I WANK ON ABOUT TEH BARROWMAN...
Dec. 2nd, 2008 01:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tencrushWarning: post below may descend into RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION.
Okay, so now that the fuss has died down about JB getting his twig and berries out, what have we actually learned from all this?
First off, let's just all agree that the whole thing, on the scale of BBC things, was a bit of non-incident. Nobody, bar those in the studio, was subjected to JB's peen, because as people have pointed out, it was RADIO, for fuck's sake. Fair enough. Should he have issued an apology? No, he shouldn't. ONE complaint to the BBC does not warrant official apologies, obviously nothing untoward enough happened to cause any sort of outcry, more people probably complain about the shipping forecast that did about this incident, simply because some people have nothing better to do than to listen to and complain about what's on the radio. The DJ's, knowing the current climate, apologised on air for what was obviously just crude behaviour on the part of ALL PARTIES and that should have been the end of it. The apology only served to make the incident into a newsworthy occurence and really, even given the current situation, both the BBC and JB should have more balls than to start issuing official apologies for things that haven't even appeared to offend anybody, but might be construed as possibly being offensive if you squint. Fail on the Beeb there, and on JB, too, let's be honest.
Secondly, though, on the scale of JOHN BARROWMAN THINGS, aside from the outcry, it's just another incident where he got his fucking man meat out and inflicted it on people, and on that level I think wank is fully justified, because, seriously, that spiel is getting SO FUCKING OLD, if it even was funny in the first place, it certainly isn't anymore.
The reason I bring it up again is that in the comments of my previous post something was pointed out to me that riled me up, and I feel it's worth pointing out again. It's this article, and John's justification for getting his todger out all the fucking time, which is, I quote: "I'm a true believer that sex is not dirty, it's not bad, and that we should all lighten up a bit. We're all brought up to think that it's naughty, but it's not. That’s why I get my balls out on set." Oh, for fuck's sake man, what a load of FAIL to stuff into three sentences that is.
I'll just repeat what I said in the comments of that previous post, John's apparent inability to distinguish between NAKED BODIES and SEX is just another one of those failtastic things that make me wish he'd shut the fuck up already, as well as keeping his dick in his pants. Naked bodies are great, and nobody should be ashamed of naked bodies. I should be able to breastfeed my child and let my four-year-old frolic naked on the beach because he likes the fresh air without people immediately associating my bared tits and his frankly hilarious tiny wee winky with FUCKING SEX. Nudity does not equal sex, and it's people's inability to distinguish between the two that makes less confident people than myself uncomfortable about FEEDING THEIR OWN FREAKING CHILD WITH ITS OWN FREAKING FOOD in public. That sort of pathetic justification really makes me angry, because if nothing else, if what you're doing, John, by your own admission, is getting your penis out NOT BECAUSE you're a naturist and think there's nothing wrong with a bit of human flesh (which I would be fine with), BUT BECAUSE YOU WANT PEOPLE TO THINK ABOUT SEX, then there's a term for that and it's called INDECENT EXPOSURE and it will get you arrested. YOUR OWN ADMISSION that you expose your bits to people IN A SEXUAL CONTEXT is precisely what offends people, and it's precisely that context, and people's justified desire to not have SEX rammed down their throats or onto their retinas without their consent, that causes prudish attitudes towards NUDITY in the first place. You've been a very, very lucky man so far that nobody who's been exposed to the Barrowcock has expressed the opinion that they were intimidated by your peen display, but trust me, one of these days, someone will pipe up and say "you know what, I really didn't need to see that and it made me uncomfortable" and when that day comes the Beeb and the press will be fully justified in coming down on you like a ton of bricks for what will at that point justifiably be called sexually agressive behaviour.
So cut your losses now, shut the fuck up, Barrowman, AND PUT IT THE FUCK AWAY.
Okay, so now that the fuss has died down about JB getting his twig and berries out, what have we actually learned from all this?
First off, let's just all agree that the whole thing, on the scale of BBC things, was a bit of non-incident. Nobody, bar those in the studio, was subjected to JB's peen, because as people have pointed out, it was RADIO, for fuck's sake. Fair enough. Should he have issued an apology? No, he shouldn't. ONE complaint to the BBC does not warrant official apologies, obviously nothing untoward enough happened to cause any sort of outcry, more people probably complain about the shipping forecast that did about this incident, simply because some people have nothing better to do than to listen to and complain about what's on the radio. The DJ's, knowing the current climate, apologised on air for what was obviously just crude behaviour on the part of ALL PARTIES and that should have been the end of it. The apology only served to make the incident into a newsworthy occurence and really, even given the current situation, both the BBC and JB should have more balls than to start issuing official apologies for things that haven't even appeared to offend anybody, but might be construed as possibly being offensive if you squint. Fail on the Beeb there, and on JB, too, let's be honest.
Secondly, though, on the scale of JOHN BARROWMAN THINGS, aside from the outcry, it's just another incident where he got his fucking man meat out and inflicted it on people, and on that level I think wank is fully justified, because, seriously, that spiel is getting SO FUCKING OLD, if it even was funny in the first place, it certainly isn't anymore.
The reason I bring it up again is that in the comments of my previous post something was pointed out to me that riled me up, and I feel it's worth pointing out again. It's this article, and John's justification for getting his todger out all the fucking time, which is, I quote: "I'm a true believer that sex is not dirty, it's not bad, and that we should all lighten up a bit. We're all brought up to think that it's naughty, but it's not. That’s why I get my balls out on set." Oh, for fuck's sake man, what a load of FAIL to stuff into three sentences that is.
I'll just repeat what I said in the comments of that previous post, John's apparent inability to distinguish between NAKED BODIES and SEX is just another one of those failtastic things that make me wish he'd shut the fuck up already, as well as keeping his dick in his pants. Naked bodies are great, and nobody should be ashamed of naked bodies. I should be able to breastfeed my child and let my four-year-old frolic naked on the beach because he likes the fresh air without people immediately associating my bared tits and his frankly hilarious tiny wee winky with FUCKING SEX. Nudity does not equal sex, and it's people's inability to distinguish between the two that makes less confident people than myself uncomfortable about FEEDING THEIR OWN FREAKING CHILD WITH ITS OWN FREAKING FOOD in public. That sort of pathetic justification really makes me angry, because if nothing else, if what you're doing, John, by your own admission, is getting your penis out NOT BECAUSE you're a naturist and think there's nothing wrong with a bit of human flesh (which I would be fine with), BUT BECAUSE YOU WANT PEOPLE TO THINK ABOUT SEX, then there's a term for that and it's called INDECENT EXPOSURE and it will get you arrested. YOUR OWN ADMISSION that you expose your bits to people IN A SEXUAL CONTEXT is precisely what offends people, and it's precisely that context, and people's justified desire to not have SEX rammed down their throats or onto their retinas without their consent, that causes prudish attitudes towards NUDITY in the first place. You've been a very, very lucky man so far that nobody who's been exposed to the Barrowcock has expressed the opinion that they were intimidated by your peen display, but trust me, one of these days, someone will pipe up and say "you know what, I really didn't need to see that and it made me uncomfortable" and when that day comes the Beeb and the press will be fully justified in coming down on you like a ton of bricks for what will at that point justifiably be called sexually agressive behaviour.
So cut your losses now, shut the fuck up, Barrowman, AND PUT IT THE FUCK AWAY.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-12-02 01:42 pm (UTC)MB
no subject
Date: 2008-12-02 02:00 pm (UTC)I'm not sure if this is one of JB's uncontrolled ramblings or his personal belief, but what is he actually saying? That when he meets his fellow co-stars, he makes an instant judgement that they are uptight about sex and need to lighten up? All of them? Surely not.
He probably doesn't mean that and I am always guilty of taking a sentence and picking through the actual words, word by word, to find a meaning, but he does come out with some crap at times.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-02 02:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-02 03:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-02 05:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-02 04:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-02 04:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-02 04:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-02 04:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-02 08:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 06:09 am (UTC)For "nuts".
Ok, not GOOD Cockney rhyming slang.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-02 08:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-02 10:35 pm (UTC)I may not agree with everything you said ...
Date: 2008-12-02 11:12 pm (UTC)Re: I may not agree with everything you said ...
Date: 2008-12-03 07:31 am (UTC)Re: I may not agree with everything you said ...
Date: 2008-12-03 01:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 03:42 am (UTC)But do you think he's being:
a.) a pathological exhibitionist
b.) a "sexual awareness activist"
c.) an attention whore?
d.) just silly!John! You know what he's like!
Truth is, do you think he gets away with it mostly because he's (in the opinion of many) cute, camp and charming? Classic double standard at work; you know that when the office hottie rubs your back it's flattering - but when Lou Grant does it it's kinda creepy.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 07:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 12:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 12:45 pm (UTC)I know what you mean, though, yeah. And also, like I keep saying, I feel like there's always a bit of a vibe hanging around him that because he's gay, it's somehow okayer to act like this. Like I'm supposed to find it less threatening for some reason.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 07:44 am (UTC)I appreciate the fact that he wants other gay and bi-sexual people to feel more comfortable with who they are but he's more about sex than sexuality.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-03 11:32 pm (UTC)I have no problems with breastfeeding in public at all but agree that's an entirely different matter because that's not about sex. Having someone expose breasts or balls or whatever to 'educate' me to be less uptight about sex is borderline offensive.