Hey Gerry, that's a word for that. It's called "bi"
 

Gerard Butler says he's not Gay but not Straight.

Gerry, I think it's awesome that you like guys... sometimes. But why all the verbal gymnastics?

I'm offended by that joke.
Of course not sliced!
Stupid grocer...

:D

Why does there have to be a word for it? The only reason to bother labeling sh*t is so we can pass judgment. I like what he said, basically, "Stop trying to freaking label me, I'm just a person.'

I love what he said too. Why does it matter who he likes to have sex with?

Because some of us would like to know if we have a chance? ;)

I don't know if there has to be a word for it, but there is one.

I respectfully disagree that the only reason to label something is to pass judgment on it. Sometimes it's simply a matter of convenience. I could say, "So-and-so is a man who only forms romantic attachments to members of his own gender." or I could just say, "So-and-so is gay." I am not judging him, I am simply stating a fact. Would you accuse me of judging the four-legged clawed diminutive mammalian purring on my lap if I called it a cat?

I'm not suggesting nobody ever passes judgment on a person they have labeled. It just seems to me that some people (not pointing a finger at you) freak out the second someone uses a "label", even if it was a harmless use of the term.

It matters to those who have a legitimate change of having sex with him or are trying to do so. If GB is Straight, my mo bros need not apply. If he's Gay, my Straight sisters need not apply.

It matters to members of a repressed minority if they can point to someone who is successful and say, "Hey look, one of us 'made it'. Good for him/her. Good for us."

Does being Gay/Straight/Bi/Questioning/Polyamorous/I've-had-relationships-with-both-men-and-women in any way alter the quality of a person's character? Of course not. Nobody reading (or writing) this thinks so.

See, but that's where I have a problem and I think that's what he's reacting to. I get the feeling he's reacting to, being a public figure, people wanting to "claim" him as "one of theirs". What if he doesn't want his sex life to be a political/social talking point?

Those who have a legitimate chance of having sex with him can ask him about it when they're making small talk before they start necking. Otherwise, it's all star****er fantasy and it doesn't matter the person's orientation.

It's great to have leaders and public figures who are proud of their particular label. There are many of these for the gay community - I, for one, love the way Neil Patrick Harris phrased his open letter to the world. But GB isn't a leader of your community, because he's openly stating he's not specifically a part of it. I personally think it's OK if people are fluid on the Kinsey scale without being a part of the community. It doesn't mean they're closeted, or repressed, or phobic. Some people see things differently than others, and that's the way it goes.

Yeah, Whatever you say #6.

Then he should not have mentioned it in an interview.

How about, he shouldn't have been asked about it in an interview.

I think it's a perfectly appropriate response. "We've heard you're a fag, care to comment?" "I've slept with guys, I've slept with women, if you feel the need to slap a label on that, screw off, I'm not playing that game."

He could have declined to comment.

Why should he have to? I think his message is, "I should be able to be honest about my sexuality without people trying to force me to 'pick sides' or be an activist, or stake my claim to one community or another." Why does he have to either be in the closet or "out, loud, and proud!" Why can't he just be out and a freaking normal member of society that isn't required to take ownership of labels that other people want to put on him?

So when you go to enroll your child in religious school and you are asked if the child is Jewish, are you going to parse out everything in Judaism you have taught the child to honor or ignore and then tell the administrator to draw his/her own conclusions but otherwise f*ck off?

I should add that my gripe in this area extends beyond the gay community. It's true for EVERYTHING. No one's allowed to just excel anymore. They have to excel AND be a representative for some label or another.

What does that have to do with anything?

As I understood him previously, GD's disagreement extended beyond abusing the "privacy" of a public figure to the wisdom of labels in general. On this point, I agree with SM that such labels--be they labels of religion, sexuality or political affiliation--can be useful to broadly generalize about a person's viewpoints and sympathies.

I also think in Butler's case there's the point that refusing to be labeled suggests that there's something to apologize for or be embarrassed about. My dad used to tell the story about how during WWII training, some other soldier asked if he was a Jew. To which my dad replied, "Yeah," and went about what he was doing. The other guy said that my dad was the first Jew that he got a straight answer from without a lengthy history and endless qualifications.

This is not to say that the guy's question was appropriate, or that my father ever had much use for his religion.

Yes, I overstated my case a bit by saying "only". But in the context of the interview, and whether he was his response was "verbal gymnastics", I find his refusal to engage the question refreshing.

I am not suggesting he be limited to the binary options of closeted or "out, loud, and proud". What am I saying is this verbal dancing around the subject is just silly. If there's a word to describe something, use it. He doesn't have to make up stories or manufacture complicated new terms for something that already exists. If you and I were having dinner and I asked you to pass the crushed boiled tubers intermingling with churned dairy fat, would you not look at me strangely and wonder why I didn't ask you to pass the mashed potatoes?

It's kind of weird to think that "no comment" would be better than him pretty honestly describing his preferences but not using a specific word. And he seems to be saying in that quote that he finds it annoying that when he talks about his sexuality it ends up with exaggerated labels. So its seems quite logical he'd not then try to label himself if that is his bone of contention.

Wondering, though, as to the exact question being answered (which can really influence how a response should be read; for example, if the question were "what do you think of attempts to brand you as either straight or gay?") I decided to see if the original article could be found online. Turns out that, according to Movieline, no such article or interview has graced their pages. So he quite possibly never said what you have a problem with.

The problem is "bisexual" does not JUST mean "I have sex with both genders." It's loaded with all sorts of political and social connotations. Labeling yourself as "bisexual" instantly grants you membership into "the community" whether you want it or not, and it causes people to "point to someone who is successful and say, "Hey look, one of us 'made it'," and introduces a level of scrutiny and expectation that may or may not be welcome.

I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one GD. I think what Butler said (assuming he did indeed say it, thank you Alex) was just silly and I'm not overly bothered by it. (Granted, I am "bothered" about it enough to make a thread.) You seem to have much more visceral feelings about the topic which I don't understand.

Okay, I was just discussing the topic you brought up, don't really know how that makes it more "visceral".

I think your reaction to it pretty well proves his alleged point, as Alex said restated it, that people can't just accept his discussion of his sexuality at face value, they feel the need to frame it terms of "gay, straight, bi," which, imo (and allegedly his) obscures the issue by segmenting things instead of treating everyone as individuals.

"Gay, straight, bi" assumes that people aren't fluid to begin with. I think some people - not all, mind you, but some people - are fluid, and move up and down the Kinsey scale depending on mood or age or experience, or whatever their choice or instinct. And I agree, SM, that you are demonstrating the tendency in question, of labeling someone who may not specifically fit the label, and who would prefer not to be labeled.

It's hard to come up with an appropriate parallel here, because there aren't a tremendous amount of things that have the liquidity of some people's sexuality without veering towards personal choice versus biology. My vegetarianism is as fluid as some people's sexuality, but I'm choosing that.

Hehehehe. Fluid.

You're so gay.

Darling, I think you just outed yourself.

...I never knew you were "One Of Those" ?

Sooo, do YOU slice your cucumbers then? :D



(Oh, and BTW: the cucumber joke is meant to be told about a person buying a big thick long salami - the offer for the shopkeeper to slice it for them makes more sense then. Standard reply is usually "Do I look like a slot machine", or "Whaddaya think I am? - a letterbox?")

As most of you know, I've waaaaay moved on the Kinsey scale. And I still find myself moving once in a while.

I'm late to this interesting discussion, but I think if Buter were to have made those remarks, I would admire him for it ... but also grok SM's point about prevarication.


Interesting, allowing yourself to be labeled as "bisexual" identifies you as part of the gay community to the non-gay community, but almost always labels you very unfavorably and often hostily to the gay community.


That's not the only reason to stay away from that particular label ... but it's one possible reason to avoid it.

I still don't get the point of that joke.

It's one of the things I hated about being in that space. I didn't belong anywhere and I wanted to.

I think it's either a sex-toy joke or the slicing of the sausage refers to a different... piece of equipment. It's not a very good joke, I don't think.

Maybe it's a clean joke and I just have a dirty mind.

I literally typed out the explanation and then deleted it. Explanation kills comedy (even weak comedy such as this.) Is it truly so hard to grok?