I'll try to overlook the intellectual snobbery implied in that statement, but I will point out that your esteemed mother and grandmother probably did not represent a good cross section of American society in the 1950's. You offer no proof other than your own fatuous references that the public at large accepted Hudson's homosexuality as a fact of life right up until the time of his death.
Kenneth Anger' salacious gossip notwithstanding, Hudson had a major career crisis in the late 1950s due the rumors that failed to abate despite the best efforts of the studio publicity department. And so he was forced to reinvent himself, and did so brilliantly. Hudson will be better remembered for 'Lover Come Back' than for 'Written on the Wind', and rightly so (and mind you I love Douglas Sirk).
I was about 10 when the news of Hudson's AIDS became public. I was aware enough to realize that nobody was surprised. In fact, I can recall an older cousin of mine saying 'I knew Rock Hudson was gay before I even knew what 'gay' was'. Everybody knew -- and nobody particularly minded. It was the 70s: the sexual revolution was in full swing. Apparently his comic detective TV series in the 70s was a major hit: he carried into it the same suave, deadpan persona he had cultivated in his Doris Day films.
One of my favorite Rock Hudson movies is the eerie B&W John Frankenheimer movie from the mid-late sixties, 'Seconds'. It is about a man who leads the most profoundly double life imaginable: a successful middle aged businessman who undergoes rejuvenating plastic surgery and has his death faked. He moves from staid Scarsdale to Carmel in the throws of hippiedom. It's an intense movie: the role must have had profound resonance for Rock Hudson.
In 'Further Tales of the City', which came out in the late 1970s, Armistead Maupin has a character that is a thinly disguised version of Rock Hudson; and the character must have been placed there with Hudson's blessing, as he and Maupin were good friends. Michael Tolliver spends a torrid night with him
Apparently, Hudson was a frequent denizen of the Castro in the gay 70s.
I can't believe that Doris Day wasn't hip to Rock: she's a cool lady. Her squeaky-clean comic persona notwithstanding, this woman was one of the most accomplished jazz singers in an age that boasted Ella, Billie, and Sass. In fact, she's right up there with that other the other 'Clooney' (God, did those women have pipes!)
And if anything, the Reagans, being the Hollywood insiders they were, were probably amongst the few who knew of Hudson's gayness as a fact, though of course they would not speak of it publicly.
No, I understand that it took Ronnie and Nancy by surpise, and alerted them to the fact that this AIDS thing was for real, and could actually happen to PLU!
As an obviously erudite man you probably know that the word "pornography" is derived from the Greek adjective for "writings or depictions of prostitutes" i.e. the subject of pornography are prostitutes - people who exchange sex for money.
No, I didn't know that, which is odd as I'm always correcting people for saying 'meretricious' when then mean meritorious! I've been content to go along with Justice Potter Stewart's famous dictum: 'don't ask me to define it, but I know what it is when I see it!' I like that 'definition' as it is broad enough to include 'American Idol', 'Survivor', etc. In fact, I think some traditional porn is socially useful, as it can instruct in both sex technique, and safe sex practices.
So given the nature of prostitution, why should any claims they make about themselves be taken in any way other than feeding into a sexual fantasy? Gribbles stated that he takes their word at face value when "Logan" (not even his real name, which should tell you something right there) is straight.
Good God! Do you think
any porn model uses their real name?
Very nice guy: 'straight, but not narrow' in real life, as per Jesse Santana. Blu says he's one of the best fucks he had, on or off camera, but he still thinks 'Logan' is primarily straight. (BTW, I know his name, too)
Also, your argument that because they make money for having sex is proof of their straightness is logically invalid as well.
No, you completely missed my point: what I was saying is that there are several people on here who think the fact that the Logans and Dawsons and Lucases keep coming back for more is proof that they
must be gay. I suggesting that repeating was no proof at all; that, like frank prostitution, it gets a little easier each time you do it and in time you get used to the cash-flow.
Given your (and Gribbles) repeated insistence on each of your posts that when these boys say they're straight, by God, you better believe them, I can't help but think you have some kind of investment into buying into it.
Stop putting words into our mouths! Neither of us said that. All I said is that I have moved from disbelief to actually being inclined to believe at least some of them. And Gribbles position has always been that their actual sexuality is immaterial.
Corbin Fisher is playing to his market. Apart from promoting safe sex practices, I don't require pornographers to perform civic duties. Now, if you recall, early in the site's history, most of the models -- at least the ones who did 'stuff' -- were gay. It wasn't until CF picked up on
Sean Cody's success formula, have 'straight' guys gradually start having gay sex (Zack, Dylan, Adam) that his site really took off. In fact, it could be divided into 'BL' and 'AL' -- the 'L' standing for either Logan or Lucas. Corbin Fisher has made a good effort to introduce out gay models on the site, only they routinely get dissed: 'get that Goddamn fag off your site'. Again, while I'm not an 'insider', I know they get these emails. And a lot of these emails come mostly from gay guys who derive a perverse pleasure in seeing 'straight guys' have gay sex: something like 'innocence corrupted'. To me, this only speaks to an internalized homophobia -- a refusal to acknowledge that a guy as 'masculine identified' as 'Lucas' or 'Dawson' could actually be homosexual.
Of course, this observation has no bearing on whether or not they are in fact heterosexual (as I suspect those two are, as well as Logan). On that topic, all I can say is that there are fellows out there who are less cursed with circumspection, or ‘the ache of constant consciousness’ (Rilke) as either you or I seem to be. As I said above, their left and right hands are independent contractors.
Unfortunately, it isn't the gay teens out there that are paying for the site, and I agree that the professed 'straightness' of 'Dawson' and 'Lucas' may be abetting their denial of their sexuality. However, subscription requires a credit card; and I don't blame Cobin Fisher (or
Sean Cody or Dink Flamingo, etc) for playing to the orchestra, and not the gallery (btw: is 'orchestra' derived from balls?)
PhunkSpunk, in you posts you have shown yourself to be a learned, reasonably intelligent man, but you haven't shown yourself to be a very compassionate one.
I resent that: I have tons of compassion. This is not a place to which I come 'with my heart on my sleeve': it's a message board about porn, goddamit! I come here to engage in rational discourse, to listen to other people's ideas, and to present my own in a reasonable, respectful and
dispassionate manner. These sites are phenomenally successful, and I believe we need to stand back for a bit and 'cast a cold eye' on them, try to figure out what makes them tick, and what their success says about the contemporary gay
gestalt. Instead, Gribbles and I have found ourselves constantly ridiculed for our candor.
I would aver that you, sir, are in bad faith.
Actually, I don't enjoy you in the least. You're no fun
