October 30, 2013

Hidden Homos: Harry Potter?

The chickens of this whole "family values" revolution of the past 20 years are finally coming home to roost. Helicopter parents' perfect plan was to lock their children indoors all day long, and scrupulously filter their media / entertainment for Negative Outside Influences. "No daughter of mine is going to buy Lada Gaga's music -- it sets a bad example." So anything that goes over-the-top in its "fun for the whole family" appeal gets a pass as wholesome entertainment.

But what if the players in this squeaky clean package that you've naively swallowed whole, aren't all they appear to be? What if are even more fucked up than Lady Gaga, but their influence is less obvious than hers (it would hard to be more obvious), and they've slowly warped your kids' minds?

With Lady Gaga, she couldn't put out a more blatant signal of how unworthy she is for kids to emulate, so most normal kids will vomit her influence out of their system right upon ingesting it. It leaves such a bad taste in the mouth, you can't even gag it down. With more diluted poisons, though, all they need to corrode the kid's mind is to be administered more frequently. They don't start off thinking there's anything weird about him, steadily take cues from his as one of the cool crowd, then suddenly they're emulating a petty emo faggot.

Or as we saw with Tim Allen, the guy who wants a man's man to emulate winds up acting like a hyperactive Peter Pan who's been given access to power tools. But hey, it was board-certified family friendly entertainment -- and the image-makers at the top of the media monopoly would never just tell you want you wanted to hear, would they?

The more I look into it, the more this seems to be the way that the supporters of "alternative lifestyles" have soaked young brains in The Big Lie -- not sending Pink and Lady Gaga with a battering ram through the front, but sneaking the homo-enablers in through the back door, as it were. Glee, the Jonas Brothers, Disney... and the most triumphant success of all, Harry Potter.

I wonder how many of these naive helicopter parents have seen the publicly available pictures of Harry Potter getting all buddy-buddy with a gaggle of drag queens. And even if he did, just don't let the kids see them, let them continue to consume the wholesome image they know and love. It's not as though the actor would want to weave his preferences, albeit subtly, into the movies themselves, right? Wrong:

"I think part of me would love to play a drag queen, just because it would be an excuse to wear loads of eye make-up."

Yep, totally normal. "Well, hey, it's not as though some of the big stars of our day never dressed up in drag for comedic effect." Right, but it was a caricature for shock value, like that scene in Armed and Dangerous when John Candy dons full drag and Eugene Levy wears an S&M outfit. Not like how Harry Potter in drag actually turned out in the movie, enjoying the role way too much. He was letting part of himself come out, rather than stepping into a different role for shock value. But hey, it's family friendly entertainment -- board-certified -- so what is there to be suspicious about?

I've only seen the first movie during an in-flight showing, while half-asleep, and I don't follow celeb news. But if I had kids who were into these movies and followed the actor in the celeb-obsessed media, my gaydar would've gone off, I would've been sure to get in a jibe here or there about "What a bratty emo faggot..." (Although I don't think I'd embarrass my kids enough to say "No secret where he likes to wave his magic wand..." in a crowded theater.) But parents these days are too dumb to notice an obvious queer, a charge they would only believe if a gay sex tape came out.

Let's take a look at some of his distinctively gay expressions and mannerisms.

Awkward lower-teeth smile: here, here, here, here. Note the upper lip is never pulled back-and-up but pulled sideways or even bowed slightly downward, lower lip is pushed down-and-out, and his lower row of teeth is always showing. Only babies smile like that, and queers are defined by their Peter Pan-isms.

The other awkward gay smile: here, here, here. Lips pressed together, holding back a smile, eyes wide open, eyebrows raised. Actually, not holding back a smile -- about to burst out with a case of the giggles.

Surprised infant face: here. Eyebrows reaching for the hairline, mouth agape. He doesn't make this face often, though; he's sneakier than flaming gays.

Campy-vampy seduction stare: here, here, here. Eyebrows subtly raised, eyes narrowed, head sometimes bowed forward. He isn't shot like this too often either, I assume because they're not marketing him as a sex symbol like the obvious man-munching werewolf from Twilight.

Now, even if you couldn't use those traits to identify him as gay, wouldn't you as a parent still find it weird and unwholesome that the guy can't make any kind of normal face? Narrowed eyes and a nervous smile can't be good, or so my gut tells me. But the head has to over-ride the gut these days, and they stamped their approval on this family friendly entertainment.

It's not like your kid's idol would move on to filming a gay sex scene while playing NAMBLA supporter and Beat poet Allen Ginsberg. And then get worked up into a hissy fit when audiences looked a little cockeyed at his performance:

"I fucked a horse on stage when I was 17 but gay sex is more of a big deal!" ...

"It is just the fact that it's sex, and it's sex with a man, I guess. It's amazing how shockable the world still is." ...

"What's graphic is the emotion of the scene. It's a very vulnerable, slightly afraid moment. It's beautiful and tender as a consequence of that."

He's been active in supporting a variety of causes to normalize abnormality, under the banner of gay rights (see details here). Here's what your kids' role model has to tell them about such perversion: "I have always hated anybody who is not tolerant of gay men or lesbians or bisexuals." Huh, even a normal guy who supported fag lib wouldn't go so far as to "hate" such people -- let alone "always." Obviously he takes it personally. I wonder why?

But, we can't find anything wrong with our kids looking up to a vindictive gay crybaby, since his PR handlers told us he was an icon of family friendly entertainment. He passed their inspection, so why ask any questions?

34 comments:

  1. Steve Johnson10/30/13, 5:45 AM

    Here's another item:

    He's 5'5".

    Every notice how many gays are are around that height? Lots of short slightly built gays out there.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Those fundamentalists, the butt of so much scoffing and ridicule, weren't fooled.

    I became a parent when the Harry Potter books and then movies came out shortly after so was very interested in finding out whether they were wicked or clean fun.

    Back then, the fundamentalists came off as anti-imagination and too focused on being anti-magic. I thought the latter kind of odd, but they were dead serious.

    I read a book from a Christian professor/intellectual who said they were good, clean fun and decided to cast my lot with him...

    We watched the first two movies and was a bit unsettled that Harry lied so much, but a happy, good ending was always the fruit of these lies.
    For awhile, I was able to dismiss the feelings. When the last book came out, I read it and while there was no gotcha moment in it, my feelings that there was something bad about them, all coming from the incessant lying, had nevertheless intensified and came to the conclusion I had been duped.

    Shortly after that, this made news and all I could think about were those fundamentalists.
    As I've gotten older and looking back on that, I feel that, either because of nature, experience, grace, or Biblical teaching, they were much more intuitive and had a richer repertoire of the senses to tap into to detect the perverse and the "off".

    I realize this has little to do with Radcliffe, but when all this business about his perversities started to dribble out (and I didn't know the extent until this post), I just rolled my eyes: more of the same. They were young kids when they were cast and the other boys, very English, seem mostly okay from what I can tell.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Jonas Brothers? They're church boys. What gave you that idea about them?

    ReplyDelete
  4. There was one more unwholesome thing about the enterprise that troubled me at the time, but I allowed myself to be overruled by the imprimatur of the Christian intellectual...

    In the first book, Harry's family is introduced and put down for more than their bad personalities and beliefs, but also for their *class*. Their prole tastes and decorating were elaborated on to reinforce how loathsome they were. How odd and disturbing for a children's book, I thought.
    I figured out where she was coming from eventually, mainly teaching children to embrace the other and the different especially in regards to race, but I saw them as just different from my own beliefs and inclinations, not sinister.

    The lying and stripping the "bad" family of all humanity by ridiculing their prolish tastes was dead wrong.

    I wish I could go back and ask the fundies: What did you see back then and how were these books different from the Narnia and Lord of the Rings books which you didn't have a problem with? (I'm not personally familiar with fantasy stuff).
    At the time, I took what was said by the media about the opposition to be true, especially since I had personally known anti-Halloween people a few years prior and just figured they were mostly one and the same. And they still may have been.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is more than one Jonas brother gay?

    ReplyDelete
  6. For what it's worth. I kind of like Daniel Radcliffe's eyebrows. You don't see eyebrows like that too often.

    Has anyone on this site actually seen the Harry Potter movies?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry, Dahlia has seen the Harry Potter movies.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lots of short slightly built gays out there.

    Right:

    http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2012/06/gay-peter-pan-ism-part-34586-more.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. "The Jonas Brothers? They're church boys. What gave you that idea about them?"

    See that's what I'm talking about -- they go to church, [wipes hands], so they're squeaky clean wholesome kids.

    I didn't have any idea about them until I read through the Blind Gossip site. One struck me as obviously gay, Kevin, but it's way worse than just being gay:

    http://blindgossip.com/?p=56979

    He's now roped into a fake marriage in order to get reality TV viewers, they've planned a fake pregnancy, and will probably issue news of a fake miscarriage after the attention has begun to fade.

    It's the lowest, rankest abuse of the sanctity of marriage and family formation -- straight from those squeaky clean board-certified family friendly entertainers, the Jonas Brothers.

    The other one, Joe, I picked up no vibes from. But from reading around the BG site, I found this:

    http://blindgossip.com/?p=51632

    Some ambitious dominatrix roped him into a relationship, and made a sex tape where she humiliates the hell out of him, in order to promote herself / blackmail the family. Not to mention he's deep into a drug addiction, but that's not too unusual in the entertainment world.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Shortly after that, this made news and all I could think about were those fundamentalists."

    I do remember hearing that when it came out, but I'd forgotten about it.

    "they were much more intuitive and had a richer repertoire of the senses to tap into to detect the perverse and the "off"."

    And some of them are just kneejerks, but on the whole they may have sniffed something out there. Or not. Like you said about the anti-Halloween people, it's hard to tell whether they discriminate between acceptable or unacceptable.

    "The lying and stripping the "bad" family of all humanity by ridiculing their prolish tastes was dead wrong."

    That's a long way from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, isn't it? Not like they're celebrating lower-class tastes, but treating them more as a sign of the "humble origins" of the protagonist. We can identify with that and feel the same restless urge to do better.

    Mocking the humble origins is more for a spoiled ungrateful brat who doesn't want to accomplish anything that would lift himself up, but just wants to be transferred from one cocoon to another, more lavishly provisioned cocoon. One with an iPad or whatever.

    "Not gonna lie, Dad, this cocoon is quite mediocre. Could really use some designer toilet-paper from Target. Or maybe you're just done with even trying..."

    Too bad that real-life experiences aren't like vitamins, where you could improve the Millennials' mental maturity during their 20s. But after age 15 or 20 or whatever, the damage is done, and they can't get a do-over on maturation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rifleman, send me your mommy's work number, I have to tell her that her child has let himself out of his playpen. Quick, it's urgent.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Too bad that real-life experiences aren't like vitamins, where you could improve the Millennials' mental maturity during their 20s. But after age 15 or 20 or whatever, the damage is done, and they can't get a do-over on maturation."

    I disagree, the experiences can make an older person more mature. We just need to wait for the culture to become more outgoing.

    I feel sorry for the Millenials, because even if they did want to escape, there is almost nowhere to go.

    -Curtis

    ReplyDelete
  13. Even those Millenials who would want to get a job have to spend hours filling out applications on the computer. They are being crushed by the social environment.

    -Curtis

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Every notice how many gays are are around that height? Lots of short slightly built gays out there."

    I don't think you're right about the height - many masculine men are short - Sly Stallone is relatively short, at 5'8. Tom Cruise is 5'6, and Agnostic sees no signs that he's gay. Al Pacino is 5'5(seriously), and he doesn't seem gay either. I don't get any vibes from Johnny Depp, and he's 5'7.(What do you think of the leading sex symbols, Agnostic, like Depp and Leo Dicaprio?)

    Probably right about the build - think of the guy from the Big Bahg Theory.

    -Curtis



    ReplyDelete
  15. One thing that strikes me about modern British is the prevalence of black hair. I'm from the antipodes. I grew up amongst the anglo-celts and few of us had that jet black hair. A relatively new thing? Now they all look like Noel Gallagher and have those eyebrows.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Is this post about Harry Potter the fictional character, or Daniel Radcliffe the actor?

    ReplyDelete
  17. People used to tell me all the time I look like Harry Potter, especially with my glasses. I never knew how to take that, and now I feel that way even more so, haha.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Too bad that real-life experiences aren't like vitamins, where you could improve the Millennials' mental maturity during their 20s. But after age 15 or 20 or whatever, the damage is done, and they can't get a do-over on maturation.

    I disagree with this. It depends on whether you want to change or want to improve yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I thought that Joe Jonas seems gay. Nick Jonas doesn't.

    I don't know anything about them.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Agnostic, what do you think about Jim Carey. I couldn't stand watching him because of his over the top facial expressions. I've only seen Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind where he toned it down. It was a very unromantic romantic comedy.

    What do you think about Robin Williams. Another comic I found unbearable and unfunny. I've only seen Mrs. Doubtfire, which was very bad, and Hook.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I've seen straight men making those faces. I don't disagree that its a sign of immaturity, but I don't think it always means the person is homosexual.

    -Curtis

    ReplyDelete
  22. I thought Jason Malloy was gay. I said in a comment at Steve Sailer's but he censored it.

    I know people seem to be a fan of his in the Sailer-sphere, but I never liked his comments.

    He just gives a lot of facts ("research") and then adds some dispassionate commentary which isn't useful at all in understanding something.

    54 tcychre

    ReplyDelete
  23. The reason I thought Jason Malloy was gay was that he was very accepting of nerd sexuality at Gene Expression (for example Razib Khan talking about what he masturbates to or some commentator talking about his three-way marriage).

    And then a contributor made a pretty mild homophobic remark, and Jason told him that he had to leave immediately. I was really struck by that.

    I also remember an argument between him and Gregory Cochran. Jason thought that homosexuality was part of the normal variation in human sexual behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I kind of wondered if Razib Khan, whom I don't like at all, is gay.

    I watched part of a video with him and Cochran, and he lisps like a homo.

    He also espouses pornography, masturbation, promiscuity.

    I dunno...

    ReplyDelete
  25. What about Jason Priestly of Beverly Hills 90120?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Another reason for the "hidden homos" problem is that there seems to be a rule that gay actors usually play straight characters and gay characters are usually played by straight actors.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Steve Sailer has said more than once that he could tell that Cynthia Nixon of Sex and the City was a closet case.

    I asked him how he had figured that out, but he never responded.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Jason Priestley is very short. Only 5'.

    ReplyDelete
  29. That's a typo, Jason Priestley is listed as 5'6 or 5'7 at celebheights (still short).

    You're going by less reliable traits if you focus on height. Normal and homo distributions overlap more for height than for facial expressions, body language, or speech.

    He doesn't look gay or have any obvious gay mannerisms.

    ReplyDelete
  30. You're going by less reliable traits if you focus on height. Normal and homo distributions overlap more for height than for facial expressions, body language, or speech.

    He doesn't look gay or have any obvious gay mannerisms.


    I was going by the fact that he often crinkles his forehead. The other thing is I just wasn't that into him even though he is very goodlooking.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "In the first book, Harry's family is introduced and put down for more than their bad personalities and beliefs, but also for their *class*. Their prole tastes and decorating were elaborated on to reinforce how loathsome they were."

    "That's a long way from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, isn't it? Not like they're celebrating lower-class tastes, but treating them more as a sign of the "humble origins" of the protagonist. We can identify with that and feel the same restless urge to do better. Mocking the humble origins is more for a spoiled ungrateful brat who doesn't want to accomplish anything that would lift himself up, but just wants to be transferred from one cocoon to another, more lavishly provisioned cocoon. One with an iPad or whatever."

    "Proles?" "Humble origins?" It's spelled out in the first book that Harry's uncle went to an English public school and sent his own son to the same school. In the UK class system, that makes their family upper middle class.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Re: Aussies anon - Anonymous10:16 PM - Didn't see this earlier, but supposedly dark haired men and women are overrepresented in the British aristocracy (and I guess by extension, the gentry, etc.) -

    http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2004/10/havelock-ellis-on-british-brunettes.html. The founding population of the Aussies might have been a little different.

    There's more of a move towards a concentration of the children of rich family in the arts in Britain in the late 20th and early 21st century, so that might be why "they all look like Noel Gallagher and have those eyebrows." Also some profusion of Jewish and Irish ancestry in theatrical backgrounds these days (like the Harry Potter actor for'ex).

    It's spelled out in the first book that Harry's uncle went to an English public school and sent his own son to the same school. In the UK class system, that makes their family upper middle class.

    Not a Harry Potter reader (glad I dodged that Millenial Generation bullet), but right, sounds not prole, more the peculiarly British Isles thing of the working classes, aristocrats, bohemians and lumpenproles all lining up to piss on the Home Counties and Middle England. (Maybe there are times this is more popular)

    ReplyDelete
  33. 'Didn't see this earlier, but supposedly dark haired men and women are overrepresented in the British aristocracy (and I guess by extension, the gentry, etc.) -'

    Blondes are more reserved and restrained. Their lack of risk taking and sociability means that they tend not to rise as high as winner brunettes. On the plus side they also are less likely to fall as low as loser brunettes.

    And Harry Potter would still be really gay even if the actor wasn't gay, which he conveniently is. I remember when the series got big in the late 90's. I saw the cover art and thought 'that looks pretty lame' compared to the art that was done in the disco/new wave era like Conan, Legend, Star Wars, Willow etc. Even the Masters of the Universe movie from 'round 1988 had exciting costumes, sets and art direction though the plot and acting don't stand up to scrutiny.

    I wonder if the sad people who actually sat thru any of the Harry Potter movies can even remember a single aspect of the music, the costumes, the photography or the performances.

    I guess those of us were young in the 80's didn't realize just how terrible art of all kinds would get in the 90's and beyond. I don't listen to any music made past 1993.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Agnostic is spot on, from my personnal observations living in a large urban area with a big gay presence in the UK, I can tell that there is about 2 types of gay:

    type 1, the most common and basic archetype of what we consider gay is the short peter pan type.

    type 2 (a lot less common) is the physically hypermasculine, very hairy bear/leather type (more likely in the closet).

    Athletic, handsome 6ft tall jock type gay is actually extremely rare and thus is the target of much gay porn fantasy (to their advantage, they are the most likely to benefit from gay nepotism, also very closeted)

    Okcupid actually did a study (now deleted) that confirmed my observation.
    http://jessicasaggioink.com/2010/03/02/short-men-are-more-likely-to-be-gay-wow/

    Also it seems to me that the number of non heterosexual males is much higher than what is reported, from observation I would say that depending on the ethnic group between 1/5 and 1/3 of males are non heterosexual, jews ans blacks being the gayest i can think of.

    It's no wonder so many women are turning bisexual, gay men do have that corrosive effect on female psyche. Women are actively avoiding men they think might be gay, and since gay men loathe lesbian sex.

    ReplyDelete

You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."