Author Topic: Introducing you to 'Reesenhaal'  (Read 19686 times)

Offline Kelda

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,703
  • Zorbing....
    • Keldas Facebook Page!
Re: Introducing you to 'Reesenhaal'
« Reply #20 on: October 25, 2007, 03:55:35 am »
And I think I'd prefer Gyllenspoon. ...

 :laugh:

But seriously - we all know Jake is a good guy and prefers the quiet life - thats likely why he chose Reece. I think he'll make a fabby stepdad to Reece's 2 adorable kids - perhaps they'll be making babies shortly too. Look at Brad and Angiolina.

And as someone pointed out - yes rightly so Reece should be concerned for her 2 kids first and foremost - but its not like they are in a position where its going to be difficult to go out on dates - they can afford for child monders - and since they are in the public eye they probably like dates at home - which fits in to the couple with kids lifestyle.

Plus the kids have a dad already - one that is very committed and involved in his kids life - its not like she is going to be laden with all the burden of child rearing

Good luck to them both - I thinik they are both a catch for each other. And if it is a re-bound well let it be fun while it lasts!
http://www.idbrass.com

Please use the following links when shopping online -It will help us raise money without costing you a penny.

http://www.easyfundraising.org.uk/idb

http://idb.easysearch.org.uk/

Offline Penthesilea

  • Town Administration
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,745
Re: Introducing you to 'Reesenhaal'
« Reply #21 on: October 25, 2007, 04:09:10 am »
Put me in the offended category too,

Me three.

Quote
Those of you who find the blanket idea of other people's kids being unappealing are really missing out on one of the blisses of life.  Why not love the beloved's kids?  I completely respect you knowing it's not for you, but judging it repugnant for someone else is sad.

Thank you (and Laura for her coment).

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,618
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: Introducing you to 'Reesenhaal'
« Reply #22 on: October 25, 2007, 10:27:17 am »
Put me in the offended category too, and add "white bread" to the list of offensive terms.  I'm seeing misogyny and even some racism here.

Oh, for God's sake, Clarissa. If you're seriously seeing misogyny, "a hatred of women," in my dislike of Reece Witherspoon--and of the idea of Reece Witherspoon and Jake Gyllenhaal as a couple--then I'm accusing you of misanthropy for your response to my opinion.

"Racism" in the use of the term "whitebread"? Get off the PC high horse and read SKJ's comment.

Quote
Those of you who find the blanket idea of other people's kids being unappealing are really missing out on one of the blisses of life.  Why not love the beloved's kids?  I completely respect you knowing it's not for you, but judging it repugnant for someone else is sad.

Granted Jake's situation is not mine--or yours--but you would look at other people's children differently if you were a middle-aged gay male in a country where so many wrongly equate homosexuality with pedophilia. In short, kids are dangerous.
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline Penthesilea

  • Town Administration
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,745
Re: Introducing you to 'Reesenhaal'
« Reply #23 on: October 25, 2007, 10:56:49 am »
Oh, for God's sake, Clarissa. If you're seriously seeing misogyny, "a hatred of women," in my dislike of Reece Witherspoon--and of the idea of Reece Witherspoon and Jake Gyllenhaal as a couple--then I'm accusing you of misanthropy for your response to my opinion.

I don't want to answer for Clarissa, she can do that better than I can. But since I've agreed with her, here's my answer:
I don't see any misogyny in your dislike of Reese Witherspoon, not at all.
But I see misogyny in the snide tone in which it is spoken of her because she's been in another relationship before ("leftovers", which wasn't by you) and in your wording of "he doesn't need to take a woman with children" and "I don't think he needs to take on someone else's kids". What are women with children? Lesser people? Only second choice?
I know that's not your opinion, but your wording was simply insensitive, as Leslie already said.

Quote
"Racism" in the use of the term "whitebread"? Get off the PC high horse and read SKJ's comment.
I excluded the whitebread comment in my first post because I'm simply not familiar enough with the term to have an opinion about it's use here.

Quote
Granted Jake's situation is not mine--or yours--but you would look at other people's children differently if you were a middle-aged gay male in a country where so many wrongly equate homosexuality with pedophilia. In short, kids are dangerous.

Well, this sounds very different from what you've said earlier (in the post where you agreed with Della).
And to be honest, I'm a bit taken aback by your last comment. Do you really have this in the back of your mind when dealing with other people's children? This must be awful.  :-\

Offline Mikaela

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,229
  • Unsaid... and now unsayable
Re: Introducing you to 'Reesenhaal'
« Reply #24 on: October 25, 2007, 11:44:00 am »
I thought they'd been baptized Gyllenspoon a long time ago by the gossip blogs. Yes, I do read a couple of those, embarrassingly enough.  :-\


But since everyone is in such a good mood already   :-X  - I thought I'd put my foot in too and weigh in on Jake's attire. I am not impressed with our man Jake for his "romantic Rome outing attire" if that's what they're doing. That grey bulgy unflattering T-shirt thingie, and chewing so throughly and distractedly on a toothpick... The fangirl in me kind of imagined that's not the casual wear the classy Jake G. would dress in for those early days of romance and first dates. So either they've actually been an item for quite some time just like the rumours say, or there's no big romance thing going on at all, no matter what the gossipers are on about and no matter an outing in Rome when they're both there to promote their film.  (I know there's another pic of them holding hands in an airport, but that could have been photoshopped easily enough.... just like those Heath&Jake pics that got a new airing over in the Jake-Jake-jake thread.)

For this I'm actually leaning towards Dottie's opinion - I don't really believe it till they confirm it themselves.

Offline Lumière

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,283
Re: Introducing you to 'Reesenhaal'
« Reply #25 on: October 25, 2007, 11:50:46 am »
But I see misogyny in the snide tone in which it is spoken of her because she's been in another relationship before ("leftovers", which wasn't by you) and in your wording of "he doesn't need to take a woman with children" and "I don't think he needs to take on someone else's kids".
What are women with children? Lesser people? Only second choice?

Thank you Chrissi.   :)




Offline belbbmfan

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,354
  • A love that will never grow old
Re: Introducing you to 'Reesenhaal'
« Reply #26 on: October 25, 2007, 12:04:36 pm »
I thought I'd put my foot in too and weigh in on Jake's attire. I am not impressed with our man Jake for his "romantic Rome outing attire" if that's what they're doing. That grey bulgy unflattering T-shirt thingie, and chewing so throughly and distractedly on a toothpick... The fangirl in me kind of imagined that's not the casual wear the classy Jake G. would dress in for those early days of romance and first dates.

 :D  :D

Mikaela, your post made me smile. Let's just hope he's not taking advise from Heath on 'all things sartorial'!!  :laugh:
'We're supposed to guard the sheep, not eat 'em'

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,618
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: Introducing you to 'Reesenhaal'
« Reply #27 on: October 25, 2007, 01:37:25 pm »
Frankly, I think these comments about alleged misogyny in my expressing my opinion, coming from women who have come to know me--sometimes actually in person--say far more about the women who are making these comments than they do about me. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to whom I have been insensitive, and why.

If you are going to respond to me, keep Karl's comment about "leftovers" out of it, and quote me accurately.

And to be honest, I'm a bit taken aback by your last comment. Do you really have this in the back of your mind when dealing with other people's children? This must be awful.  :-\

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. Children terrify me. I don't dislike them. I'm not against them. Maybe some readers will remember that I even said I felt Ennis was right to put his children before Jack and his relationship to Jack. But I do not like to be around anybody's children, and certainly not alone with them.

While the scandal in the Roman Catholic Church teaches us that pedophilia is, indeed, something that parents and society must be continually vigilant against, it is also true that innocent lives have been ruined by groundless charges of various kinds of abuse that were ultimately proved false. Just a few years ago, a schoolteacher--a woman, I might add--from New Jersey, not too far from Philadelphia, was convicted and went to jail on charges of sexual abuse. Ultimately the charge was proved false, and her conviction was overturned, and she was freed, but her life is ruined, her good name gone, because always there will be this cloud over her.

All it takes is a word or gesture misunderstood, and you're done for. It's a little bit like being accused of witchcraft in Salem in 1692. Even when you're innocent it's almost impossible to prove it.

I'm sorry to have run on so long on something so OT, but I find I'm actually shaking as I type this--that's how strongly this affects me.
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline MaineWriter

  • Bettermost Supporter!
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,042
  • Stay the course...
    • Bristlecone Pine Press
Re: Introducing you to 'Reesenhaal'
« Reply #28 on: October 25, 2007, 01:51:39 pm »
I was the one who used the word insensitive, first, so I guess I need to chime in here....

I never said you were insensitive to anybody in particular, Jeff. I found your wording "He doesn't need to take on a woman with kids" to be insensitive--I guess to women with kids, in general. As I said in my original post, you make it sound like some sort of curse. Or as others have said, like she's damaged goods, used baggage or somehow a lesser person. That's what I meant.


Leslie
Taming Groomzilla<-- support equality for same-sex marriage in Maine by clicking this link!

Offline LauraGigs

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,447
    • My Design Portfolio
Re: Introducing you to 'Reesenhaal'
« Reply #29 on: October 25, 2007, 01:54:53 pm »
Quote
I'm sorry to have run on so long on something so OT, but I find I'm actually shaking as I type this--that's how strongly this affects me.

^  That's very sad, Jeff, and I'm sorry to read that.

Our society is right to deplore sexual abuse and throw the book at those who commit it.  But it's a shame that innocent adults are made so uncomfortable by the situation that they have a whole other issue to be worried about.  And children miss out on extra adult friendship because of it.


And Mikaela, honey!  I thought Jake looked studly and fabulous!   8)