason is obvious: gender plays a decidedly important role in this sort of star-behaving-badly routine. If Lindsay does something like this, we are told she is something lower than a crack whore. If Charlie does the same or a similar thing, he’s a Hollywood bad boy and he’s just being Charlie Sheen.

In my mind this is an injustice to both parties. It is obvious that they both need considerable help. Lindsay is an addict and that is forever. The judge in LA tried to make that clear to her, but we can only wonder if the message sank in. Still, there is no denying that Charlie is also an addict. Though there is a disparity in their ages and genders, in the end the message is clear: a drug addict needs assistance now and for the rest of his or her life.

One of the things that escapes people who seem not to care about plastering Lindsay’s picture on magazine covers and newspaper front pages is this: she is someone’s little girl. There is truth in the fact that no matter what problems her parents may have had—legal or otherwise—this is still their daughter. At 24 she is still rather young, with hopefully a whole life and career ahead of her. It is especially cruel to portray this young woman so negatively, to make her out as such a terrible character: you would think she was as despicable as a serial killer.

Charlie is also someone’s son. His father (Martin Sheen, an actor I’ve always admired) and mother see him as their little boy. But all too often it is the attitude of parents as well as the media that “boys will be boys.” We can see how that has helped other celebrity children of the same gender: Gary Coleman, Corey Haim, and Michael Jackson to name a few. There is nothing so sad and so savagely covered as child celebrity burnout, but someone like Charlie Sheen has been given a pass for the most part. In fact, his whole television show is kind of like a joke based on his real life exploits. He’s made lots of money on this image and this latest incident only capitalizes on that.

The problem here is that Charlie seems to be given a free ride every time he does something wrong. The press almost laughs about his last encounter, writes it off as Charlie being Charlie, and the story ends with everyone laughing. The Lindsay story is quite different. The tabloids are hard on her, and so are the TV magazines and jabbering pundits on talk shows. Everyone is out to exploit Lindsay and stop Lindsay and condemn Lindsay, but I don’t hear anything about saving her.

Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen are victims of many things but most especially of their own poor judgment; however, Mr. Sheen has been given a Get Out of Jail Free card while Ms. Lohan seems destined to spend more time behind bars than drinking in them. Whether or not anyone wants to admit it, everyone from the judge to the reporters to the people watching their TV sets has been too hard on her, mostly because she is a female. This is not only wrong; it is totally unacceptable.

Americans should wake up. We don’t want famous people, either male or female, to become so lost in drugs that they spiral out of control or eventually lose the battle and their lives. What has happened to Lindsay Lohan is deadly serious; what has happened to Charlie Sheen is also and is not at all funny. Are we ready to change our perceptions? Or is the laughter we’re hearing just an inside joke on us all?

Powered by

About Victor Lana

Victor Lana has published numerous stories, articles, and poems in literary magazines and online. His books In a Dark Time (1994), A Death in Prague (2002), Move (2003), The Savage Quiet September Sun: A Collection of 9/11 Stories (2005) and Like a Passing Shadow (2009) are available online and as e-books. He has won the National Arts Club Award for Poetry, but has concentrated mostly on fiction and non-fiction prose in recent years. He has worked as faculty advisor to school literary magazines and enjoys the creative process as a writer, editor, and collaborator. He has been with Blogcritics since July 2005, has edited many articles, was co-head sports editor with Charley Doherty, and now is a Culture and Society editor. He views Blogcritics as one of most exciting, fresh, and meaningful opportunities in his writing life.
  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    “Why Are Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen Treated So Differently?”

    When I saw the title of your blog, I assumed you meant, why are they treated differently from other people, non-celebrities, African Americans, et al.

    To the contrary, you examine how these two equally spoiled brats are treated differently one from another.

    “Mr. Sheen has been given a get out of jail free card,” you write, “while Ms. Lohan seems destined to spend more time behind bars instead of drinking in them.”

    Please, upon what do you base your divination of Ms. Lohan’s destiny? Do you have a crystal ball or do you prefer tea leaves? Or perhaps Tarot cards!

    You certainly can’t be extrapolating from actual events. This past July, Lohan was sentenced to 90 days in jail for violating probation. She served all of 14 days.

    In September, she was sent back to jail. This time she was released later the same day.

    In other words, she has served a lifetime total of less than 15 days in jail. That doesn’t strike me as a good factual basis for predicting her “destiny” as a jailbird.

  • http://jonsobel.com/ Jon Sobel

    Literal much? Not to speak for Vic, but I believe he was just using a rhetorical flourish.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    Jon, you’re too touchy about things you personally publish in BC’s culture section. Just yesterday, you sprang quickly to the defense of Crystal Lewis, and now you’re just as hasty in justifying Victor’s piece. You ought to let the comments play out for a while before involving yourself–I mean, assuming you edited both Crystal’s and Victor’s contributions. It verges on the unseemly to have the editor butt in prematurely.

  • http://viclana.blogspot.com/ Victor Lana

    No, Alan, Jon didn’t edit this piece. I did. The facts speak for themselves. Sheen has done many things that seem worse than what Lohan has done.

    Yes, her jail time has been brief, but judging from what someone told me about spending one night at Riker’s Island, who would want to spend 15 nights there?

    The judge has warned her repeatedly. The next slip up could result in “significant” jail time. I don’t wish that on her or Mr. Sheen. I’d like to see them both get the help they need.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    You are allowed to “edit” your own article in a BC section other than sports?

    That’s some arrangement you’ve got there, Victor. So much for editorial scruples.

    As for Lindsay Lohan in Rikers Island (note: there’s no apostrophe in Rikers), she never spent as much as 15 seconds there. Her court appearances were in Beverly Hills and her two weeks in jail were spent in L.A.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    We live in a misogynistic culture. The culture in its entirety hates women. This is taught to young girls as well as young men.

    Most young girls will make the mistake that if they go along with sexually objectifying themselves they will be loved.

    They won’t. See: Lindsay Lohan. They will do it anyway. (The culture doesn’t really help with insight.) Girls gone wild is already the norm.

    Our culture is male dominating. We need to help young men and women to change that. It won’t be by buying a TV and sitting out children in front of it.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    If you doubt the misogyny of the ‘normal’ culture, consider how the worse thing one can call a male is a name related to a female: pussy, girl, lady, etc.

    Even gay pornography refrains from leaving male actors in the position of the female. Even gay men do not want to be ‘women’, our culture has so little respect for them.

    Finally: where anything goes in our culture on the basis of ‘free speech’, this attitude toward women is openly expressed. It is accepted and even considered ‘progressive’. It is accepted and promoted by liberal and conservative men and by the women who have become their ‘house negros’.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Men using women as objects has become empowering and liberating for women (?????!!!!!). Male domination has led to the western objectification of women as ‘normal’. It is male sexuality run amok in a culture where the privileged have nothing to do but seek entertainment.

    We are living in a dystopia.

  • http://viclana.blogspot.com/ Victor Lana

    Alan, I think you need to read what I wrote again. I never said that Lohan was in Rikers Island. Perhaps that explains much of your commentary, but I fear not.

  • zingzing

    “We are living in a dystopia.”

    if all that’s true, which i don’t think it is, then how are “we” living in a dystopia? one would think that it would be a male utopia at that point. how the hell am i missing out?

    “The culture in its entirety hates women. This is taught to young girls as well as young men.”

    that’s bleak. and i, and most everyone i know, missed out on the lesson.

    “Girls gone wild is already the norm.”

    where?

    “If you doubt the misogyny of the ‘normal’ culture, consider how the worse thing one can call a male is a name related to a female: pussy, girl, lady, etc.”

    hardly. those are usually chiding, but it’s not like that’s the worst someone will come up with if they really want to hurt someone. “bitch” is certainly closer, but that’s not quite the top of the pile either.

    “Even gay men do not want to be ‘women’, our culture has so little respect for them.”

    why on earth would a gay man want to be a woman?

    “this attitude toward women is openly expressed. It is accepted and even considered ‘progressive’.”

    never heard that idea expressed before.

    “Men using women as objects has become empowering and liberating for women (?????!!!!!).”

    yeah that does sound ridiculous, doesn’t it? that’s because it is.

    really, cindy…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    “Yes, her jail time has been brief, but judging from what someone told me about spending one night at Riker’s Island, who would want to spend 15 nights there?”

    Re #9: the above is quoted verbatim from your comment #4. Maybe it is you who should read what you write more closely. You might learn something about yourself. But I doubt it.

  • http://viclana.blogspot.com/ Victor Lana

    Alan, even after quoting it directly, you got it wrong. This goes beyond reading comprehension. What little hope I had is gone, so read it any way you like and enjoy the silence.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    Are you implying that I misquoted you? I copied and pasted it directly, Victor. It’s obviously you who can’t read.

  • Paul Whittaker

    Besides being young and female, Lindsay has had the courage to question the wisdom of our neoFascist addiction treatment industry and resist being pigeon-holed as “an addict”. She is – for all intents and purposes – a political prisoner of the 12 Stepist treatment machine which is determined to destroy her. Sheen acts like a “good addict”, by spouting a few cliches abot the “disease concept” and “getting help”.

  • zingzing

    alan and victor–neither of you can read. that’s how it goes. you’re so illertireate you cunt reed thse. you’re both being stupid.

  • http://viclana.blogspot.com/ Victor Lana

    Thanks for the “clarity,” Zing. Quite enlightening.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    10 – zing,

    i know you aren’t understanding what i am saying. but i also know you are capable of seeing a different pov if you were to want to. when/if you are ready, you will likely follow some of the links i have been posting throughout my comments.

    seeing an entirely different pov does not happen by a) reading comments in a blog thread or b) arguing with the person who holds the pov. it comes from trying–hard. you are not interested in doing that. i don’t blame you, what i am saying does reflect on things you do and choices you’ve made. it is only ‘natural’ you’d be defensive.

    let me know if/when you want me to repost any of the links i have left throughout my comments (you don’t seem to have looked at them).

    do you see any parallel hear in my talking to you with your talking to a right-winger? you know that sense you get that they refuse to see any other pov? that one.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    “We are living in a dystopia.” (cindy)

    if all that’s true, which i don’t think it is, then how are “we” living in a dystopia? one would think that it would be a male utopia at that point. how the hell am i missing out? (zing)

    the dystopia i refer to isn’t only related to the superficial and object/use relationships promoted between between women and men; those relationships are only one example of the larger problem throughout the culture in all human relationship.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    why on earth would a gay man want to be a woman?

    Can’t think of a reason, zing? Do you think they’re rather want to be men but for some reason, can’t? Or are you saying perhaps that gays are indifferent to matters of sexual identity?

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Roger, zing,

    This might need explaining.

    In heterosexual pornography, the theme is of domination and subjugation. The woman is typically the object of the male. This puts the woman in a subordinate position. She lives as a thing to please and fulfill the male sexual impulses–whatever they are. Thus, this is not about her sexuality, but she is instead something used by the ‘partner’.

    In gay pornography (as male domination is not exclusive to heterosexual males, but the gender association carries through) leaving one male in the position of subjugation the woman’s position) is (from what I have read) typically undone, by placing the ‘done to’ male in other shots as the active ‘doer’.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    I left off a parenthesis that should read: …leaving one male in the position of subjugation (the woman’s position)…

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    The woman’s position is inferior. Even the gay male is not routinely left in such a subordinated position.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Fantasy is part of sexuality, Cindy, Would it be so in a healthy society, that I very doubt. Domination-subjection theme is not sexual but cultural in origin. The perpetrators of rape, an extreme case if you like, are often diagnosed as being “moved” by factors other than sexual desire, more by need to assert their own power (since they’re made to feel powerless), and I tend to agree. And this is as good an argument as any to the effect that subjection-domination theme is essentially cultural in nature, the sexual behavior being mostly a species.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Fantasy is part of sexuality, Cindy, Would it be so in a healthy society, that I very doubt.

    Are you saying you doubt sexual fantasy would be a part of a ‘healthy’ culture?

    I could understand that and see it in one sense–if I only allowed for the male dominant fantasy. But, being a woman, I know there is sexual fantasy that is positive, encourages love, and sees the partner as a full human being to be connected with, not an object to be used. I therefore think sexual fantasy in itself is not ‘unhealthy’. I think domination and objectification are.

    Perhaps you recall being a young boy with a crush on some equally young lady. The fantasies you might have had would likely put her in a position of fully human. I think that boys do understand female sexuality before they adopt male sexual proclivities.

    Domination-subjection theme is not sexual but cultural in origin.

    I agree. My point is not about origins. I am saying sexuality is one arena that domination/subjugation is played out. I take it you are clarifying rhetorically as opposed to correcting a mistake you think I’ve made.

    On rape. There is a tendency in the culture to say rape is not about sex but is about power and domination. I think it was Robert Jensen’s explanation I found more convincing–that rape is about sexualized domination and power. This says something about the contents of what the culture pushes as masculine fantasy.

    I agree: subjection-domination theme is essentially cultural in nature, the sexual behavior being mostly a species.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    I need to correct this, this should not be:
    before they adopt male sexual proclivities, it should be…

    …before they adopt culturally prescribed masculine proclivities.

  • zingzing

    cindy: “i know you aren’t understanding what i am saying. but i also know you are capable of seeing a different pov if you were to want to.”

    no, i understand what you’re saying. i just think it’s over the top crap. sorry.

    roger: “Can’t think of a reason, zing? Do you think they’re rather want to be men but for some reason, can’t? Or are you saying perhaps that gays are indifferent to matters of sexual identity?”

    no, roger. i think gay men are happy being men. transexuals want to be women. but gay men are men. funny thing, isn’t it?

    cindy: “In heterosexual pornography, the theme is of domination and subjugation.”

    not all of it. but are we really going to do this again?

  • zingzing

    “transexuals want to be women.”

    well… transsexual men do.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m glad you’ve got it all figured out, zing, all wrapped in neat and distinct categories. Since you’re such an expert on the subject, why don’t you write a book and enlighten all of us. The inquiring minds, gays, lesbians and sundry, surely would like to know.

    But then again, you merely exhibit the pattern of a liberal minded and self-accomplished person, like so many of your liberal and liberated BC collegues, who have all the answers and no question.

    It’s always such a great pleasure becoming intellectually engaged with you.

  • zingzing

    …well, you seem to be suggesting that gay men are wondering if they’re men. or want to be women or something. if i were gay, i’d find that more than a little insulting.

    “Do you think they’re rather want to be men but for some reason, can’t?”

    this question’s a little garbled, but what makes you think gay men can’t be men? (i assure you they are…)

  • zingzing

    “Or are you saying perhaps that gays are indifferent to matters of sexual identity?”

    how you got from what i said to that is a bit of a mystery to me.

    i think you are profoundly misunderstanding me.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You’re reading too much into what I said. Who said they aren’t men? On the other hand, sexual identity is a complex matter. Even healthy, “all-American males” may have a problem with the darn thing.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Well, in case it matters, this gay man aligns pretty closely with what zing said in 26 and 29. I have no interest in “being” a woman, and neither do any of the gay friends I have known over the years — unless they were keeping this to themselves. We are men, we like being men, and we like being attracted to other men. That’s sorta how it works.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, it’s mighty good for you then than your sexual identity question is all resolved. Are you suggesting therefore that you are the norm and all those who aren’t as fortunate as you happen to be are “basket cases”?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    I’m telling you what I know about myself and my acquaintances. Zing also was probably talking about people he has met. Being attracted to men and wanting to be a woman are two very different things. And because “gay men want to be women” is a meme I associate with bigotry and ignorance, I react negatively to it.

  • zingzing

    roger: “Who said they aren’t men?”

    well, i thought you did. although i kinda doubted that’s what you were trying to say.

    you asked, “”Do you think they’re rather want to be men but for some reason, can’t?”

    the syntax got a bit messed up there, so maybe you’d better restate it. because what i get is that gay men want to be men, but can’t be men for some reason. which is a very strange thing.

    “Are you [being handy, not i] suggesting therefore that you are the norm and all those who aren’t as fortunate as you happen to be are “basket cases”?”

    i would think that a large majority of mature gay men have no issue being the gender they were born as. i’m sure that some gay men do have issues with it, but then again, that’s not something unique to gay men.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m glad, then, there is no trouble in paradise, zing, and that we’re a growing a mature culture of a healthy crop of able-bodied women and men, regardless of sexual orientation. For some reason, I was under the impression that growing up was an arduous process for any teenager, again, irrespective of sexual orientation or as you say, with what nature gave them to work with. So I’m glad I’m straightened out on that score by you and Handy.

  • zingzing

    you’re saying i’m saying things i never said. and willfully misinterpreting what i did say. why do you think i included the word “mature?” (it was to indicate that adolescence IS a difficult period of most people’s lives.)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    the term “mature” is a later insertion; I only provided the impetus for qualifying what sounded at first as an oversimplistic proposition.

    Even so, you have greater faith in the term “mature” than I. Again, I had no idea we’re still raising such a phenomenal crop of ablebodied women and men.

  • zingzing

    if not wanting to be a different gender was all it took to be ablebodied… you can still have crippling issues with your sexuality without being born into what you think is the wrong body.

    i’m not oversimplifying, you’re oversimplifying what i’m saying. most (see the qualifier?) gay men don’t want to be women. most gay men are happy being men. they also are, in fact, men. there are those men (gay and straight) that do want to be women. but they are in a minority. do you disagree with any of this?

    and yes, “mature” got in there late, but you really didn’t think i was saying 100% of anybody does 100% of anything 100% of the time. lines blur, sexuality changes, etc, etc. nothing’s ever 100% except physics 99% of the time.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “Able-bodied” was simply a metaphor for sound in body and mind, nothing more. But to the point. Whatever your vision of gay men and women and straights living an idyllic existence forever after, I would think it’s more wishful thinking than reality. No doubt the recent push for gay rights, still unfolding, is making inroads and resulted in a sense of liberation. Still, there is trauma associated with gayness, at least in some parts of the country. Handy is free to shout from the rooftops while in New York; he wasn’t so free when he was in Tennessee, which is why he left Tennessee. Indeed, even today, in today’s climate, there is surely a trauma associated with one’s discovery of gayness. So my point was, your rather glib description of wellness runs counter to the experience. And in my estimation, it’s the natural conseqence on the part of a self-proclaimed liberated person who dismisses all allegations of social injustice and stigma just because a few pieces of token legislation has been passed.

  • zingzing

    roger, all i said is that gay men (in general) don’t want to be women. that’s what i fucking said.

    i wasn’t proclaiming from the mountaintop that the struggle they face because of society’s evil hatred for them was now over and done with because of some piece of legislation (?? i never said anything about legislation).

    cindy said that not even gay men (in gay porn) want to be women because everyone hates women. that’s goddamn ridiculous. and you get on me?

    i don’t “dismiss all allegations of social injustice” in the least. seriously, if that’s what you think about me, then you don’t understand me at all and clearly can’t read. but i know that if you can write those (rather ignorant) words, then you can read. so i think something’s going wrong in your reasoning.

    “Handy is free to shout from the rooftops while in New York; he wasn’t so free when he was in Tennessee, which is why he left Tennessee.”

    you’re talking about shit no one has talked about. handy’s past struggles (assuming there were some) doesn’t have any baring on whether or not gay men want to be women. he doesn’t want to be a woman. nor do most gay men. i really don’t understand how you’ve gotten where you’ve got.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Don’t be a simpleton, Zing. I wasn’t arguing for the proposition about whether the gays want to (or don’t want to) be women – only against the implications of your assertion, pretending to know their mental state. So my response was meant merely to offset your smug presumptions.

    Are you aware of the cultural anti-gay climate in parts of the country and are opposed to it? Of course you are, so there’s no misunderstanding there on my part. Are you presumptuous when you’re minimizing problems related to sexual identity (whether for gays or straights) by reducing to level of discourse to such simplistic propositions as “gay men want or don’t want to be … and you can fill in the blanks, you bet. It’s the good liberal in you that makes you do it, zing, and that’s the connection I’m making. You don’t have to like it or or accept, of course. It’s a trademark of good liberals that they’re rarely given to self-reflection. Having found all the answers, they interpret the world according to their preconceived plan.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Roger, you are arguing with yourself here, not with anything zing or I actually wrote.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Thou protest too much, methinks. But if my conception of the liberal mindset offends you, I’ll take it back in your particular case.

    And contrary to popular belief, the art of arguing with oneself is the essence of self-reflection, not of idiocy. It’s precisely those who feel they’ve got all the answers but no questions that tend to stand still. I haven’t really heard a new idea from you or zing and the usual BC suspects, all good liberals that you take yourselves to be, in the two years I’ve been privy to these threads – nothing, zero, nada – which is why I find these engagements increasingly less and less fruitful. Silas Kain, on the other hand, cuts a different picture. Indeed, even Archie has shown signs of growth, pooh-poohing him as you’re all might. I truly wish I could say the same of the rest of my BC colleagues.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Forgive me if I place a higher value on my personal knowledge of myself and other gay men than on your hypothetical [and superfluously nasty] arguments about same.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I was never questioning your personal experience, Handy, nor your experience with your friends and associates. I was only addressing zing’s rather naive proclamation as to there being no problematic. How would he or you, for the matter of fact, know? When you say you do, you’re merely extrapolating from your limited experience.

    So again, I’m sorry you got on the tail end of the conversation between zing and I, but such are the breaks.

    As to your characterization of my “argument” as nasty, I’m really at wit’s ends to understand where you’re coming from. What was nasty about it, unless you’d like me to believe, like you apparently are inclined to believe, that everything’s honky-dory.

    Well, I don’t. And if you want to call my argument “nasty” because it happens to dispel the illusion that your liberal mindset forces on you, so be it. I’ll have to live with it, I suppose.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    Your comments on this thread haven’t been nasty because they dispel anyone’s illusions. They’ve been nasty for their own sake, like practically all of your comments over the past three months. Ever since you wrecked your car on August 6, your mood has been bilious. For several weeks you confined yourself to your ghetto Bye-Bye, Miss American Pie, Part I, where you conducted a graduate seminar for your faithful groupies Cindy, Anarcissie and Mark. But lately you’ve reappeared in other writers’ threads, such as this one, where you come across like a pit bull that hasn’t had any human infants to maul recently, so he’s pissed at the entire world. Since you confess you “find these engagements increasingly less and less fruitful”–which, incidentally, would be more artfully worded as “decreasingly fruitful”–why not give us all a break and skedaddle back to your ghetto?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    To dispel another person’s illusion is not nasty. It’s work aimed at personal liberation, my own and everyone alike,

    I hate to be put in this unenviable position, but if I must, I will. What’s your excuse?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    On a side note, I believe you’re reaching to me. Rest assured I won’t shun you, whatever your faults. As to bitterness, yes, I plea guilty, but life deals us all kinds of curves. I’m not quite yet where I want to or should be.

  • zingzing

    roger: “Are you presumptuous when you’re minimizing problems related to sexual identity (whether for gays or straights) by reducing to level of discourse to such simplistic propositions as “gay men want or don’t want to be … and you can fill in the blanks, you bet.”

    sorry, but you’re so far off base, i don’t even know how you got there. do gay men want to be women? no. at least no more than straight men do. which is rare. that’s my fucking point. i’m not minimizing problems or any such bullshit. no matter how many times you say i’m doing something i’m not doing, i’m still not doing it. so fucking stop saying it.

    really, roger, this is fucking surreal, and i’m pretty fucking sick of being told i’m minimizing the problems of gay people just because i told cindy that some idea she had was ridiculous. and, as handy says, connected with hateful, bigoted people, which i’m sure is something that cindy is not.

    so again, as you’ve been told several times now, stop arguing about shit no one has been talking about.

    or i’ll accuse you of minimizing the plight of women because you think witchcraft is real, as you said in comment #51. you woman-hater. how dare you?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    zing, you’re minimizing the problems of living in a contemporary, liberal society. That’s your MO,the liberal credo you’re addicted to. You picture a perfect or a near perfect world while, truth be told, you’re blind as a bat. And it’s your desire to see the world through rose-colored glasses that makes you so, nothing but wishful thinking.

    I really don’t care to engage in these discussions because they serve no purpose. I you pay me the psychiatrist fee, say $75.00 an hour, I’ll try to set your straight and free. You need a Woody Allen kind of liberation. Move the fuck out of NY, go to California. Get a fucking life because, judging by your postings, it stinks to high heaven.

    Again, I’m sorry I can’t help you unless you deposit a sizable sum of money in my bank account.

  • zingzing

    i have no idea what you’re even talking about at this point. now i’m minimizing the problems of living in a contemporary, liberal society? the whole goddamn thing? because i don’t think gay men want to be women? and ny stinks to high heaven because of it?

    what’s wrong, roger?

    you think i’m blind as a bat, but you’re clearly hallucinating and reading things i’ve never said. how you got from point a to point b on this one is surreal.

    seriously, this is what i said: gay men, in general, don’t want to be women. they’re fine with their gender.

    and this is what you read: we live in a perfect world.

    do you not see that that’s not anywhere near to what i wrote? did you happen to hit your head recently?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Forget it, zing. You’re too obstinate and all too sensitive to have any reasonable discussion with. I’m sorry if your ego gets in the way of your majesty, but to tell the truth, I don’t give a fuck.

  • zingzing

    fine, roger, but if anyone’s ego is on display here, it’s not mine. the conclusions you’ve drawn out of this are mind-boggling. there’s no logic.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Let it be.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    zing…

    cindy said that not even gay men (in gay porn) want to be women because everyone hates women. that’s goddamn ridiculous.

    it would be completely ridiculous, good thing i didn’t say that. you need to write it like this: “zing interpreted” rather than “cindy said”.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    some idea she had was ridiculous. and, as handy says, connected with hateful, bigoted people, which i’m sure is something that cindy is not.

    you understand nothing, including english. how very obnoxious of you to continue on without acknowledging your misinterpretation.

    that analysis of gay porn came from a book entitled Men Confront Pornography. i am pretty sure it was the analysis of a gay male. you don’t understand it and you also don’t understand the rest of the analysis i’ve made.

    there is no possibility discussion between us on the subject unless/until you are able/willing to see things in a new way.

  • Steffy

    I find girls like Cindy really hot