Jodie Foster Finally Comes Out!

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

But that IS my response.

Originally Posted by Capt Jack

you are as always, my friend, the exception to the rule...regardless of what rule we're talking about

(And I am not picking on CJ - just using his post as a launching point)

As BTD mentioned above, I look forward to the day when this is a non-issue. I am a believer that if I want change in the world, that change has to being with me. I am just living my life as I choose to. My choice is that a person's sexuality has no bearing on other parts of their life.

I strive for the same on other aspects (color, religion, etc.). I wish I was there, but one thing at a time (after all, Everyone's a Little Bit Racist).

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Second, I think she worked as hard as the average actress to appear elegant and glamorous. Either she was trying to counter a dyke-image or she was showing that lesbians can be elegant, too. Of course, the latter only works if we knew she was a lesbian. Which, I guess, we did.

What about the possibility that she was dressing to look elegant as a woman? Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't dress to look good as a straight man* - I dress to look good as a man**. I may not always succeed, but making a statement about what my sexuality is does not have any impact on my choice.

* Arguments about my sexuality aside
** Halloween excepted

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

(And I am not picking on CJ - just using his post as a launching point)

As BTD mentioned above, I look forward to the day when this is a non-issue. I am a believer that if I want change in the world, that change has to being with me.

Ditto. (Which is why, for instance, I don't buy gossip magazines, I don't watch TMZ or ET or any of the other tripe, and I don't drive traffic to Perez Hilton's website.) (I do admit that I watch The Soup, but that's an entirely different monster.)

And also, ditto to the idea that Foster may well have been dressing to be glamorous as a woman. The title "lesbian" does not necessarily imply that one must be frumpy or not frumpy. I've known frumpy lesbians and glamorous ones, and frumpy and glamorous breeders, too.

[Strangler Lewis]

[quote= . . . Foster may well have been dressing to be glamorous as a woman. The title "lesbian" does not necessarily imply that one must be frumpy or not frumpy. I've known frumpy lesbians and glamorous ones, and frumpy and glamorous breeders, too.[/QUOTE]

Theoretically possible, but I suspect more calculation than that. I think she's spent a lot of time distancing herself from public perceptions of what lesbians are. Perhaps things have changed post-L Word and Girls Gone Wild fake blonde drunk lesbians, but when I last went to the SF Gay Parade in 1989, the only people wearing "elegant" dresses were men. I think that's still the public perception.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

...when I last went to the SF Gay Parade in 1989, the only people wearing "elegant" dresses were men. I think that's still the public perception.

I don't know, here in LA there are plenty of "Lipstick Lesbians" that are rather hot and fem - I think one can be a lesbian without having to sport a mullet.

Also curious as to what other things should or should not be disclosed - what about fetishes? Voting records, lists of people you've bonked or fantasized about bonking? Income, Orientation of one's parents, freinds, relatives, Favorite drinks, recreational drug use, medical hiostory, etc.?