GNR Women's discussion

[tiutso]

27 minutes ago, tiutso said:

We need to photoshop Axl's face on Slash's and @killuridols on Perla's

[Andy14]

Lol, I think I'll need a summary, I can't keep up with this thread today 

2 minutes ago, tiutso said:

We need to photoshop Axl's face on Slash's and @killuridols on Perla's

No, the other way round 

[tiutso]

Just now, Andy14 said:

No, the other way round 

I'm pretty sure it's not Axl who's a self-proclaimed ass-eater 

[SerenityScorp]

On 31/05/2016 at 9:06 AM, killuridols said:

Haha I'd say "petition for Axl to drop the alcohol and the beer gut".

Really, I have to admit now, he's bloated and so is his stomach. It's a pity because his legs are awesome and his butt and arms, but he's got that gut that I dont know why it seems more prominent now than at the beginning of the AXL/DC shows. Is he drinking a lot in those terrible alcoholic countries?

Reading this old post 

[Frey]

19 minutes ago, tiutso said:

I'm pretty sure it's not Axl who's a self-proclaimed ass-eater 

Says who?

20 minutes ago, Andy14 said:

Lol, I think I'll need a summary, I can't keep up with this thread today 

Lol what? The thread's only grown 2 pages or so since the last post I saw of you

[stella]

1 hour ago, Blackstar said:

I don't think he plays himself. It's just a part in a cult b-movie, a fictional character, even if there is a loose connection to Adler's real life experiences. Maybe Steven needed the money or the guy who made the movie is his friend or whatever, but I don't see anything wrong (except the generally low quality of the movie).

I consider his participation in that rehab reality show much more humiliating.

I feel like shows like that rehab show shouldn't even be on the air. It exploits people who are at really bad places in their life and makes their suffering nothing but a circus act for the world to watch. I know they're all adults who chose to participate but they were also all adults with very serious substance abuse problems, who also often had serious emotional problems, and in some cases were really in need of money. I feel like it was taking advantage of them to put them on the show.

[SerenityScorp]

Its almost 200 pages

[Mararoyce]

On August 4, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Frey said:

It's not a reach, because what I stated was why I personally think it's a douche move. From my perspective. Because I know all these things. I never said that this was the brat's specific intention (I even said who knows why he did that in one of my posts). 

The birthday thing came from an article in Rolling Stone magazine.

But Erin doesn't need to rely on magazine articles, it seems she has better sources who keep her up to date on Axl. So she knows how much Seymour hurt him. And since she acts all in love with Axl again recently, it's not surprising she would jump to his defense when she perceives something as a slight against Axl. 

And yes, it seems she thinks it was insensitive. She said it was "cruel and unnecessary". Her own words under the picture.

As for the kids knowing about this, of course they know. They are obsessed with their image, themselves, their family... they have probably googled themselves and their mom a million times already.

Can you tell me where "Erin is acting all in love with Axl". I'm just catching up on this thread?

[tiutso]

2 minutes ago, Frey said:

Says who?

That's why I said 'self-proclaimed' 

[Andy14]

4 minutes ago, Frey said:

Lol what? The thread's only grown 2 pages or so since the last post I saw of you

Yeah, but all this "Let's find a proof that GNR members are gays" is too much for me . Not to mention the video and the picture of Perla 

I guess I'll just skip it 

[stella]

1 hour ago, SerenityScorp said:

Like maybe the things tht happens with Him in the past makes Him confused N' maybe caused His sexuality change or something to become bi/gay. N' tht makes Him become a denial/hiding the truth by become a Womanizer. He's too having problem with His masculinity N' maybe tht makes Him being a denial

Sexuality is something you're born with, though. There are studies that say that one's sexuality can be fluid and be at different points in the Kinsey scale throughout one's life, but you can't be turned gay or straight by abuse.

If anything, I think where Axl's past would come into play is that a strict religious upbringing might make it hard for someone to express *any* sexuality at all, but especially being gay. I have a few friends who escaped from strict religious groups and they have issues with expressing their sexuality and being sexual even now in their 20s and 30s. Because they had one mindset hammered into their heads for their formative years and it's hard to overcome that. Axl also has said that there were direct messages from his church that things like looking at women in bikinis and sex were "evil," and that certainly has to have had an influence - I think he's even said as much.

Also, rock n' roll is so friggin' macho and homophobic that it's not funny...despite people like Freddie Mercury and despite a lot of support for LGBT people (I remember seeing an interview years ago with Motley Crue where all four of them said they supported gay marriage and thought it should be legal) there still seems to be that stigma. I remember in that Eddie Trunk interview from 2006, Sebastian Bach uses the word 'gay' to insult something. And there are all those jokes about the few gay rock stars who are out, like Rob Halford. Being gay in the hard rock world is probably incredibly difficult and there isn't a lot of support for those who come out. I'd imagine that would deter anyone from coming out of the closet.

[Frey]

2 hours ago, Blackstar said:

I don't think he plays himself. It's just a part in a cult b-movie, a fictional character, even if there is a loose connection to Adler's real life experiences. Maybe Steven needed the money or the guy who made the movie is his friend or whatever, but I don't see anything wrong (except the generally low quality of the movie).

I consider his participation in that rehab reality show much more humiliating.

On the IMDB page of that movie it says he plays "Stevie" So he plays a guy with his name (even his nickname) who blows other guys for drugs? That's basically playing himself.

I think it's embarrassing as fuck. If I were in his place I would be terrified of someone I know coming across that video and seeing it. Even if I were totally broke, I still would never do something like that. I've never seen the rehab show so I can't compare.

16 minutes ago, Mararoyce said:

Can you tell me where "Erin is acting all in love with Axl". I'm just catching up on this thread?

Over the last 2 years she's posted pictures of Axl on her instagram and saying nice things about him. On facebook or somewhere else she said that she will always love him. Recently she thanked him for dedicating and ACDC song to her. And even more recently she defended him when Steph Seymour's son posted something dumb on his instragram. And other stuff that I'm probably forgetting right now. But I'm sure it's all in this thread.

13 minutes ago, Andy14 said:

Yeah, but all this "Let's find a proof that GNR members are gays" is too much for me . Not to mention the video and the picture of Perla 

I guess I'll just skip it 

Hey, I gave fair warning to everyone about that video I can't be held responsible for any trauma you received from watching that lol.

 

@stella Yeah that's what I was trying to say. But you said it much better.

 

Edited August 8, 2016 by Frey

[starlight]

1 hour ago, tiutso said:

Wew, we're venturing into a very bad territory here.

Let's lighten shit up:

 

That ass though

Perla was a lucky bitch

[tiutso]

Just now, stella said:

Sexuality is something you're born with, though. There are studies that say that one's sexuality can be fluid and be at different points in the Kinsey scale throughout one's life, but you can't be turned gay or straight by abuse.

We don't have concrete proof that sexuality is inherently innate. In the meantime, the consensus that has been decided upon is that it's a sorta mix of biological, environmental and cognitive factors.

There are people who get fixated on some elements of their trauma which could lead to a desire of replicating them, whether manifesting in the way they will seek to be treated or the circumstances they will choose to engage in sex or, perhaps, gender and age of their partners. Some women turn away completely from men in the light of their abuse and find solace in relationships with women, and we aren't really able to prove that that was something that would necessarily happen if not for trauma.

The problem, of course, lies with the fact that none of these things could ever be brought up in a casual conversation, because homophobes will use it as an argument against building a society more nourishing for gay people. When it should, in fact, be an argument for quite the opposite, that so many people find contentment in queer relationships for whatever reason whatsoever.

[nn18]

2 hours ago, killuridols said:

I don't want to start an argument or be an ass but there's something behind this reasoning that doesn't ring cool to me.

Woah! Hold on! If by ''doesn't ring cool'' you implied that there are signs of homophobia in my post, I just want to say you're massively wrong and apologize for not expresing myself good enough.

Where I live, generally speaking, opinions on LGBT people are not very nice and I was always the one that would get into arguments to defend them. Anytime, anywhere. So I find this situation really disturbing, being called out for something like that, and quite offended. But I understand that for someone who does not actually know me, things like that can come in mind. And after reading again what I posted, I can see that I did express myself pretty poorly. English is not my first language, even though I thought I'm pretty good at it, stating your opinion on something in foreign language is still quite chalenging.

2 hours ago, tiutso said:

It's a frequent line of reasoning, isn't it. Some straight people will only legitimize someone's non-straightness if they provide a filled-out form confirming that their experiences were serious and solid enough and there's no doubt about them. Meanwhile, if an infant boy smiles at a girl, they just know he'll be straight, for sure 

What I wanted to say is that people should not start questioning someone's sexuality based on the things they did while under the influence of alcohol/drugs etc. Sexuality in my opinion has a much deeper meaning that kissing a guy (or a girl) in the middle of the night in some club. 

Again, I apologize for expressing myself in that way and for getting myself into extremly ugly and for me disturbing situation. That said, I will delete that part of my post, cause I don't want that things like that even cross someone's mind while reading my words. 

[stella]

8 minutes ago, tiutso said:

We don't have concrete proof that sexuality is inherently innate. In the meantime, the consensus that has been decided upon is that it's a sorta mix of biological, environmental and cognitive factors.

There are people who get fixated on some elements of their trauma which could lead to a desire of replicating them, whether manifesting in the way they will seek to be treated or the circumstances they will choose to engage in sex or, perhaps, gender and age of their partners. Some women turn away completely from men in the light of their abuse and find solace in relationships with women, and we aren't really able to prove that that was something that would necessarily happen if not for trauma.

The problem, of course, lies with the fact that none of these things could ever be brought up in a casual conversation, because homophobes will use it as an argument against building a society more nourishing for gay people. When it should, in fact, be an argument for quite the opposite, that so many people find contentment in queer relationships for whatever reason whatsoever.

There isn't concrete proof for a lot of things, but it's been pretty much accepted that there's a strong biological basis. And the issue with saying "some women turn completely away from men..." etc. is that there's really no way of proving in any way that it's *because* they were abused. They may have always been gay, and one doesn't have anything to do with the other. The same is true for asexuality - an asexual person may have been abused, but most of the time they're showing that sexual orientation all along.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/06/biological_basis_for_homosexuality_the_fraternal_birth_order_explanation.html
 

[tiutso]

3 minutes ago, nn18 said:

What I wanted to say is that people should not start questioning someone's sexuality based on the things they did while under the influence of alcohol/drugs etc. Sexuality in my opinion has a much deeper meaning that kissing a guy (or a girl) in the middle of the night in some club. 

I mean, sure, let's say it's not kissing someone in the club. But how are things done under the influence fundamentally different from your ~true~ desires? Slash has spent literal years fucked up on some shit. Does it mean we could say none of his hetersexual experiences matter because he was fucked up? Or is it only not okay cause the implication is someone's non-straightness? 

[giuls]

4 hours ago, Lumikki said:

 The bolded part   And thanks to your expert opinion I'll consider the Mick Jagger/David Bowie thing as confirmed then

I consulted my Stones files and the year in question was 1973, and yes, he didn't say the words "i had sex with Bowie" but it was strongly implied.

@SerenityScorp i loved that jacket, i love Axl's eccentric outfits tbh

@tiutso that ass 

 

[Epson]

Didn't think i would say this, but

You guys are weird.

[tiutso]

1 hour ago, stella said:

There isn't concrete proof for a lot of things, but it's been pretty much accepted that there's a strong biological basis. And the issue with saying "some women turn completely away from men..." etc. is that there's really no way of proving in any way that it's *because* they were abused. They may have always been gay, and one doesn't have anything to do with the other. The same is true for asexuality - an asexual person may have been abused, but most of the time they're showing that sexual orientation all along.

None of these things I disagree with. 

What I'm saying, we shouldn't shut the door on the non-biological factors, because if we one day analyze the whole genome or whatever and find confirmation, it's gonna lead to problems. If it's confirmed biology, people will start venturing into the eugenics territory; if it's confirmed non-biology, queer people will be shut out from society based on their influence. The area that should be worked on is, I believe, the idea that there is literally no wrong reason to end up in a non-straight relationship. So, even if someone wants to believe they chose to be gay, it shouldn't be a problem. Because there shouldn't be a problem with being gay. A lot of people dislike this, because they believe it's setting the movement backwards. But you can't rely on the old argument of 'I was born like this' for long because a lot of supporters are using it as a comfort blanket that they would remove as soon as it turned out that people 'aren't born like this'. 

Edited August 8, 2016 by tiutso

[john lennon]

1 hour ago, AslatIE said:

Of course you'd say that

Uhm, naturally. I'm a sucker for shitty B-films but I guess we've both already come to that conclusion, right? 

[tiutso]

Just now, Epson said:

Didn't think i would say this, but

You guys are weird.

Finally. I was starting to miss @ZoSoRose

[nn18]

20 minutes ago, tiutso said:

I mean, sure, let's say it's not kissing someone in the club. But how are things done under the influence fundamentally different from your ~true~ desires? Slash has spent literal years fucked up on some shit. Does it mean we could say none of his hetersexual experiences matter because he was fucked up? Or is it only not okay cause the implication is someone's non-straightness? 

I was trying to say that conciously being atracted, in love or on a serious note- in a relationship are what counts. Some people don't want to accept that, don't want to say it out loud, but they are aware of what they feel. And it has nothing to do with ''influences'', a lot of people tried out ''different'' things while sober, but that does not change their sexuality, unless they felt something more than just fooling around. 

Edited August 8, 2016 by nn18

[giuls]

37 minutes ago, Frey said:

On the IMDB page of that movie it says he plays "Stevie" So he plays a guy with his name (even his nickname) who blows other guys for drugs? That's basically playing himself.

I think it's embarrassing as fuck. If I were in his place I would be terrified of someone I know coming across that video and seeing it. Even if I were totally broke, I still would never do something like that. I've never seen the rehab show so I can't compare.

But you don't have an addiction to mantain, addicts would do pretty much everything for money to buy drugs, GNR money only go so far, that's the difference between you and Steven at the time

[john lennon]

8 minutes ago, giuls said:

But you don't have an addiction to mantain, addicts would do pretty much everything for money to buy drugs, GNR money only go so far, that's the difference between you and Steven at the time

On another note tho, what's wrong with the film? I'd totally do it and I don't have an addiction to maintain.