coolrob1955 Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Seeing the Doris Day / Rock Hudson movies again on TCM reminded me that for many years I could'nt watch a Rock Hudson movie without being amused that one of the greatest male sex-symbol icons of the 60's was gay. I'm glad to report that this time around I managed to watch the actor on the screen without reference to the actors gender, and as a masculine sex-symbol he was impressive. My wife loves Rock Hudson and says he was incredibly sexy and handsome. She stopped saying that about me years ago ! ! ! Regards Link to post Share on other sites
jarhfive Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Metry Road, Well...I understand from your last sentence, your wife said you were "incredibly sexy..." at some time in your past. That is worth a lot. Rusty Link to post Share on other sites
jarhfive Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Metry Road, Oh, jeez. I was so envious...I forgot to reply to your question! If the movie "Gods And Monsters" is to be believed, than my favorite gay actor would have to be Ernest Thesiger--Dr. Pretorius in the film "Bride Of Frankenstein". You mean "gay" off screen, right? Rusty Link to post Share on other sites
constarkel Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Its a toss-up between Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman. Link to post Share on other sites
coolrob1955 Posted March 30, 2006 Author Share Posted March 30, 2006 Yes, of course I mean actors who are gay, not actors who play gay roles in movies. Regards Link to post Share on other sites
coolrob1955 Posted March 30, 2006 Author Share Posted March 30, 2006 One of the best perfomances by a straight actor playing a gay role was John Hurt in 'The Naked Civil Servant'. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm not sure which way John Hurt leans ?? Regards Link to post Share on other sites
gmabfd Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 When I was young, Rock Hudson was my heartrob. I still watch his movies, but it's not the same. On tv, I use to watch "Dr. Kildare". Young handsome, Richard Chamberlain. Again, years later, crushed by the news. Link to post Share on other sites
coolrob1955 Posted March 30, 2006 Author Share Posted March 30, 2006 LOL yes, I've often heard women comment that most gay men are so good-looking, and from a womans point of view, this is a waste of good-looking men Regards Link to post Share on other sites
deeanddaisy666 Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Really? You knew Rock was gay BEFORE he hugged Doris Day on that podium and was unfortunately very sick? I didn't. I feel sorry for him and any other actor still TRAPPED IN THE CLOSET (South Park reference, brilliant...see the recent episode with Tom Cruise). I think it's cruel and inhumane what they do to gay men and women in Hollyweird. However, it's all about image in that hypocritical little town, isn't it? I didn't know Rock was gay, and liked him as an actor and in McMillan. I thought he was brillaint in Seconds, I loved everything about that movie....hint, TCMprogrammer, since you see fit to show the crap that is anime and Sonny and Cher, how about showing Seconds, a wonderful movie? Yeah, right. I think a person's sexual preference is their own business. Oh, no, I don't agree with corporate America's bend over willingness to give medical rights to PARTNERS in SPECIAL relationships, but hey, they're just driven by politically correct politicians with special agendas which boils down to money, aren't they? Okay, off my soapbox. Bottom line....leave Rock and Randolph Scott and John Hurt and whats his face alone. Meanwhile, PLEASE someone tell me Cary Grant wasn't bi. Okay, not that there's anything wrong with it, I just like my men manly. Next, you'll all be telling me Warren Williams played catcher and pitcher. Link to post Share on other sites
jarhfive Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 stoneyburke, "South Park"? You are a fan? So, what is the deal (hullabaloo) regarding Chef? Rusty Link to post Share on other sites
markfp2 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I don't judge performers by their sexual preference, Just like I don't judge them by the color of their skin or what religion they are. All that matters to me is their talent. Link to post Share on other sites
Ralph Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 No, I think Warren Williams played first base. Or do I have my Williams' mixed up? Link to post Share on other sites
JonParker Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I think a person's sexual preference is their own business. Oh, no, I don't agree with corporate America's bend over willingness to give medical rights to PARTNERS in SPECIAL relationships, but hey, they're just driven by politically correct politicians with special agendas which boils down to money, aren't they? Leaving your choice of phrasing alone, it's at least remotely possible that they're motivated by a sense of decency and fairness. My company offers DP benefits, and I'm very proud that they do. Link to post Share on other sites
oobleckboy Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Montgomery Clift. - The best, period. Interesting note: He died just before shooting started for "Reflections in a Golden Eye". He was to play the closeted gay husband to Liz Taylor's charactor. (Brando was quickly signed on.) Link to post Share on other sites
deeanddaisy666 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Near as I can figure, jarhfive, Isaac Hayes left the show because the writers penned a show skewering Scientology and Tom Cruise in particular. The episode aired last November. For whatever reason, he just recently decided to leave the show. They therefore decided to pen a very funny episode concerning Chef, as they (seemingly rightly in my mind, but I don't know all the facts) objected to the fact that he willingly partook of episodes that lambasted Christianity, Judaism, and countless other beliefs. He chose however to be hypocritical when his own 'faith' was questioned. Link to post Share on other sites
deeanddaisy666 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 You're right Jon Parker, that was a particularly ugly phrase and I believe it did not have the import it now seems to have, since I don't consider myself biased. However, what I DO object to is the hypocrisy and mendacity of corporations who appear as if they promote diversity in the workplace...they don't, there is a very real glass ceiling for blacks and women...and are only motivated by the price of the stock and the bottom line of profits. If they can gain more in their bottom line by giving health benefits to partners, they will. However, this is motivated by conforming to all that is now politically correct in the country, not by any particular real interest in the health of any gay persons in their company. If it suddenly became politically correct for a frog to marry a red headed obese woman, corporations would bend over backwards (this is where my unfortunate previous phrase came from, I believe) to give those partner benefits to that frog and that red headed obese woman. Meanwhile, these same companies are firing old employees under the guise of outsourcing and offshoring, and there are YET to be 'partner' benefits for an umarried man and woman living together. I hope I have clarified my position, and I apologize again for that sentence structure. My beef is with lying, hypocritical, mercenary, blood sucking corporations who are doing things behind the scenes that would make the average Joe Schmo's hair curl. Link to post Share on other sites
jarhfive Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 stoneyburke, Quote: "My beef is with lying, hypocritical, mercenary, blood sucking corporations who are doing things behind the scenes that would make the average Joe Schmo's hair curl." You are so right! Why isn't the (ever increasing) control of the lives of all United States citizens by huge (and growing) corporations the number one issue of present day? Once reason. The Republican party is controlled by large corporations and the Democratic party is dying for a 'bigger piece of the corporate pie'. Where do most citizens of the United States get their "news"? Mass media. What is mass media? Mass media is mega-companies. The last time I heard anything about corporate control of the lives of all Americans was (believe it, or not) on CSPAN--Norman Mailer! Norman Mailer and his son (Book TV?) talked about the corporate control of lives of all citizens of the United States. They (Norman Mailer and his son) thought it was a bad thing. Yes, yes it is. Rusty Link to post Share on other sites
vecchiolarry Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Hi Dolores, Thanks for the great laugh and the weird image -- a frog and a red-headed obese woman. I nearly laughed out loud, but I'm in an airport waiting room and don't want to appear 'a nut case!'..... Actually, I think I saw that couple waitng with me!!! Larry Message was edited by: vecchiolarry Link to post Share on other sites
deeanddaisy666 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Thanks, Rusty. I don't know if you've been there, done that, as I have, but I have the tee shirt and a much reduced (read stolen) pension and medical benefit as proof. Why? Because the generation that was reared in these corporations...and yes make no mistake we were reared by them, we trusted them, they were pater, we were filis, we believed them...STILL cannot believe that we were sodomized by them. We have gone away, quietly, complacently, happy with what we got, uneasy of making any kind of noise lest our crumbs be taken away altogether. Meanwhile you have India used for outsourcing, China next on the horizon, and Vietnam after that since FIFTY FIVE dollars a MONTH is big bucks in Vietnam. And, as you see, the issue of ILLEGAL (read my lips, it's ILLEGAL) alien abuse in America...no, they're not immigrants, they're ILLEGAL aliens...is a hot ticket right now, and because (as you say) of the voting power, it will more than likely result in a great big hug and amnesty and pushing two for English instead of one. Despicable, ain't it? But sorry, this ain't on topic. Thanks again, Rusty........ dolores Link to post Share on other sites
coolrob1955 Posted March 31, 2006 Author Share Posted March 31, 2006 When I asked "Who was your favorite gay actor", I did'nt expect the Spanish Inquisition ! ! ! Regards Link to post Share on other sites
jarhfive Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Hello, Metry Road...well, these threads sometimes "twist and turn". One more thing and I will--"return control of your...". Today, the company I work for (a mega-corporation), has three less employees than yesterday. Combined employee experience--forty (or more) years. Was it a firing? No. Was it a lay-off? No. Was it a 'down-sizing'? No. The corporate communication calls it a "deletion of job title(s)". "Say... what?". Rusty Link to post Share on other sites
coolrob1955 Posted March 31, 2006 Author Share Posted March 31, 2006 jarhfive It's alright I was just messing with your head. I like to talk about politics and the price of fish on occaisions myself. I was laid off in 1985 by the Royal Dutch Shell Company Cehmicals Division (that's SHELL to you folks). They shifted their operation to somewhere in Asia. It was more profitable for them I suppose. Multinational Corporations love the idea of a 'Global Economy', but only on their terms. Which means that they will conduct their business 'Globally' only if the rest of us remain safely regional and economically unballanced. Make it cheap in the east, and sell it high in the west. It works for them. But it will change in the next fifty or so years. The economies of Asian nations such as Korea, China, India are going to explode, and the Asian workers will demand (and get) better treatment. This will mean a more even economic global balance. The corporations won't like this worth a damn, and will have to find some other way to play the 'Global Economy' to their advantage. They will find a way of course, they always do. Maximizing profits is a pro-active process. The rest of us are just re-active. I'm looking at China particularly. The fact that they have a communist government (at the moment) is immaterial. After all, money is money and business is business. See, you've got me doing it now. In the immortal words of Sonny Boy Williamson "Don't Start Me Talkin'" By the way, who is your favorite gay actor ? Regards Link to post Share on other sites
deeanddaisy666 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Metry Road.....NO one expects the Spanish Inquisition. Thank you Monty Python. Rusty...HAL by any chance? Know whereof you speak...resource reduction, downsized, right sized, if it can be dumb speak, they'll think of it. Answer.....if the press reports are true, Kevin Spacey. Link to post Share on other sites
coolrob1955 Posted March 31, 2006 Author Share Posted March 31, 2006 Dear stoneyburke You are my own personal Spanish Inquisition. Whenever I post a message, you are generally the first to rush in with your red cape and torture devices, and jump all over me. Keep up the good work, it keeps me on my toes. Regards Link to post Share on other sites
jarhfive Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 MetryRoad, Quote: "By the way, who is your favorite gay actor..." Oh, you... BTW: I agree with your contention about work force wanting things--specifically, the things they manufacture. I say...good for them! India, China (and so on) have as much right to global resources as Europe, or North America. Thinking about the year 2056 and a "working" global marketplace--an 'iffy' proposition (at best). Three problems--depletion of current natural resources, unwillingness to develop alternative natural resources and destruction of the environment. Problems one and two--I 'went through' the oil embargo of the mid-1970s. I experienced one (count 'em--one) gas station open, daytime, Sunday, all of metropolitan Denver. Well, several square miles of Denver. Is oil a secondary fuel in 2006? Problem three--the environment. Reading your experience, I don't need to write the following, but I am on a roll. No matter what non-scientist, 'talking head' communicates...the global environment is changing. The consequences of environment change? No one has a definite answer. Okay, nothing can be done about, oh--global warming. A fifty year plan to prepare for a future dramatically different (climate-wise) than today? That would be a good idea. Not happening. Sorry. This message is my last rant, uh...this thread. Rusty Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now