GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/01/14/on-jodie-foster-the-privacy-of-gay-celebrities/trackback/

  1. Good for her! I always believed that what you do and who you do it with is nobodies business but your own. Jodie Foster (or anybody else) is under no obligation to divulge any personally information to anybody. It doesn’t matter what your neighbor, enemy, or even you friends and family may think because we are all held personally responsible for our actions. At the end of the day, the only opinion that matters is God.

    Comment by MV — January 14, 2013 @ 9:05 am - January 14, 2013

  2. Jodie Foster was here, I still am, and I want to be seen, to be understood deeply and to be not so very lonely.

    What a catharsis!

    Jodie, you are in the “willing suspension of disbelief” business. You convince us that you can handle Hannibal Lecter. That is your craft.

    Sure you would love personal privacy, but that is a tall order when you also employ a publicist.

    Neither your life recipe nor your family album is of any interest to me. I hire you for a brief time measured in minutes to entertain me. Like a good plumber, I want service, not a show of butt crack. I can take the butt crack in exchange for the competence at the craft, but I am not motivated by the chance to ruminate on butt crack.

    Too many Hollywood types seem to want a voice and affirmation outside of their paid jobs. So far as paid entertainment is concerned, I want the experience of the entertainment to be of great quality and then I want to move on to the next gimmick Hollywood throws my way as its business model for getting some of my money.

    How much would I pay to hear Jodie Foster and Mel Gibson and Whoopi Goldberg spend three hours on a stage probing each other’s psyches? Nothing. I would rather be at Cracker Barrel watching the tour bus passengers bitch about the bread pudding.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 14, 2013 @ 9:35 am - January 14, 2013

  3. She’s probably got an upcoming autobiography due out soon. These Hollyweird hypocrites are all about the financial bottom line. Pricks!

    Comment by Mario — January 14, 2013 @ 10:06 am - January 14, 2013

  4. I’ve never invaded Foster’s privacy. I don’t really care about her privacy or whether she, worth multi-millions, feels robbed of a childhood. Would Foster feel so comfortable discussing (oh sorry — implying) her private life on a very public stage had no one gone before her? And what are people discussing over the water cooler today? I’ll bet real money it isn’t her acting. Is what Foster said very, very important? No, because she’s not very important and any public figure who complains about a public interested in her private life while living off them is a hypocrite.

    Comment by Ignatius — January 14, 2013 @ 11:26 am - January 14, 2013

  5. Howdy from your token heterosexual! Hasn’t anyone noticed that “Privacy for Gays” (no outing) usually means ‘Privacy for LEFTIST gays’, and outing for anyone who disagrees with the leftists? Just a thought.

    Comment by craig reid — January 16, 2013 @ 9:44 pm - January 16, 2013

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.118 Powered by Wordpress