Bruno

[Ssly]

Heh... this guy has some balls to do the things he does. Pretty much on the same level as borat with stunts etc (possibly turned it up a little bit with this one - omg, i thought that terrorist was gonna kill him and his camera man!)

but yea, the highlight of the movie was again the ignorance of the "real" people involved (mostly us americans).

[Tithan Natus]

Umlaut damn you!

[Slaker]

I need to go watch it this week-end or something.

[Eyrothath]

I heard there is a hilarious part with Ron Paul? Please explain..

[BladeSLicer]

Heh... this guy has some balls to do the things he does. Pretty much on the same level as borat with stunts etc (possibly turned it up a little bit with this one - omg, i thought that terrorist was gonna kill him and his camera man!)

but yea, the highlight of the movie was again the ignorance of the "real" people involved (mostly us americans).

Why can't he make fun of the British or something? There's other ignorant people out there!

Hell, it's been far too long since the French were focused on. I thought the world agreed they'd be the target from now on?

[Ssly]

I heard there is a hilarious part with Ron Paul? Please explain..

wouldn't want to spoil it!

[Honorius]

The ending sucked. Didn't feel right, the song was good though.

He tried to sex up Ron Paul.

[Ssly]

Why can't he make fun of the British or something? There's other ignorant people out there!

Hell, it's been far too long since the French were focused on. I thought the world agreed they'd be the target from now on?

i'm pretty sure the general consensus of the world is that the US is the country with the most ignorant citizens who also write the most run-on sentences.

[Ssly]

The ending sucked. Didn't feel right, the song was good though.

He tried to sex up Ron Paul.

yea, it was pretty anti-climactic.

[BladeSLicer]

i'm pretty sure the general consensus of the world is that the US is the country with the most ignorant citizens who also write the most run-on sentences.

I've been to a little over 30 countries in my time (my dad travels constantly and brings me along). I can assure you that every nation seems to have plenty of "ignorant people". In fact, in regards to intelligence itself, it does not seem to vary much depending on where you go, though some countries certainly seem far more educated than others.

Besides, I see plenty of run-on sentences from everyone else! :p

[heroshade]

Watching it tomorrow. I heard its a border-line gay porn though... Not sure how I feel about that.

[Vanno]

Not quite as good as Borat, as the movie sort of devolves into one long gay joke. With that said, it is pretty hilarious. The part with Ron Paul wasn't really funny, in contrast to some of the other scenes.

Watching it tomorrow. I heard its a border-line gay porn though... Not sure how I feel about that.

Yeah, it tends toward the NC-17 area with some of the scenes.

[Silverhandorder]

Relatively little laughs. Everyone felt akward for being turned gay for the duration of the movie.

I thought he pushed too much to get a reaction. Many of the instances people acted exactly how they should.

[Vanno]

Relatively little laughs. Everyone felt akward for being turned gay for the duration of the movie.

I thought he pushed too much to get a reaction. Many of the instances people acted exactly how they should.

Well, the theater I was at was roaring, and we are in the Bible-Belt here in Tallahassee (it is also a college town though, which was the majority of the audience.) A couple guys, probably Baptists, did walk out, which makes me wonder if they consider spending their money before doing it (anyone that watched Cohen's HBO series knows Bruno's shtick, and shouldn't be surprised.) I do agree that it was more forced than Borat.

[BladeSLicer]

Well, the theater I was at was roaring, and we are in the Bible-Belt here in Tallahassee (it is also a college town though, which was the majority of the audience.) A couple guys, probably Baptists, did walk out, which makes me wonder if they consider spending their money before doing it (anyone that watched Cohen's HBO series knows Bruno's shtick, and shouldn't be surprised.) I do agree that it was more forced than Borat.

Tallahassee is by no means part of the Bible Belt. That city rivals Las Vegas when it comes to "sinning" in just about every way spare prositution. Prostitution in Tallahassee is free.

[Apex Vertigo]

It had some parts that were hilarious and some that just made you uncomfortable. There is one instance where he literally swings his dick around in a circle and then it points directly at the screen. The swinger part was probably the only part that really got the theatre in an awkward silence, but other than that people seemed to like it.

Didn't see anyone get up and leave and this is definitely part of the bible belt.

[Gunther TheBlack]

Why can't he make fun of the British or something? There's other ignorant people out there!

Hell, it's been far too long since the French were focused on. I thought the world agreed they'd be the target from now on?


Because that would be less funny.

There's also a lot more diversity among the stupid people in the USA, religious nuts(amish, menonites, mormons, born again christians, ...), fat idiots, nationalistic rednecks, white supremasists, blacks, anti-gay movements, peta, etc etc.

You got most of those too in europe, but they are far less outgoing and spoken out so they are harder to track down or to be "trolled".

[Erkki]

I've been to a little over 30 countries in my time (my dad travels constantly and brings me along). I can assure you that every nation seems to have plenty of "ignorant people". In fact, in regards to intelligence itself, it does not seem to vary much depending on where you go, though some countries certainly seem far more educated than others.

Besides, I see plenty of run-on sentences from everyone else! :p

wow 30 countries, you just think their idiots cause all of them wanted to spit on your face faggot american

[Gunther TheBlack]

wow 30 countries, you just think their idiots cause all of them wanted to spit on your face faggot american


French tourists also think the countries they visit are a bunch of retards while in fact it's their fault. They don't speak their language or english, don't know the culture, are cheap, and are very chauvinistic. Frenchies barely leave their country, only 1 out of 10 goes on a holiday outside of France.

It's no wonder french tourists are voted the worst tourists in the world just recently.

American tourists are a LOT better than french tourists. Btw Japanese tourists got voted the best ;)

[Gunther TheBlack]

I've been to a little over 30 countries in my time (my dad travels constantly and brings me along).

He visits whores so he leaves your mom at home?


;)

[Bissen]

Are there any real frenchies on this board? Don't they pretty much try to stay asocial when it comes to the international community?

[Erkki]

He visits whores so he leaves your mom at home?


;)

you think a mother of that thing would have survived this long without committing suicide?

[Strangia]

you think a mother of that thing would have survived this long without committing suicide?

Trolling doesn't work when its not funny.

[Honorius]

Everyone in the countries I have visited have always been incredibly nice to me, and I even look like a cliché fat American. Save for some teenage Spainish tourists I once met in Florence.

[nick larking]

Why can't he make fun of the British or something? There's other ignorant people out there!

Hell, it's been far too long since the French were focused on. I thought the world agreed they'd be the target from now on?

Its either the french or americans.
There are just more americans making them more fun to do.

[Gunther TheBlack]

Are there any real frenchies on this board? Don't they pretty much try to stay asocial when it comes to the international community?

They don't try, they just can't speak english and that's why you almost never see them outside of french language forums.

[BladeSLicer]

French tourists also think the countries they visit are a bunch of retards while in fact it's their fault. They don't speak their language or english, don't know the culture, are cheap, and are very chauvinistic. Frenchies barely leave their country, only 1 out of 10 goes on a holiday outside of France.

It's no wonder french tourists are voted the worst tourists in the world just recently.

American tourists are a LOT better than french tourists. Btw Japanese tourists got voted the best ;)

Haha, that's entirely true! We asked in Egypt, Kenya, and Rwanda last year who were the most irritating tourists, and this list is literally what they all seemed to get at.

-American tourists are fun, tip well, friendly, some can be obnoxious.
-Young British people are about the same as the American description.
-Older British people can be incredibly annoying, complain about comfort and often try to correct their English.
-Germans tend not to tip much but are entirely tolerable.
-French were, universally, the least liked. Few tips, largely don't seem to be enjoying themselves, and complain incessantly. In fact, in Rwanda they suggest to French people that they not actually speak French in public, as the population blames the French for backing the faction responsible for the genocide.

You can ask tour guides virtually anywhere about this, and they all seem to come up with the same descriptions.

But yeah, "intelligence" does not really vary from country to country. Overall level of knowledge does vary, but that depends on what region of the country you are in, and often is not the fault of the citizens living there. Americans, as far as I can tell, are not that much more ignorant than most other countries, but there are definitely regions you can travel to in America where people know literally jack shit about the wider world. Meh, educating such a large population is never easy!

Anyway, you're certainly right about America being an easy place to find the different demographics, especially given that we've got 300 million people (rivaling all of western europe in total population) and our different groups tend to be geographically based and group together. If I wanted to find some Ku Klux, I'd drive north to Birmingham. Cubans? To Miami! Cowboys? Texas!

I can see how America makes movies of this sort quite easy on the producers! :p

[Vanno]

Tallahassee is by no means part of the Bible Belt. That city rivals Las Vegas when it comes to "sinning" in just about every way spare prositution. Prostitution in Tallahassee is free.

You don't know what you are talking about, plain and simple. We don't have as much as a strip club here. The liberal element is more old south Dixiecrat, at best.

[BladeSLicer]

You don't know what you are talking about, plain and simple. We don't have as much as a strip club here. The liberal element is more old south Dixiecrat, at best.

Meh. Given that I only go there to hang out with college friends, I suppose I only see that part of the experience (FSU has more whores, drinking, and drugs than any college I've been to). Then again, it often seems like Talahassee's sole purpose is to support the university.

[Andy__]

Everyone in the countries I have visited have always been incredibly nice to me, and I even look like a cliché fat American. Save for some teenage Spainish tourists I once met in Florence.

What, you are american? my image of you is ruined forever!

[Honorius]

What, you are american? my image of you is ruined forever!

I'm sorry, I try to hide it as best I can.

[Andy__]

You did a good job i thought you were Brittish however thats not a compliment either

[Andy__]

sorry i meant English

[BladeSLicer]

What, you are american? my image of you is ruined forever!

I've been to Greece myself. Your country has one of the most consistantly hot female populations of almost every nation I've been to.

In America you'll find endless "tens" in Florida and California, but if you stray from those states.. there's no guarantee.

[Spankytwo]

Relatively little laughs. Everyone felt akward for being turned gay for the duration of the movie.

I thought he pushed too much to get a reaction. Many of the instances people acted exactly how they should.

Notice how the Republican is insecure about his sexuality.

[Silverhandorder]

Notice how the Republican is insecure about his sexuality.

I loved Borat don't get me wrong.

[heroshade]

Yeah, I just saw it.... My friends and I have agreed not to speak about it.

[Gunther TheBlack]

Yeah, I just saw it.... My friends and I have agreed not to speak about it.

American youth is so insecure about their sexuality ;)

[Gloomrender]

I don't get this theory that being put off or disgusted by homosexuality is being "insecure with your sexuality". If anything preferring heterosexual material over homosexual material is being securely heterosexual...You guys are noting how they're disgusted by highly gay material and saying that makes them gay. This doesn't make any sense. If they were aroused by it would that make them seem less gay to you? Or is being bisexual the only way to be "secure"? Wtf is wrong with you people?

[w0rm]

American youth is so insecure about their sexuality ;)

Noticed the same thing so far.

[gloryhound]

I'm sorry, I try to hide it as best I can.

My view of Honorius was he was from some mystical world, or crazy European county where everyone frequently has massive melee battles all while speaking taru or whatever. You being American is much more disappointing. :(

[Gunther TheBlack]

I don't get this theory that being put off or disgusted by homosexuality is being "insecure with your sexuality". If anything preferring heterosexual material over homosexual material is being securely heterosexual...You guys are noting how they're disgusted by highly gay material and saying that makes them gay. This doesn't make any sense. If they were aroused by it would that make them seem less gay to you? Or is being bisexual the only way to be "secure"? Wtf is wrong with you people?

If you're scared to bring up scenes from a gay movie it reeks like insecurity or the fact that you're scared your peers will consider you gay.


If you're secure with your sexuality you're not bothered by some dude's penis. You don't have to be attracted to it to not be put off by it. It's just a part of the human body. Silly Americans. See, this is exactly why people always make fun of you.

[Wickfield]

STFU about the french. They've won so many wars it isn't even funny. (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html)

Not to mention how courteous, humble, and all-around useful they are to the international community.

[Gloomrender]

If you're scared to bring up scenes from a gay movie it reeks like insecurity or the fact that you're scared your peers will consider you gay.

I don't think you understand the difference between fear and disgust here. You can not want to see gay material out of disgust without being afraid of being sexually assimilated by it.

If you're secure with your sexuality you're not bothered by some dude's penis. You don't have to be attracted to it to not be put off by it. It's just a part of the human body. Silly Americans. See, this is exactly why people always make fun of you.

It's not silly, It's just different cultures at work. The movie I'm sure exaggerates it though. Not all of us who are slightly grossed out by other men's junk are also bigoted towards gay people...we simply just find it personally highly unappealing. Like how Brits find good teeth unappealing and the French find bathing unappealing. Just different cultures :D

[Zimmix]

I've been to Greece myself. Your country has one of the most consistantly hot female populations of almost every nation I've been to.

In America you'll find endless "tens" in Florida and California, but if you stray from those states.. there's no guarantee.

Crete (part of greece) has the most hot females/capita. It's just unbelievable... I thought about staying there forever.
Every single girl there is fucking hot beyond believe (and I thought med. girls didn't attract me, man I was wrong).

[Lotharr]

I don't think you understand the difference between fear and disgust here. You can not want to see gay material out of disgust without being afraid of being sexually assimilated by it.

But does the disgust have its roots in the fear living inside your subconsciousness?

Fear and disgust are very close to each other on the palette of emotions and are often linked in a way or another. Therefore, your argument is void.

[Gloomrender]

But does the disgust have its roots in the fear loathing inside your subconsciousness?

Fear and disgust are very close to each other on the palette of emotions and are often linked. Therefore, your argument is void.

Oh boy we've got an online Freud here. :rolleyes: No, fear and disgust are not the same thing at all. These people aren't afraid of the little gay man raping them, they're just a little grossed out when he whips his fucking junk out and twirls it around in the air.

[Lotharr]

Oh boy we've got an online Freud here. :rolleyes:

Heh, it's called provoking.

No, fear and disgust are not the same thing at all. These people aren't afraid of the little gay man raping them, they're just a little grossed out when he whips his fucking junk out and twirls it around in the air.

The way you always blow the other side's argument out of its original proportions in order to make it look somehow invalid is great. Sure, they aren't afraid of gay men raping them. That's fucking silly. That's not exactly what a "fear living in the subconsciousness" might be.

Fear and disgust are indeed not at all the same thing. I never said that. That, however, does not mean that they couldn't be often linked to each other.

[Gloomrender]

Heh, it's called provoking.



The way you always blow the other side's argument out of its original proportions is great. Sure, they aren't afraid of the gay men raping them. That's fucking silly.

It's just as fucking silly as being grossed out = automatically and unequivocally being sexually insecure.

That's not exactly what a "fear living in the subconsciousness" might be.

No kidding.

Fear and disgust are indeed not the same thing at all. That, however, does not mean that they couldn't be often linked to each other.

They aren't necessarily in this case.

[Lotharr]

It's just as fucking silly as being grossed out = automatically and unequivocally being sexually insecure.

Hahah. You did it! Again! I've never said that, either.

No kidding.

I agree. In this case, shouldn't you give me a new answer with in a more serious tone?

Sarcastic answers often end up being pretty vague and uninformative.

They aren't necessarily in this case.

Somewhere, somehow, because of something, the disgust is generated. Fear sounds like the most reasonable and probably the most occasional option.

I don't know. Do you have a proposition? It's not like the disgust would be just magically evolving out of the blue.

[Gloomrender]

Hahah. You did it! Again! I've never said that, either.

Yeah you did... :

Fear and disgust are very close to each other on the palette of emotions and are often linked in a way or another. Therefore, your argument is void.

My argument is not void it is true in many if not most cases.

I agree. In this case, shouldn't you give me a new answer with in a more serious tone?

Sarcastic answers often end up being pretty vague and uninformative.

Because your fear in living subconsciousness mostly doesn't apply to this either.



Somewhere, somehow, because of something, the disgust is generated. Fear sounds like the most reasonable and probably the most occasional option. I don't know. Do you have a proposition?

Alternately it's generated by being repulsed by what would be, in contrast to the gay man's tastes, very unappealing and undesirable for the straight man's tastes. Like how some people would not want to eat raw fish, or non-kosher food, etc.

[Lotharr]

Yeah you did...

Show me!

My argument is not void it is true in many if not most cases.

Because your fear in living subconsciousness mostly doesn't apply to this either.

Awesome, even more vagueness.

Alternately it's generated by being repulsed by what would be, in contrast to the gay man's tastes, very unappealing and undesirable for the straight man's tastes. Like how some people would not want to eat raw fish, or non-kosher food, etc.

All of the alternative items you offered for examples could be linked to a bit of the same category. They could be linked to fear just as well.

All of your "tastes" are linked to something in your subconscious, obviously. You're discussing about an entirely different matter.

[Kietharr]

I'm going to interject here and state that gloomrender is incorrect simply due to the fact that he is gloomrender.

Infallible logic.

[Gloomrender]

Show me!

I did with that quote.



Awesome, even more vagueness.

I was clear. I said that theory doesn't always apply.


All of the alternative items you offered for examples could be linked to a bit of the same category. They could be linked to fear just as well.

They aren't in any way linked to sexual insecurity.


All of your "tastes" are linked to something in your subconscious, obviously. You're discussing about an entirely different matter.

No, I'm not. Sex is similar in the brain to eating food, especially for males. It's a simple matter of tastes, nothing more. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.

[Gloomrender]

I'm going to interject here and state that gloomrender is incorrect simply due to the fact that he is gloomrender.

Infallible logic.

I joined a few days before you so your statements are invalid.

[Lotharr]

Sorry, was off for a bit. I'm back now!

I did with that quote.

I see. That did not equal to what you proposed as something I'd said, though.

I was clear. I said that theory doesn't always apply.

You were clear about what you've already said, which was vague in the first place. That creates even more vagueness. You act like a god damn politician in trouble.

They aren't in any way linked to sexual insecurity.

What? That has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter what is the item we're applying the theory on, they can all be linked to it through just being items which all can be applied to the theory.

No, I'm not. Sex is similar in the brain to eating food, especially for males. It's a simple matter of tastes, nothing more. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.

That's not hard to understand. However, you're still off the tracks. The example you gave has to do with feelings, not tastes. Those are definitely two different entities.

Let me give you a simple example: You hate driving cars. You hate driving cars because of something. (This is the matter which you keep discussing about.)

You hate driving cars because you think that they are scary. You think that they are scary because of something. (This is the matter which I'm trying to discuss about.)

[Gloomrender]

Sorry, was off for a bit. I'm back now!



I see. That did not equal to what you proposed as something I'd said, though.

Yes, it did, as my argument is not void.


You were clear about what you've already said, which was vague in the first place. That creates even more vagueness. You act like a god damn politician in trouble.

Don't be retarded now. I was specific in stating through example that in most cases these men are not sexually insecurely afraid.


What? That has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter what is the item we're applying the theory on, they can all be linked to it through just being items which all can be applied to the theory.

It has everything to do with it because the theory doesn't apply to those items the same way it doesn't apply to these men.





That's not hard to understand. That's a true and clear statement. However, you're still off the tracks. It's a matter of tastes, yes. However, those tastes lead from something in your brains.

Let me give you a simple example: You hate driving cars. You hate driving cars because of something. (This is the matter which you keep discussing about.)

You hate driving cars because you think that they are scary. You think that they are scary because of something. (This is the matter which I'm trying to discuss about.)

Your analogy is biased and flawed because you're using the specified fear fallacy again. You're simply assuming from nothing that this is based solely on the fear of finding something appealing. So you construct it as fear being the reason. Fear isn't the reason, tastes is. That's why my analogy is appropriate. There's no fear of having homosexual sex or being interested in homosexual sex, because the person knows this will not happen; because he has no desire or will to do either. He simply doesn't want to do it or view that kind of material because of his established tastes. Like you know that you don't like cookie monster metal so you don't ever want to fucking listen to it.

[Fro]

Why can't he make fun of the British or something? There's other ignorant people out there!

Hell, it's been far too long since the French were focused on. I thought the world agreed they'd be the target from now on?

Because the % of ignorance in america relative to population is much higher than any other country in the world (no i did not just pull that out of my arse)therefor you get guaranteed gold material from the USA.

[Silverhandorder]

I could care less to see a borat meat spin. Does not mean I am going to enjoy it and then go and join a conversation about some girly man spinning his junk.

Lothar you are a fucking moron, it is obviously clear to anyone in this thread.

Because the % of ignorance in america relative to population is much higher than any other country in the world (no i did not just pull that out of my arse)therefor you get guaranteed gold material from the USA.

When the rest of the world look at you with a telescope and tastes your shit in order to know what you ate obviously it will look like we have more ignorance.

[Lotharr]

Yes, it did, as my argument is not void.

Let me show you:

Fear and disgust are very close to each other on the palette of emotions and are often linked in a way or another. Therefore, your argument is void.

Equals the following in your mind.

being grossed out = automatically and unequivocally being sexually insecure.

No.

Don't be retarded now. I was specific in stating through example that in most cases these men are not sexually insecurely afraid.

You call the example specific? Oh, wow.

It has everything to do with it because the theory doesn't apply to those items the same way it doesn't apply to these men.

Do elaborate.

Your analogy is biased and flawed because you're using the specified fear fallacy again.

I'm just using the specified fear fallacy, because I'm assuming that you'd undestand that the same thing can be applied for a broad range of tastes. It doesn't need to be only fear.

You're simply assuming from nothing that this is based solely on the fear of finding something appealing. So you construct it as fear being the reason. Fear isn't the reason, tastes is. That's why my analogy is appropriate. There's no fear of having homosexual sex or being interested in homosexual sex, because the person knows this will not happen because he has no desire or will to do either. He simply doesn't want to do it or view that kind of material because of his established tastes.

Now you're starting to get on the right tracks! I'm not promptly saying that it's fear the only thing where it is leading from. We just got stuck there. I even asked you for a better proposition.

It doesn't have to be a fear of having homosexual contact. That's honestly just naive. It can be a fear of your peers disapproval or a fear of breaking a social taboo. It can be whatever, really. It varies from person to person, like everything.

The established tastes lead from something. That's what I've been trying to get at.

Where do the established tastes lead from? To you, obviously, they lead from being grossed out by something. What is it that leads you to being grossed out?

If you answer that they lead from having such tastes, that only creates a fucking paradox, in case you haven't already noticed it. Such tastes lead from something.

[Lotharr]

Lothar you are a fucking moron, it is obviously clear to anyone in this thread.

Why so? Good job spelling my name right, too. It's such a hard one, after all.

[heroshade]

American youth is so insecure about their sexuality ;)

You're right..... Disliking of cocks flying around in your face is totally queer.

[Gloomrender]

Let me show you:



Equals the following in your mind.



No.

Yes? What the fuck does "void" mean to you exactly? Does it mean "with exceptions"?



You call the example specific? Oh, wow.

Yeah it was. It illustrated how fear is not a factor in this.



Do elaborate.

I did in the next quote and response from that post.

I'm just using the specified fear fallacy, because I'm assuming that you'd undestand that the same thing can be applied for a broad range of tastes. It doesn't need to be only fear.

That doesn't make any sense. Your whole theory is that disgust=fear=sexual insecurity, which is bullshit. It's tastes.




Now you're starting to get on the right tracks! I'm not promptly saying that it's fear the only thing where it is leading from. We just got stuck there. I even asked you for a better proposition.

It doesn't have to be a fear of having homosexual contact. That's honestly just naive. It can be a fear of your peers disapproval or a fear of breaking a social taboo. It can be whatever, really. It varies from person to person, like everything.


As I said, It's not fear at all. It's not any kind of fear. It's established tastes (in the cases where there is no sexual insecurity but disgust).






The established tastes lead from something. That's what I've been trying to get at.

Where do the established tastes lead from? To you, obviously, they lead from being grossed out by something. What is it that leads you to being grossed out?

If you answer that they lead from having such tastes, that only creates a fucking paradox, in case you haven't already noticed it. Such tastes lead from something.

Well asking this is like asking why anyone has any kind of sexual preference at all. Why hetero men are not into penises and gays are. It's kind of a hardwired thing that is determined by genetics and perhaps social upbringing too to some extent. You might as well harass the gay man with why he is gay. But I suspect you wouldn't, as that isn't as socially acceptable and trendy nowadays as giving heterosexual men shit for their preferences for no good reason.

[Gunther TheBlack]

I think Gloomrender is stepping out of the closet!

[Vanno]

This thread got popcorn worthy pretty quickly; I applaud Lotharr's inability to construct a sentient thought. I dislike squash because I fear the gourd; apparently, it might turn me into a pumpkin.

[Lotharr]

Yes? What the fuck does "void" mean to you exactly? Does it mean "with exceptions"?

No, it doesn't. I was just pointing out, that fear and disgust don't equal sexual insecurity with no exceptions.

Yeah it was. It illustrated how fear is not a factor in this.

Illustrating it with quite a naive example, which was not exactly correct. I already stated that in my last post.

I did in the next quote and response from that post.

Why would it this preference apply in a different way than another preference?

That doesn't make any sense. Your whole theory is that disgust=fear=sexual insecurity, which is bullshit. It's tastes.

Eh, that's not the "theory". It's indeed the fucking tastes. I'm just trying to talk what leads to those tastes.

As I said, It's not fear at all. It's not any kind of fear. It's established tastes (in the cases where there is no sexual insecurity but disgust).

Your entire argument is relying on the fact that everything unravels to sexual insecurity in the end. It's not fear at all which you are feeling. I'm talking about the things which lead to the feelings.

Well asking this is like asking why anyone has any kind of sexual preference at all. Why hetero men are not into penises and gays are. It's kind of a hardwired thing that is determined by genetics and perhaps social upbringing too to some extent. You might as well harass the gay man with why he is gay. But I suspect you wouldn't, as that isn't as socially acceptable and trendy as giving heterosexual men shit for their preferences for no good reason.

I'm not giving you shit in any way. You're the one doing it. Heh.

I would assume that most gay men would not be disgusted for seeing womens sexual organs, because it is not the gender of their sexual interest. If they did, I would question it.

I do see your point in some cases, though. I agree with you about the genetics and social upbringing.

[Silverhandorder]

This thread got popcorn worthy pretty quickly; I applaud Lotharr's inability to construct a sentient thought. I dislike squash because I fear the gourd; apparently, it might turn me into a pumpkin.

Brilliant!

[Wickfield]

missed this one.

oh well, I was busy reading trainspotting.

[Lotharr]

This thread got popcorn worthy pretty quickly; I applaud Lotharr's inability to construct a sentient thought. I dislike squash because I fear the gourd; apparently, it might turn me into a pumpkin.

I approve of your applaud.

However, it would be very kind of you to read what I've written with a bit more care. It just might start making sense to you afterwards.

Here is what I'm trying to say in a nutshell:

I would assume that most gay men would not be disgusted for seeing womens sexual organs, because it is not the gender of their sexual interest. If they did, I would question it.

Do you get it now?

[Lotharr]

Brilliant!

I'm still awaiting your answer.

[Gloomrender]

I think Gloomrender is stepping out of the closet!

Weak troll is weak.

I think It's evident that you "men" that are just fine with dicks in your face are the bi-curious/closet types.

I'm not a homophobic bigot afraid of or hating the gays. I tolerate homosexuality just fine, but I cross the line at viewing material meant for gay people. Why you people think that's gay makes no fucking sense.

You're all obviously just following the anti-homophobic movement which is trendy and indiscriminately calling people closet gays, because you think It's cool. I've got news, you're all lame and you're unfairly attacking people who aren't bigoted towards gay people, just because they're straight. You're just as bad as the gay-haters you're on a witch hunt for.

[Gunther TheBlack]

I think It's evident that you "men" that are just fine with dicks in your face are the bi-curious/closet types.

I'm not a homophobic bigot afraid of or hating the gays. I tolerate homosexuality just fine, but I cross the line at viewing material meant for gay people. Why you people think that's gay makes no fucking sense.

Your all obviously just following the anti-homophobic movement which is trendy and indiscriminately calling people closet gays, because you think It's cool. I've got news, you're all lame and you're unfairly attacking people who aren't bigoted towards gay people, just because they're straight. You're just as bad as the gay-haters you're on a witch hunt for.

When there is smoke, there is fire, Gloomy.

You're campaign against this Bruno film certainly shows that you have to hide something. Either you're a homophobe or you're trying to hide your sexual preference by creating a smoke curtain with all this anti-homophobe accusations towards people that got np to talk about this movie.

[Silverhandorder]

When there is smoke, there is fire, Gloomy.

You're campaign against this Bruno film certainly shows that you have to hide something. Either you're a homophobe or you're trying to hide your sexual preference by creating a smoke curtain with all this anti-homophobe accusations towards people that got np to talk about this movie.

You have a very broad definition of homophobia.

[Zimmix]

Weak troll is weak.

I think It's evident that you "men" that are just fine with dicks in your face are the bi-curious/closet types.

I'm not a homophobic bigot afraid of or hating the gays. I tolerate homosexuality just fine, but I cross the line at viewing material meant for gay people. Why you people think that's gay makes no fucking sense.

You're all obviously just following the anti-homophobic movement which is trendy and indiscriminately calling people closet gays, because you think It's cool. I've got news, you're all lame and you're unfairly attacking people who aren't bigoted towards gay people, just because they're straight. You're just as bad as the gay-haters you're on a witch hunt for.

You're obviously gay.

[Lotharr]

I think It's evident that you "men" that are just fine with dicks in your face are the bi-curious/closet types.

Blowing everything out of proportions, as usual.

First of all, I have not seen Bruno. Maybe I should've seen it before getting into the debate.

Anyway, it's a movie shown in ordinary theatres. If you're honestly grossed by some of the material shown when it comes to human organs, I am led to believe that you're overreacting quite a bit and trying to defy something with such a reaction.

This was the original reason why I even provoked you into a debate.

Also, like I've already said:

I would assume that most gay men would not be disgusted for seeing womens sexual organs, because it is not the gender of their sexual interest. If they did, I would question it.

I can't emphasize that enough. It's not about "being trendy". It's about being neutral.

[Gunther TheBlack]

You have a very broad definition of homophobia.

It's all in the details.

[Lotharr]

You have a very broad definition of homophobia.

I am still awaiting on your answer.

+1

[Spankytwo]

I am still awaiting on your answer.

+1

Homophobia would be the phobia of homos, i do believe.

[Lotharr]

Homophobia would be the phobia of homos, i do believe.

I'm awaiting for an answer on another matter from him. It has nothing to do with the post I quoted.

Also, I'm awaiting on Vanno's reply on whether he grasped my point or not!

[Kietharr]

I joined a few days before you so your statements are invalid.

I'm Kietharr, not Gloomrender, therefore I at least have a chance of being correct. Being Gloomrender, you are always incorrect. Please admit that I have you intellectually checkmated and quit posting.

[Silverhandorder]

I am still awaiting on your answer.

+1

I rather not explain it since both Vanno and Gloomrender done a good job doing that.

[Gloomrender]

No, it doesn't. I was just pointing out, that fear and disgust don't equal sexual insecurity with no exceptions.

Are we speaking the same language still? You're not making any sense. You said this: "Fear and disgust are very close to each other on the palette of emotions and are often linked in a way or another. Therefore, your argument is void."

You say that fear and disgust are so closely related that my argument that you can have disgust without fear "is void". That's basically the complete opposite of what you just said quoted that "fear and disgust don't equal sexual insecurity, with no exceptions". So I don't know what the fuck you're thinking at this point, but I know I'm right and you're wrong.

Illustrating it with quite a naive example, which was not exactly correct. I already stated that in my last post.

Whatever, prick, if I didn't do it well enough with that example, which is correct in premise anyway, I did later on.


Why would it this preference apply in a different way than another preference?

Do I really have to say this all again for you? Can you not fucking remember?

Fear isn't the reason, tastes is. That's why my analogy is appropriate. There's no fear of having homosexual sex or being interested in homosexual sex, because the person knows this will not happen; because he has no desire or will to do either. He simply doesn't want to do it or view that kind of material because of his established tastes. Like you know that you don't like cookie monster metal so you don't ever want to fucking listen to it.



Eh, that's not the "theory". It's indeed the fucking tastes. I'm just trying to talk what leads to those tastes.

Yeah, that is the theory. All of the circumstances you mention regarding heterosexual insecurity involve fear of some kind. And I've proven that there is in fact no fear involved with many if not most of those who find gay porn material distasteful.



Your entire argument is relying on the fact that everything unravels to sexual insecurity in the end.

And you base this on absolutely NOTHING. You're fucking dense. It's simple. It boils down to not having taste in homoerotic material. Nothing else. Just like not having taste in cookie monster metal or spam sandwiches.

It's not fear at all which you are feeling. I'm talking about the things which lead to the feelings.

Your caught in your own feedback loop of failed attempted Freudian mechanics that doesn't make any sense in reality.



I'm not giving you shit in any way. You're the one doing it. Heh.

You and those with your kind of mentality do give hetero men shit unnecessarily these days. This thread is evidence for that.


I would assume that most gay men would not be disgusted for seeing womens sexual organs, because it is not the gender of their sexual interest. If they did, I would question it.

If they were forced into watching lesbian porn, I doubt they would enjoy it.

I do see your point in some cases, though. I agree with you about the genetics and social upbringing.

You know I'm right then.

[Gloomrender]

I'm Kietharr, not Gloomrender, therefore I at least have a chance of being correct. Being Gloomrender, you are always incorrect. Please admit that I have you intellectually checkmated and quit posting.

Sorry all statements you made signing up after me are rendered void by forumfall law and are inadmissible.

[Gloomrender]

You're obviously gay.

Coming from the French. But I guess to a French man sucking a dick is being heterosexual.

[Gloomrender]

When there is smoke, there is fire, Gloomy.

You're campaign against this Bruno film certainly shows that you have to hide something.

lol, first off, I'm not in a campaign against this movie. More power to Sacha Cohen as far as I'm concerned. I'm just defending the straight men who didn't have a taste for the gay material in the movie. They're not necessarily bad people for not liking it. That's all I've been trying to convey.

Furthermore, sure, I'm really "hiding something" by going into extreme detail into my own views on sexuality in front of hundreds/thousands of people.

Either you're a homophobe

I'm not a homophobe at all. I've already stated this. I don't mind gay people nor do I have any ill will towards them. I just don't have an interest in gay pornography. That makes me straight, not gay, you idiot. Your xenophobic/popular-culture based bullshit assumptions about me are all wrong. You Euros try so hard to act enlightened, but as others have noted you can be just as stereotyping and ignorant.

PS: Taking a break from crushing you unrealistic twats. I'll be back later.

[xpiher]

Heh... this guy has some balls to do the things he does. Pretty much on the same level as borat with stunts etc (possibly turned it up a little bit with this one - omg, i thought that terrorist was gonna kill him and his camera man!)

but yea, the highlight of the movie was again the ignorance of the "real" people involved (mostly us americans).

Funny thing this isn't anything new. Borat and slew of other characters originated in the Al Gi show. Funny stuff pretty much on the same level.

[Zimmix]

Coming from the French. But I guess to a French man sucking a dick is being heterosexual.

No one mentioned sucking a dick... but I guess you were imagining yourself sucking some ones dick and now you are trying to hide you ever have these thoughts by saying this.

[heroshade]

No one mentioned sucking a dick... but I guess you were imagining yourself sucking some ones dick and now you are trying to hide you ever have these thoughts by saying this.

Not a creative one are we?

[Vanno]

I'm awaiting for an answer on another matter from him. It has nothing to do with the post I quoted.

Also, I'm awaiting on Vanno's reply on whether he grasped my point or not!

It was a stupid point and a red herring (Bruno's homosexual content was not relegated to a mere penis shot,) but I will humor you anyway. My friend Shawn has told me on many occasions that he finds vaginas to be ugly, and I doubt he would find a dancing vagina that quiffs the name, "Brunette." tasteful. To be honest, you don't really have to be gay, straight, male, or female to find something to scrutinize about this movie.

[Jebsta16]

yea, it was pretty anti-climactic.

they had to cut the real ending from what i hear.

[Lotharr]

I rather not explain it since both Vanno and Gloomrender done a good job doing that.

Vanno's argument was, that none of the things what I talked about would be linked to each other, which is pretty much bullshit.

Gloomrender's argument is that the theory, which I proposed, would not always be appliable. This is true. However, I've never said that fear is the absolute and only thing it may lead from. It's not.

Gloomrender is also completely failing to understand that with fear I do not mean a concrete fear of gay people etcetera.

I can't believe how hard this can be for you to understand. It's obvious that the feeling leads from something in the subconscious. What you seem to be telling me that disgust is just a feeling that just magically appears in the the brain, with no origin whatsoever. That's pointless.

Any wishes to amend this text? If you have a response, this is the point where you should give it.

[Strangia]

Is it weird that I don't think that Bruno borders on gay porn? Because, you know, it wasn't actually that porn-like?

[Lotharr]

Are we speaking the same language still? You're not making any sense. You said this: "Fear and disgust are very close to each other on the palette of emotions and are often linked in a way or another. Therefore, your argument is void."

You say that fear and disgust are so closely related that my argument that you can have disgust without fear "is void". That's basically the complete opposite of what you just said quoted that "fear and disgust don't equal sexual insecurity, with no exceptions". So I don't know what the fuck you're thinking at this point, but I know I'm right and you're wrong.

Have I ever mentioned, that these would be linked to sexual insecurity? You're just making accusations. The argument is void, because you pretty much thought that you would have to promptly feel fear in order to have it somewhere in your brain at the moment.

That's the point which you still haven't gotten, I guess. Subconscious is different from the conscious.

Whatever, prick, if I didn't do it well enough with that example, which is correct in premise anyway, I did later on.

Actually, no. I don't care how sarcastic an example is, if it's actually informative. Sarcasm often only makes it better. In this case, though, it was not at all on the spot. That's where your example failed.

Do I really have to say this all again for you? Can you not fucking remember?

I can, but it was false from the start.

Yeah, that is the theory. All of the circumstances you mention regarding heterosexual insecurity involve fear of some kind. And I've proven that there is in fact no fear involved with many if not most of those who find gay porn material distasteful.

Eh, no. Do you remember? I even asked you for better propositions than fear. A few times, actually. It doesn't have to be fear. You just ignored that part completely. The theory is that such taste obviously leads from something.

And you base this on absolutely NOTHING. You're fucking dense. It's simple. It boils down to not having taste in homoerotic material. Nothing else. Just like not having taste in cookie monster metal or spam sandwiches.

Not having taste in and being disgusted by something are pretty much different.

Also, I don't know extreme this "homoerotic material" you are talking about is. However, I'm quite sure that it's pretty mild, as it's shown in ordinary theatres.

Your caught in your own feedback loop of failed attempted Freudian mechanics that doesn't make any sense in reality.

I've already pretty much cleared this up. It doesn't fucking have to be fear. What I am trying to say is that the feeling of disgust leads from something. You could replace the fear with "something", does that make it easier for you to understand?

How many times do I need to repeat that for you?

You and those with your kind of mentality do give hetero men shit unnecessarily these days. This thread is evidence for that.

Hahah. What the hell? I'm not giving you shit. You're now just repeating yourself. I'm questioning you.

If they were forced into watching lesbian porn, I doubt they would enjoy it.

"Not enjoying" and being disgusted by are far different things. Also, we're not discussing porn here. That's quite extreme. We're discussing a supposedly comedy film, shown in ordinary theatres, which you are disgusted of.

You know I'm right then.

You're right about some points. I've never even disagreed about those points. We're not even talking about that. Those points are what lead to that "something".

This is fucking stupid, because you obviously feel that I'm somehow attacking you and you keep answering in a fully defensive way. Let's just drop this mess of quotes. Now, tell me which point is still unclear to you?

[Lotharr]

lol, first off, I'm not in a campaign against this movie. More power to Sacha Cohen as far as I'm concerned. I'm just defending the straight men who didn't have a taste for the gay material in the movie. They're not necessarily bad people for not liking it. That's all I've been trying to convey.

Furthermore, sure, I'm really "hiding something" by going into extreme detail into my own views on sexuality in front of hundreds/thousands of people.



I'm not a homophobe at all. I've already stated this. I don't mind gay people nor do I have any ill will towards them. I just don't have an interest in gay pornography. That makes me straight, not gay, you idiot. Your xenophobic/popular-culture based bullshit assumptions about me are all wrong. You Euros try so hard to act enlightened, but as others have noted you can be just as stereotyping and ignorant.

Like I've said, "not having a taste for" and "being disgusted by" are pretty much completely different things.

If your "disgusted" means "not having a taste for", that's quite a reach. In that case, all of the arguments you wrote to me would make more sense.

Quite a change in the tone of your voice, however. The thing is, that origin of the whole argument with me is about you being disgusted by the material.

[Zurk]

Gloomrender, I suggest you chop off your penis since you're so "disgusted" by them by the way.

[Vanno]

Hilarious how you initially postulate this,

But does the disgust have its roots in the fear living inside your subconsciousness?

Fear and disgust are very close to each other on the palette of emotions and are often linked in a way or another.

To this


that the feeling leads from something in the subconscious.

What you seem to be telling me that disgust is just a feeling that just magically appears in the the brain, with no origin whatsoever. That's pointless.



And even begin to think you didn't completely derail your own argument, is unbelievable. You first postulate a driving factor, fear, for a subconscious reaction, disgust/aversion. When it is shown that the link is, at best tenuous, you simply assert that feelings lead from something in the subconscious. This assertion is, of course, redundant to the point of uselessness. Obviously one doesn't see something homosexual and think "I'm straight, and this is gay therefore I have an aversion to this." The subconscious, and possibly instinct, is at work here.

Honestly, you should give it a rest. All you've done in this entire thread is show you could beat Armstrong in a bike race with the backpeddling Gloom made you do in this thread.

[Honest Bill]

You're all latent homosexuals.

[Gunther TheBlack]

I'm not a homophobe at all. I've already stated this. I don't mind gay people nor do I have any ill will towards them.


I always thought you were gay.

:eek:

[Lotharr]

And even begin to think you didn't completely derail your own argument, is unbelievable. You first postulate a driving factor, fear, for a subconscious reaction, disgust/aversion. When it is shown that the link is, at best tenuous, you simply assert that feelings lead from something in the subconscious. This assertion is, of course, redundant to the point of uselessness. Obviously one doesn't see something homosexual and think "I'm straight, and this is gay therefore I have an aversion to this." The subconscious, and possibly instinct, is at work here.

I've stayed true to my initial assertion for the whole thread. I never said that fear would definitely and absolutely be the cause. I only proposed that it could be. I soon even asked for a better proposition from Gloomrender, which he completely ignored.

On the other hand, Gloomrender went from being disgusted by the gay material in the movie to "not having a taste" for the gay material in the movie. What would you call that? You know, not having a taste for something and being disgusted by something are different things. The whole argument between me and Gloomrender was started off the fact that he was disgusted by the gay material in the movie.

Anyway, fear isn't the driving factor. Heh. That's very different from my point. My point is, that disgust is the driving factor and that it is created by something in your subconscious. You most likely couldn't tell what the feeling inside your subconscious is, hence arguing about this part with no further research on the origins is quite useless indeed.

Obviously, the fear (or any other subconscious feeling) would have an origin, too. Whether it's your social peers, the media or so. The list could go on forever. That's different from the statement I made about dislikes magically popping into your head. In this case, the origin for the subconscious feeling is not important for the point I'm trying to bring out and I thought this would be obvious to anyone willing to participate in this discussion. This is the reason I didn't even bother to mention it.

If it would be caused by an instinct, it would probably not make you exactly disgusted by something that can be showed in an ordinary theatre, with the original intention of humoring people. The instinct would most likely be appliable to more explicit material only.

Due to this, I was led to believe, that the person who would be truly disgusted by something like a scene in a comedy film made for mainstream distribution is most likely overreacting for the sake of showing his peers that he definitely is not "one of those". Whether doing it consciously or not-so-consciously. I think I need to clarify, that this is not the only possible option for such an overreaction, but an example.

The fear could originate from the old so called "ethics" the church has planted quite deep into the western society. The church was strictly against homosexuality and cursed it, especially in the medieval age. This is not the case in the modern law these days. It's not a long time since homosexuality got un-banned, anyway. This kind of a biased law and ethics system has left its marks on people. It could be called a cultural leftover.

If it's not you who has lived during the ages it was still forbidden, either socially or even by a concrete law, then it's your parents who've grown up in this environment. Hence, you've grown up around it being such a humongous taboo. There's no reason to deny it for the sake of an argument. It's known that the human race doesn't adjust itself very quickly into new settings.

I'm an agnostic atheist myself, but I don't try to deny the fact that the church has planted some views into us. Even if you are an atheist, the community around you and your growth has still been somewhat moulded by what the church has set as their "moral values". Especially in America, the church still has one of the strongest presences than in any of the other today's western countries.

On the other hand, think of how the Greeks and Romans acted only a bit before the christian church was formed into such a huge organization.

Just offering some food for thought. What's your take?

Honestly, you should give it a rest. All you've done in this entire thread is show you could beat Armstrong in a bike race with the backpeddling Gloom made you do in this thread.

You love stroking Gloomrender's e-peen, don't you? Quite ironic, to be honest.

[Lotharr]

@Gloomrender: Prove me wrong after you come off your hiatus. Based on the post above and this post right here. I didn't believe I'd have to explain it all in such detail until it even becomes relevant. The reason I found it hard to even debate the matter with you, is because your replies were fully off-topic. I'll give this conversation a fresh start and try to explain everything as throughoutly to you as I can.

The same theory I've talker about earlier can be indeed applied to the "tastes" with food examples. If a person is disgusted of raw fish, they can be unconsciously afraid of it being unclean, therefore creating the sense.

It can be, that the person himself wouldn't recognize what has caused such a reaction and just say that it's a simple matter of tastes. Only an incredibly thick person would keep saying that it's just a matter of taste and not even consider another option when it's offered to him.

An actual taste in something is not just being into something. In this case, you would not eat raw fish because you have tasted it and do not like the taste. This is a matter of taste. However, you wouldn't have to feel disgust when you see raw fish. Getting disgusted by raw fish would have a reasoning behind it.

A taste is a dislike or a sense of something you like. Disgust is a different sense than taste. Those are two different things.

While some find wisdom in adhering to one's feelings of disgust, some scientists have asserted that "reactions of disgust are often built upon prejudices that should be challenged and rebutted."

What about this?

Wilson links shame to disgust primarily as a consequence rooted in self-consciousness. Referring to a passage in Doris Lessing’s The Golden Notebook, Wilson writes that “. . . the dance between disgust and shame takes place. A slow choreography unfolds before the mind’s-eye.”

Or this?

[doomahx]

nothing is funnier then watching a bunch of "adults" react to a penis, a simple part of the human body.

Like a bunch of little girls reacting to a spider.

[Strangia]

nothing is funnier then watching a bunch of "adults" react to a penis, a simple part of the human body.

Like a bunch of little girls reacting to a spider.

But I'm repulsed by the thing hanging between my legs, as all heterosexual males should be.

[doomahx]

But I'm repulsed by the thing hanging between my legs, as all heterosexual males should be.

qUICK! CUT IT OFF!

[Lotharr]

nothing is funnier then watching a bunch of "adults" react to a penis, a simple part of the human body.

Like a bunch of little girls reacting to a spider.

I approve of this message.

Also, this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhP0tOm6yt0). Fucking old, but great nonetheless.

[Vanno]

You love stroking Gloomrender's e-peen, don't you? Quite ironic, to be honest.

Yep, I love it.

And yes, it is quite ironic that you degenerate into the inane "you are a ***" mantra that has been a trend throughout this entire thread. It is ironic when your armchair Freudian theorizing is essentially thinly veiled "your a ***" (or is it homophobe) banality. Your interpretation of Gloomrender is completely wrong, he was merely pointing out that personal tastes help decide what we have aversions (disgusts/repulsions) and attraction towards.

Being hetero, having an attraction of opposite sex, is going to be driving factor in whether or not a homosexual act is found repulsive.

If it would be caused by an instinct, it would probably not make you exactly disgusted by something that can be showed in an ordinary theatre, with the original intention of humoring people. The instinct would most likely be appliable to more explicit material only.

What are you even saying here? That instincts can't be triggered by non-X rated films? Something has to be explicit to trigger an instinct? Furthermore, you are making that case that these reactions are subconscious but are bringing in intentions of the film director. Why would things like the intention of a film director even be considered at the subconscious level?

Besides all that, you are missing the entire point I was making, that instincts play a large part in human actions, as well as forming the subconscious. If one's instinct is to mate with the opposite sex, they are more likely to find homosexuality repulsing. The instinctual tendency of a hetero male is to look away from an erect dancing penis, not to look at it or find it funny. Besides, that the only questionable material was exposure of male genitalia is a complete lie, and focusing entirely on that one scene isn't particularly productive.


The fear could originate from the old so called "ethics" the church has planted quite deep into the western society. The church was strictly against homosexuality and cursed it, especially in the medieval age. This is not the case in the modern law these days. It's not a long time since homosexuality got un-banned, anyway. This kind of a biased law and ethics system has left its marks on people. It could be called a cultural leftover.

You clearly have an axe to grind here. After going out of the way to declare that you don't think fear of homosexuality, or being considered homosexual is the only possibility, you assume that it is a factor, and postulate reasons for where the fear might come from. Not surprisingly, it is the old church doctrine argument.

If it's not you who has lived during the ages it was still forbidden, either socially or even by a concrete law, then it's your parents who've grown up in this environment. Hence, you've grown up around it being such a humongous taboo.

So now you can postulate around my upbringing and my parents upbringing? You get to make blanket assertions and call them facts?

My dad is in his 70s, and grew up in North Hollywood, which was as liberal then as any typical modern college campus. His parents were both atheists, and had no love for any church. They knew plenty of gay people, had gay relatives, and loved them all the same. My dad, like his parents is also atheist, but his brother was a high ranking LDS member. Go figure.

I focus primarily on my father because was obviously the male authority figure/example of my life, but mostly for brevity. My mother is basically a new-age spiritualist hippie type. I was raised in an incredibly open household, certainly one open to homosexuality. Likewise, I'm atheist, have gay friends and relatives, but still found many of the scenes distasteful.

There's no reason to deny it for the sake of an argument. It's known that the human race doesn't adjust itself very quickly into new settings.

Again calling broad assertions as facts with no evidence to corroborate the assertion. If anything, the history of human race shows continuous and constant adaptation and changing social norms.Likewise, the new settings aren't some exogenous variable exerted on humans, but an endogenous result of multiple interactions. The way Greeks and Romans, Gauls, Celts, behaved before Catholicism supports my view, not yours. The spread of the Catholic religion and assimilation by dominated cultures was meteoric. The schisms, politics, and doctrinal disputes could take a lifetime to study.

All things considered, your argument is just sad. There is no real reason to believe anyone that had an aversion to some of the material in Bruno, was afraid, has some unexplored repressed psychological issue, is ashamed of himself/herself. There is all the reason to believe having tastes and simply not being gay are far bigger motivators.

[Vanno]

nothing is funnier then watching a bunch of "adults" react to a penis, a simple part of the human body.

Like a bunch of little girls reacting to a spider.

So, if some random walked up and showed you his grund, you'd be completely apathetic?

[gloryhound]

So, if some random walked up and showed you his grund, you'd be completely apathetic?

Oh he wouldn't be apathetic, if you catch my drift.


Which I think you do.

[Vanno]

Oh he wouldn't be apathetic, if you catch my drift.


Which I think you do.

Lol, he is teh gai! High five duder!

[Lotharr]

Yep, I love it.

And yes, it is quite ironic that you degenerate into the inane "you are a ***" mantra that has been a trend throughout this entire thread. It is ironic when your armchair Freudian theorizing is essentially thinly veiled "your a ***" (or is it homophobe) banality. Your interpretation of Gloomrender is completely wrong, he was merely pointing out that personal tastes help decide what we have aversions (disgusts/repulsions) and attraction towards.

Actually, no, that wouldn't be ironic.

Being hetero, having an attraction of opposite sex, is going to be driving factor in whether or not a homosexual act is found repulsive.

So, it is all grounded in an instinct? Sounds reasonable enough to me. However, how would you explain the way Greeks and Romans acted cosidering homosexuality in this case? It would be quite change after the church had all its power.

What are you even saying here? That instincts can't be triggered by non-X rated films? Something has to be explicit to trigger an instinct? Furthermore, you are making that case that these reactions are subconscious but are bringing in intentions of the film director. Why would things like the intention of a film director even be considered at the subconscious level?

Besides all that, you are missing the entire point I was making, that instincts play a large part in human actions, as well as forming the subconscious. If one's instinct is to mate with the opposite sex, they are more likely to find homosexuality repulsing. The instinctual tendency of a hetero male is to look away from an erect dancing penis, not to look at it or find it funny. Besides, that the only questionable material was exposure of male genitalia is a complete lie, and focusing entirely on that one scene isn't particularly productive.

Hehe, I haven't even seen the whole movie. Hence debating about this would be counter-productive. I guess I need to see it now. The point in the instinct only appliable to X-rated material, would be because humans are not naturally even clothed.

Therefore, being disgusted by something like this would've been more of an obstacle which the evolution would've eventually grinded away. Being blatantly un-interested in such things and awaking no feelings to a way or another would work better. Not having interest in such things could possibly be called a taste. Being disgusted by something is not a taste. This is the point where Gloomrender's whole argument fails.

You clearly have an axe to grind here. After going out of the way to declare that you don't think fear of homosexuality, or being considered homosexual is the only possibility, you assume that it is a factor, and postulate reasons for where the fear might come from. Not surprisingly, it is the old church doctrine argument.

Like I said, I'm not closing possibilities. I'm just opening other ones. Just as much of a valid factor could be shame.

So now you can postulate around my upbringing and my parents upbringing? You get to make blanket assertions and call them facts?

My dad is in his 70s, and grew up in North Hollywood, which was as liberal then as any typical modern college campus. His parents were both atheists, and had no love for any church. They knew plenty of gay people, had gay relatives, and loved them all the same. My dad, like his parents is also atheist, but his brother was a high ranking LDS member. Go figure.

I'm not trying to get personal with this or anything. What I was trying to tell, is that it has affected the whole shape of the western culture. I was just giving an example with the parenting assertion.

I focus primarily on my father because was obviously the male authority figure/example of my life, but mostly for brevity. My mother is basically a new-age spiritualist hippie type. I was raised in an incredibly open household, certainly one open to homosexuality. Likewise, I'm atheist, have gay friends and relatives, but still found many of the scenes distasteful.

If you agree with the simple fact, that feelings such as disgust lead from something other than a taste, I'm definitely open for new propositions on where it could lead from. I mean it definitely doesn't have to be the fear, although it could obviously be this when it comes to some people. It also could be shame or whatever.

No wonder some of your friends found the movie distasteful. From what I know about Sacha Baron Cohen, the group of people he is acting to be often find his movies very distasteful. That's how he sells. What we're really doing here is giving Bruno free promo.

Again calling broad assertions as facts with no evidence to corroborate the assertion. If anything, the history of human race shows continuous and constant adaptation and changing social norms.Likewise, the new settings aren't some exogenous variable exerted on humans, but an endogenous result of multiple interactions. The way Greeks and Romans, Gauls, Celts, behaved before Catholicism supports my view, not yours. The spread of the Catholic religion and assimilation by dominated cultures was meteoric. The schisms, politics, and doctrinal disputes could take a lifetime to study.

Human race does eventually adapt to changes, however, it does take some time.

Let's pick up the ancient Greeks for a hypothetical example. Would you assume they would've been disgusted by the movie? If we do not count the probably unfashionable way it was presented, but instead the homosexuality of the material.

All things considered, your argument is just sad. There is no real reason to believe anyone that had an aversion to some of the material in Bruno, was afraid, has some unexplored repressed psychological issue, is ashamed of himself/herself. There is all the reason to believe having tastes and simply not being gay are far bigger motivators.

Ok, whatever. Look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgust

Martha Nussbaum, a leading American philosopher, wrote a book published in 2004 entitled Hiding From Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law which examines the relationship of disgust and shame to a society's laws.

Now, it's not a long time at all since homosexuality got legalized in the western society. Only reassures the statement on how the human is slow in reacting to changes, even if it's about such an obviously biased law.

Not having something in your tastes and being disgusted by something are different things. If you find the movie distasteful, I can fully understand you. If you find the parts not in your tastes, I can fully understand you. However, that does not equal being disgusted by it.

[Edocsil]

I've wanted to see it but after hearing about some of these scenes I probably won't. I don't really care how funny I might think it is in retrospect. I just don't want to look at penises all movie long. I would feel the same way if it were vagina throughout the whole thing (though I may enjoy the visuals more ;) ). It's just completely unnecessary. To me, movies that resort to 'that kind of funny' just show they have no talent for humor.

[Barbarossa]

Bru....?


No......