Author Topic: Introducing you to 'Reesenhaal'  (Read 16770 times)

Offline ifyoucantfixit

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,049
Re: Introducing you to 'Reesenhaal'
« Reply #30 on: October 25, 2007, 02:13:16 pm »

        Jeff you are indeed a sensetive and kind person.  I understand your fears, I do.  I know you mean no one disrespect, and you should be able to speak your opinion without fear of being attacked.  I meant no disrespect for you, and I hope
you didnt think I did...I love you and dont ever want to do anything to upset or make you feel i was mean or disrespectful.
         I just wanted to say that I feel a woman with children is as good or in some cases a better choice than a virginal, woman that is cold and self obsorbed..And or a stupid air head..she seems to be none of these...In lots of cases children
are a part of the thing that makes the family...and from what i have seen Jake seems ready for a family...
         It seems to be that the issues that bring about the most heat, in conversations.  Happens to be the Jake or Heath threads.  Its very ironic to me....
         I apologize if anything i may have said upset you in any way...
         
   I agree with Laura, I thought he looked relaxed and fine too...fine is a good word for him...



     Beautiful mind

Offline Mikaela

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,229
  • Unsaid... and now unsayable
Re: Introducing you to 'Reesenhaal'
« Reply #31 on: October 25, 2007, 02:36:28 pm »
Good to hear it's only me shaking my head at Jake's grey T. I'm all for him appearing studly.  :)  Fabienne's comment made me chuckle - I suddenly imagined Jake trotting around Rome in black knee-length trousers and red&white striped socks. That would have been interesting, and people probably wouldn't even have *noticed* Reese W. beside him!  ;D

About Reese W - I admit to not having an especially good impression of her. And I admit to being entirely biased about it. It has nothing to do with kids or looks or any such things. I'm sure she's a good mother and of course a woman with kids isn't inferior in any way (nor is she superior IMO). It has everything to do with her very focused and active campaigning before the Oscars 2006 and then the IMO totally fake humility and surprised gratitude she displayed when she won. It rubbed me completely the wrong way. I wouldn't even have known about this, and I probably wouldn't much have cared, except for the contrast to the actor in leading role and Film respectively that *didn't* get the Oscars they so very richly deserved, and for which they didn't campaign nearly as much as RW as far as I could judge it. Yes, yes - totally biased, totally subjective. I admit it.

Offline Penthesilea

  • Town Administration
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,745
Re: Introducing you to 'Reesenhaal'
« Reply #32 on: October 25, 2007, 03:10:51 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.

I think I did in my previous post, but for a better explanation see Leslie's post.
For the part quoted in red: that's why I wrote this:
Quote
I know that's not your opinion, ...
Jeff, I've read hundreds of posts by you and have come to meet you in person. You are a kind and gentle person and I would never think of you as someone who spreads hate (be it against women or whoever). This was not what I wanted to express, and I didn't want to attack you personally. I still think your wording I referred to (see also Leslie's post) was insensitive, but maybe mine was, too. If you feel attacked by my previous post, I apologize.


Quote
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.

No need to apologize for running OT (I will, too  ;D).
This is so sad. The fact that the equating of homosexuality with pedophilia is still so widespread, that it still affects lifes to an extent that people are extra cautious in their behaviour around children, even are terrified by them, makes me wanna scream with anger. It's so unfair and I'm really sorry to hear this.

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,165
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: Introducing you to 'Reesenhaal'
« Reply #33 on: October 25, 2007, 04:01:11 pm »
To all who wrote to explain more why they felt my comment was insensitive, thank you. Noted. I certainly never meant to imply that I felt a woman with children was "damaged goods," or anything like that, and more than that I will not say because I don't want to prolong ill feeling.

Janice and Chrissi, thank you in particular for your kind comments.

As for the other matter, I need to shut up about that, too, so I'll only further comment that it strikes me as ironic and sad that on the one hand, we hear there is a need for mentoring for gay teenagers. Then we turn around and hear about something like former Congressman Mark Foley stalking teenagers. (The nasty kernel of truth behind the equation of homosexuality and pedophilia is that there are older men who do prey on young boys.) And then I have to wonder how long it would take before some well-meaning guy who wants to help teens avoid some of the pitfalls of growing up gay gets accused of being a sexual predator?
"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.

moremojo

  • Guest
Re: Introducing you to 'Reesenhaal'
« Reply #34 on: October 25, 2007, 04:43:45 pm »
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.
Yes, this is true.

Having read through these exchanges, and as your fellow gay man, I do understand your feelings on this, Jeff. And I share them--I too feel uncomfortable around children outside my family, and for the reasons that you describe. Our society is obsessed at this historical moment with pedophilia and child sexual abuse--both legitimate concerns, to be sure, but which have imbued the larger culture with the ambience of a witch-hunt mentality that you adumbrate. And gay men, I feel, rightly or wrongly, are especially vulnerable to being targeted as potential sexual predators--that association among the uneducated masses is an old one, and is still present (ironically, evidence points to most child molesters being men who target female children).

I had a gay male friend who liked children (in a purely non-threatening way, I'm saddened to have to stress), and hoped to become a father one day. I advised him some fifteen years ago to be cautious in how he interacted with children, since as a gay man his motives and actions might come under special scrutiny. Fifteen years later, my advice would not be any different.

Sorry to continue OT like this, but I felt it important to add to and support Jeff's observations here.

Offline louisev

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,107
  • "My guns and amo!! Over my cold dead hands!!"
    • Fiction by Louise Van Hine
Re: Introducing you to 'Reesenhaal'
« Reply #35 on: October 25, 2007, 04:58:39 pm »
I would like to put my two cents into the subject of pedophilia suspicions.  Off and on over a period of years (first while married, then after my divorce) I served as a license foster care provider. Part of what qualified me for licensing (and yes, there is a formal investigation for getting licensed) was my background and education as a high school teacher.  While I was serving briefly as foster mother for an abused teen, taking her to her social worker and meeting with the district attorney to prepare a case against her mother (the abuser), the mother accused me of molesting the daughter.

This, it was explained to me, is par for the course, and one of the reasons why foster care providers need to get licensed.  Because when dealing with at risk children who have been abused and removed from their homes, those who help are often accused and targeted by those who are guilty.

I would like to add that staying away from kids, and shunning opportunities to do public service, particularly for gay youth - is no solution.  There are those who will always raise suspicion, and - like Mark Foley and Larry Craig - they are the ones who are hiding their own shame and guilt about who they are, and seek to victimize others.  We should not let them.
“Mr. Coyote always gets me good, boy,”  Ellery said, winking.  “Almost forgot what life was like before I got me my own personal coyote.”


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 #36 on: October 25, 2007, 05:27:48 pm »
I'll tell you what, I'd happily have my kids party in the company of all you male bettermost residents any day.  Roll on Brokie Barbeque 2015 or soemthing when I might have some kiddies of my own to bother you with!!
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 delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Introducing you to 'Reesenhaal'
« Reply #37 on: October 25, 2007, 06:50:56 pm »
Oh for goodness' sake.  Since some of my comments have already been explained, I won't go into it again, but I will defend a comment I made.

When you are at the age where the only single people you have available to date your own age are coming off their first divorce and invariably have children, yes, these people's children are baggage.

It's not a positive thing in the dating world.  Repeating myself, if you date such a person you will always be second runner up.  If that's OK with you, go for it.  But for the rest of us, children are problematic and not desirable in a person you want to date.

And that should be OK.  We all make decisions as to who we want to date.  What qualities we accept in a person and what we don't.  It is a judgement call.  This should not be condemned, otherwise we might as well criticize anyone who happens to have a 'type' or other preferences.

We like who we like.  Nothing is going to change that.  You might as well ask Hugh Hefner to stop dating young skinny blonde women with big fake hooters and get someone his own age.

OK, the criticism may be "Well, you're missing out.  This person may be the love of your life."

I'm willing to take that risk in order to avoid having to deal with children - who may or may not like you - a parent struggling to make ends meet and may not be able to be with you as much as either of you like due to the demands from the children or whatever little morality games may be involved  ("You can't stay here all night, my kids will see you!" type shit).

This kind of thing you have to put up with if you want to be with these single parents because quite frankly, they're not your kids.  So you have no say in how they're raised or how they're disciplined or how they're treated - or, how the kids treat you!

And of course, not to mention that not every person who has children and is divorced has an amicable relationship with their exes.

Indeed, Ryan and Reese do not seem to have had a very amicable divorce.   I read this in some rag, not sure how accurate this is, but Ryan Phillippi supposedly made a BBM crack about Jake to his friends, re him dating Reese.

Ex-husband/wife jealousy.  Jeez.

You avoid these headaches by avoiding single parents as potential dating partners.

So, yes, sorry to say, for many single people, a man/woman with children is not going to be our first choice in partners.

When you get down to it, all that matters is what Jake likes and feels is good for him, but we all know that his track record is not good dating-wise.  Now he's possibly involved with a divorced woman fresh out of a long-term marriage.  When the rumors of them together first started circulating, I put forth my opinion that he may be good for Reese - self-esteem support and all - but she was likely not IMO good for him because she was likely on the rebound.  I stand by that opinion.

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 #38 on: October 25, 2007, 06:53:59 pm »
I read on a celebrity blog that this whole thing is a faux-mance, cooked up because "Rendition" is tanking.

Seems plausible to me.

L
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 #39 on: October 25, 2007, 08:22:58 pm »
Quote
I read on a celebrity blog that this whole thing is a faux-mance, cooked up because "Rendition" is tanking.


If that happened every time a movie was tanking, we'd be way more awash in celeb couples than we already are...

You never really know who to believe, and I'm not arguing against that theory per se.  But would actors with the clout that they have really need to cave in to pressure to do that?  You'd think once they've made the film and done the press junket, it would be like, "I'm done with this project".