A lovely article on how bi men have really never been liked...*sigh*

[neveen]

i'm seriously sensing biphobia in this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1384460/Cursed-legacy-Vanessa-Redgrave.html

[Katja]

If anyone has the slightest idea of what the Daily Mail is about, then they will know that this newspaper has phobias about anything other than things heterosexual when it comes to sexuality. It is a thoroughly unpleasant rag which any human being with the slightest progressive thought in their head would take about 1 millionth of a second to decide not to buy.

[Chrystof72]

The above is totally100% correct.

I wouldn't wipe my cum dripping arse with that rag of a publication.....but unless you are from the UK or lived there for a time, it does look like another hate filled editorial from one of the many ignorant biased reporters scattered across the world, attached to an otherwise normal looking paper.

[Hephaestion]

"Calm Down Dear!"

It's only a book advert come review.

Think of 'Fred Basset' why don't you.

[BiPhone]

I'm sorry but I don't see the biphobia. If what was written is true then it seems Richardson was a man who allthough he was bisexual also was kind of an asshole. There are bisexuals who are assholes, there are gays who are assholes and also straights that are assholes. At least he was upfront about his need to have sex with men with his wife and it is indeed unusual that a spouse is that understanding. But I find it refreshing that she was that understanding.

[MARDOM]

It seems to me that a great many people are miserable for no better reason than that life isn't really like The Hallmark Hall of Fame, where problems are so easy to identify and solve, where all the bad is made good by show's end ...

Why shouldn't Vanessa Redgrave et al have problems - like the rest of us?

It doesn't matter what the problems are; the point is - life is difficult (which is what makes it worth living).

Yes - our bisexuality does present us w/problems; notice that I did not say, "causes". Let's not be (deliberately and self-servingly) blind to a fact: we bisexuals have problems that must be addressed (if we are to have good lives). Let's accept this - and move on.

Let's not say, "I'm bisexual, so that means that I must to be miserable because I can't decide between pears and bananas."

Let's say instead, "I'm bisexual, so I have to work to make it possible for me to have both pears and bananas."

Making it possible might well mean letting someone go, no matter the pain. "This is the way I am. If you cannot accept it, I cannot be with you. Sorry." (And always apologize for causing pain, even if the other party had no right to feel it!)

Now that I've got that out of the way, as for the article itself - well, like all biographies, it's a pile of bullshit that needs to be slung w/a mighty big pitch fork. Otherwise, the public won't notice and won't ante up the bucks to get titillated by one scandal or another. If the story of the Redgrave family were not presented as Peyton Place on the plain of Sodom and Gemorrah, who the hell would buy it? ... If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!
I revel in gossip - the more unbelievable it is, the worse it is, the more I enjoy it.

A world that refuses to be fixed needs to be laughed to scorn!

[Gearbox]

OMG! When this book comes out, do I need to prepare myself for the thoughtful gifts of suits of armour and ping-pong balls for Xmas?
And will I need counselling for not developing these cravings?:rolleyes:

[neveen]

OMG! When this book comes out, do I need to prepare myself for the thoughtful gifts of suits of armour and ping-pong balls for Xmas?
And will I need counselling for not developing these cravings?:rolleyes:

in my mind, i was trying to figure out how that worked exactly...maybe he was on to something :tong:

[Katja]

I'm sorry but I don't see the biphobia. If what was written is true then it seems Richardson was a man who allthough he was bisexual also was kind of an asshole. There are bisexuals who are assholes, there are gays who are assholes and also straights that are assholes. At least he was upfront about his need to have sex with men with his wife and it is indeed unusual that a spouse is that understanding. But I find it refreshing that she was that understanding.

Darryl, what you have to understand is the place the Daily Mail has in the media and British society. It is not a progressive newspaper in the least, and it has a history of supporting particulary nasty and odious causes going back to Lord Rothermere and beyond. Under Rothermere, the Mail was not so much an apologist for fascism and nazism, or a sympathiser of appeasement but quite up front in its support of those philosophies. It has always taken an overtly as well as covertly anti homosexual stance in its pages. It remains a newspaper of reaction even if it does nowadays attempt to temper its lack of radicalism and hard line conservative beliefs with more moderate language then was once the case.

For the Mail to print a review of a book about one of Britain's foremost theatrical families, and concentrating so much on the bisexual nature of its most famous member and his son in law, and the adverse affects that sexuality had on other members is by its nature a covert criticism of bisexuality and disapproval of it. It is meant to illustrate, in my opinion, the perverse nature and corrupting influence of bisexuality upon innocent unsuspecting members of families and upon society and family values as a whole.

The Redgrave connection to bisexuality is well known in British society and the review tells us little that is new. I do not know the work of the book's author, and without reading it, am unable to judge his perspective and how much he concentrates upon the family sexual history. The Daily Mail perspective is simple. To use that family's problems as a guide that bisexuality is corrupting and evil, and to guide readers who may read the book, to view things as the Daily Mail wishes them to be viewed. You may not, indeed, will not read those words most likely in the book, and do not in the review, but thats what it means. Given the readership of the Daily Mail and its generally unprogressive political and social standpoint it is a reinforcement of what are pretty much the accepted beliefs of a subject about which the newspaper, its proprieter and its readership disapprove.

There is a further, and again it is only my opinion, reason for printing this review. The Redgrave family are one of Britain's foremost left wing theatrical families. Redgrave himself was a lifelong radical Labour party supporter and two of his children supporters of revolutionary causes, something touched upon in the review. The whole family were active supporters of progressive legislation on homosexuality. By linking the sexual antics of some of its members, to family disfunction and to left wing politics, it is a thinly disguised attempt to discredit both what it considers not the sexual norm and political leanings about which it disapproves.

Words may appear harmless and unprejudiced, Darryl, but the context of those words can be very insidious not to say misleading indeed. I do not say that the history of the Redgraves or any other family should not be written and as frankly and as honestly as possible, but beware the messenger who brings us good tidings always.