Reader comments · Bret Easton Ellis slams GLAAD and says gay basketball player Jason Collins treated like a ‘baby panda’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Bret Easton Ellis slams GLAAD and says gay basketball player Jason Collins treated like a ‘baby panda’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Robert in S. Kensington 14 May 2013, 2:15pm

    Another gay self-loathing apologist for the right wing, the sort that C4M and other hate groups exploit for their own ends.

    1. Oh really, Robert in S. Kennington?

      Have you seen the multitude of comments to the Guardian’s coverage of this story, mostly from gay people who totally get the irony of Bret’s comments?

      Most agree with Bret’s ascerbic comments and also see the true futility and fruitlessness inherent in the likes of GLAAD’s agenda for what it is:- how its shrill PC objective of supposedly liberating gay people amid plethoras of pom poms and sequins under the somewhat disingenuous banner of “Pride” in fact creates the very bondage and chains that so many of us end up trapped and suffocated within.

      GLAAD sucks up funds from daft donors to segregate gay people from the normality of life while consigning us to a divided world of customised tribes that don’t commune with each other, creating more oppression within than we could ever hope to suffer without.

      We must stop letting these deluded dimwits dictate who we are!

      1. Midnighter 14 May 2013, 4:31pm

        Conforming to gender stereotypes for the sake of appeasing those that can’t deal with camp men is equally harmful.

        By implying that “camp” behaviour is a sign of bondage you miss the point that a large reason for the subculture you deprecate is as a reaction to oppressive heterosexual behaviours, and it is also a natural part of the psychological development of many young gay men learning to break out of the hetero mold that society has tried to cast them in for the bulk of their lives.

        The answer I suggest lies in between, wherever an individual feels comfortable on the spectrum of expressing themselves which is not up to Bret, you or the or scriptwriters of Glee to dictate.

        As far as GLAAD et al, it is fortunate that some are willing to get off their soapboxes and work for the LGBT community since we seem rather apathetic about fighting our corner. While I welcome healthy scepticism I’d like to hear some constructive contribution rather than negativity (and self publicity.)

        1. great answer :)

          plus camp behaviour can be quite fun – something a lot of heterosexual men don’t understand the meaning of

          fun to some of them is abusing someone on the football terraces, or having a dogmatic conversation where they try and convince everyone they are right on subject noone can know the answer to (e.g. who is the best sportsman of all time)

        2. YOU are the one who has introduced the word “camp” to the debate, not I, and in doing so you conveniently (choose to?) misunderstand entirely the point I am making.

          For the record I have absolutely nothing against camp people whatsoever:- possibly because I happen to enjoy camping it up with the best of them, BUT of my own volition.

          I most certainly don’t need to take my cue from some grotesque, fashion-victimised, cheese-grater voiced West Hollywood GLAAD spokesperson or whoever, thank you very much.

          Neither would i ever dream of appointing myself as a spokesperson for all gay people and deign to speak on their behalf – nor represent them as a figurehead for all gays to look up to and take guidance from and be influenced by – because who the hell am I to do that, regardless of whether I am camp, butch, hairy, waxed, obese, anorexic or any combo thereof?

          But do continue to pontificate at leisure if that helps you to get a few things off your chest, there’s a dear.

          1. When you referred to the use of ” plethoras of pom poms and sequins” I struggle to see what other adjective would best sum up your topic, but if you don’t like the word “camp” perhaps you could suggest a better.

            In spite of your prickly and theatrical responses I have merely asked you to explain your point listing out the issues I have with it explicitly elsewhere in this thread, none of which you have -apparently – been able to address.

            You are now merely reiterating the one small part of your waffle that I’ve already said I agree with. If you have any new or rational contribution feel free to respond to the post where I dissected the rest of your “argument”.

            A word of advice: if you are offended by people trying to understand the basis or specifics of your argument and you won’t -or can’t – explain it, I suggest you don’t bother saying anything.

          2. You are either being extremely obtuse, disingenuous are simply choosing not to get it.

            While you clearly think that gay people should take their cue and guidance from self appointed “gate keepers” who profess to speak for all of us in fighting for gay rights, I happen to think that that is the very trap we have fallen into all along:- the bondage and chains I mention above.

            For in fighting for our rights these “leaders” have politicised and parodied our sexuality and groomed successive generations into deluding themselves that the only way to be happy and fit in with the dictated gay lifestyle and be accepted by the culture is to adapt their personalities accordingly, join a tribe and, better still, become ghettoised.

            Ever wonder why so many gay men lust after straight men, midnighter?

            Could it just be that the straight men they covet are freely and individually self-expressed individuals who don’t have to change who they are to gain acceptance by the herd?

            Gay culture as dictated by militants is ultimately destructive because it forces insecure gay men into false and shallow existences:- if you don’t look gay, basically, you aren’t one of us.

            Gay culture more than anything else is responsible for most of the anxieties, levels of depression and, yes, suicides, in our community, because gay culture represses and judges gay people infinitely more than mainstream society:- it serves only to disempower us instead of encouraging self and mutual respect.

            If I am wrong, then why is it that the more rights that our secured for gay people, the higher the rates of depression, HIV infection and suicide appear to be?

          3. Midnighter 16 May 2013, 6:46pm

            “While you clearly think that gay people should take their cue and guidance from self appointed “gate keepers”
            On the contrary,I have stated that I believe the exact opposite to you multiple times. Who is being disingenuous and obtuse now?

            “Ever wonder why so many gay men lust after straight men,”
            Funnily enough, no. Or perhaps you are super-attractive to straights compared to me. Or just losing the plot completely, I suspect.

            Amongst all the other strawman arguments you now raise, the remaining original point I challenged out of all of that which I still have yet to here some substantiation for is the one where you claim “Gay culture as dictated by militants” is the great evil we should all be fighting.

            Again I ask, where is your evidence, and again I point out that your logic is flawed: generalising these militants as people who only employ one particular tactic is fallacious (never mind that the original purpose of camping it up at Pride evidently still goes over your head).

      2. Sorry, but I don’t understand what this guy is trying to say. The whole point of the rights movement is acceptance of difference – we have the right to be different from the “norm” or behave as “normal” if we so decide (which is also the main message of Glee). Pride parades began as a statement of difference: we can be loud, we can think of sex, we can dress as we want and still that doesn’t make us “sinners” or depraved, and more important it doesn’t constitute a reason why we should be treated as second class citizens. Most people participating in a Parade most likely will go onto their “normal” lifestyles anyway. So, why can’t we accept difference, being this a loud drag queen or a role model basketball player or whatever we decide to be?

        1. Make up your mind, people!

          Being gay is either normal or it’s not.

          We can’t have it both ways, but because we insist we are as normal as heterosexuals in order to achieve equal rights while allowing the militants to co-opt our identity and portray us as freaks, misfits and figures of tragedy, those rights have been hard fought and a long time coming.

          Far longer, arguably, than they might otherwise have been.

          1. Midnighter 14 May 2013, 5:17pm

            What actual evidence do you have that militants are responsible doing any such thing?

            Your general point about positive and normative representation is one I happen to agree with, but I have yet to see any reason to point the finger of blame at those fighting for our rights,although I’ll willingly stipulate some make better advocates than others.

            Look instead at the uneducated and outright bigoted behind media programming and censorship for your real villains.

          2. @Midnighter:- I refer you to my four-part response further down this thread…

          3. The word normal is between inverted commas to denote the arbitrariness of the term (who decides what is “normal”?) GLAAD certainly does not define what is normal with their stereotyped clean cut, kisch role models, but you or Bret neither can define what is normal by saying loud people are NOT normal.

  2. john lyttle 14 May 2013, 2:28pm

    Bret is now officially tragic.

  3. The Guardian’s article on this matter suggests that Bret Easton Ellis has a chip on his shoulder and, rather in the manner of Rupert Everett, likes to periodically issue outraging anti-gay statements.

    1. You could almost say he’s well-balanced in that he has chips, equally large, on both shoulders.

      Lurking somewhere in the bile might be a hint of a point in what BEE says, but it can’t really get through the clouds of his self-absorption and narcissism.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 14 May 2013, 3:28pm

      That was my impression. Something which Sam B above doesn’t get, another Ellis type apologist. Ellis is a light-weight in the scheme of things, has done absolutely NOTHING for equality but sits back taking pot shots at activists without whom he wouldn’t be out today. He’s a self loather who despises effeminacy, drag queens and effete males, many of whom were the protagonists of the gay rights movement worldwide. In his distorted view, we should all be straight acting, complacent and just shut up and stay in our place if we want “acceptance” as he calls it. It’s more to do about craving attention for someone so insignificant in the scheme of things. What a sad example he is.

  4. Yes, a self-loather if ever there was one. The need for positive Gay role models in all walks of life, including and especially sport, does not need explaining. Call me bourgeois but some people make better role models than others. Clean-cut, talented, assimilated success stories make better ambassadors to the mainstream – and younger members of our own community – than do Cardinal O’Brien or Jeffrey Dahmer.
    From what I know of Jason Collins, he can represent me anytime.
    Easton’s comment about Glee reveals a very sick mind.

  5. I am think that I detect the distinct smell of jealousy mixed in with self loathing!

  6. One has to admire this guy for saying it as it is.

    If the GLAAD has-beens are to be believed, “gay community” is a bright, shiny, cuddly thing existing within an airbrushed rainbow of squeaky kitschness with nary a crack in its bouffant-plated armour.

    Now consider this commentator’s response to The Guardian’s coverage (,
    who summed up most comments thus:-

    “Being gay, in an ideal world, is something neither to be celebtated nor ashamed of, its just what it is, a perfectly natural and normal way to be orientated and which nobody cares about. And until we get to that point we won’t have true equality.”

    Exactly, but while the PC militants continue hijacking our course and speak as our non-elected “leaders” we’ll never gain full acceptance by the mainstream, who’ll continue to parody us thus:-,351/

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 14 May 2013, 3:09pm

      If it weren’t for those ‘militants’ as you call them, there would be NO gay rights anywhere and you wouldn’t be able to visit a site such as this because it would probably never have existed. If it weren’t for drag queens and othersat the Stonewall bar in the 60s, it would probably still be illegal to be gay in the UK. Ellis would not be able to have come out either because there was just as much stigma and illegality in the U.S. Ellis’ comments are irresponsible and only fuel right wing bigots and homophobes. He’d be the darling of C4M et al. They want us to shut up, stay in the closet and disappear. Bigots DO care that we’re out and they DO care that we should be denied full equality. The opposition to equal marriage is overwhelming proof of that. No thanks!

      1. If it weren’t for the militants, Rob, who parodied and stereotyped the gay lifestyle in order to demand attention post Stonewall riots, same-sex attracted people may never have had to fight as hard as they did for equal rights in the first place.

        That is the very point The Onion made a few years ago:-,351/

        That’s also the point that the Guardian commentator makes in my post above.

        How could gay people hope to attain the rights they had to fight so hard for amid a backdrop of “Pride” that often defined itself in the most degrading and alienating of ways possible?

        It was a long hard fight because of this false and shallow representation of what most gay people stood for, and without which we’d arguably have attained respect and equality far sooner.

        It’s only in recent years, as those overt representations of gay life have diminished from public view, that most of those rights were won.

        1. Flaw 1: Circular reasoning: You claim the tactics of Pride set gay rights back in the past and use that claim to support those tactics being harmful now. Conversely you use an opinion piece that names a mere three individuals reacting to present-day pride events as ‘evidence’ of the harm of Pride tactics to support your first claim.

          Flaw 2: Whether present day Pride events do more harm than good does not give us data about the social impact of past events of the type.

          Flaw 3: Three cherry picked views out of how many tens of thousands attending pride is not a statistically meaningful sample by any reckoning.

          Flaw 4: You have provided no scientific basis for suggesting the publicity of Pride has any significant negative sociological impact (then or now), nor explained how that negativity cancels out the positive impact traditionally assumed.

          Flaw 5: You assume the same militants are only capable of using this one tactic, and thereby condemn them for their effort

        2. The comments I highlighted from The Guardian forum on this news story received by far the highest votes in the entire thread, so their views bike with popular opinion.

          I can only assume you are one of these politically motivated militants whose days are numbered and so you will clasp at straws to try and defend and validate your perceived self-appointed right to define what living a gay lifestyle should be about.

          Do close the door on the way out, there’s a good chap:- there’s an awful back draft blowing a foul stench around these parts…

          1. Midnighter 15 May 2013, 5:54pm

            I’m not a “militant” at all, I simply don’t take others’ unsupported opinions as carved in stone as apparently you do. You’ve been unable to defend your flawed argument and now are resorting to childish retorts. If you don’t have the wit to make a clear point and argue the case for it, why bother participating in a discussion? You really don’t pay attention if you think that I am trying to dictate gay lifestyle, since I have on more than one occasion pointed out that NO ONE has that right, including you, since you were apparently trying to do so.

            Present some facts and support your case and you might convert me to your view – ignore reason and behave childishly and I cannot take you seriously.

  7. The guy is just a gay uncle tom.
    Any time we get a little respect he’s there regular as clockwork, carping from the sidelines.
    If I have to choose between GLAAD and professional self-loather Bret to represent me I’ll stick with GLAAD thankyou very much.
    If Brad had his way gay relationships would still be illegal.

    1. Correction: Bret!
      Where did Brad come from?

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 14 May 2013, 3:14pm

      He’s probably a GOProud supporter!

  8. Staircase2 14 May 2013, 2:48pm

    What a horrible tosser

  9. I'm gonna say it... 14 May 2013, 2:48pm

    As a lesbian, I do find myself commenting on the gay community as a whole. And it isn’t always Mary Poppin’s like ….

    It can be like, I hate fags, they are so bitch and back stabbing. Dykes can be so over the tops and they need to know when to tone it down. I can’t stand the super dyke 24-7.

    ya, and it’s true….and people laugh..and i smile…they only people who hesitate at laughing are in fact straight people. They are ‘conditioned’ to not have an opinion that has been officially sanctioned by GLADD or PETA…

    I am not self loathing, it is just a release…and it’s actually accurate, and everyone has a right to express a different opinion. And no, I don’t like or support ALL GAY people EVERYWHERE on EARTH. Some are not nice people, and some are just ‘base’.

    1. What exactly is “the gay community as a whole”?

      1. The set of all people who proclaim themselves to be part of “the gay (or GLB+however-many-other-letters-are-thought-necessary) community”?

    2. Right, ’cause we’re all the same and people should strive to fit in and do what everyone else is doing.

      Because that’ll work.


  10. If you read this article on The Guardian, I was shocked to see some of the user comments. Especially the outpour of gay men and women supporting it and his choice of words

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 14 May 2013, 3:12pm

      And I bet you some of them don’t support equal marriage either. On the other hand, we can’t know for sure if those comments in agreement with him actually came from gay people just as we really don’t know how many of them signed the C4M petition claiming to be gay to give the impression to our opponents that ‘many’ of us are opposed.

      1. Until recently I didn’t particularly support gay marriage myself. Just because homosexual people don’t share the ‘right’ PC opinions doesn’t not make us any less homosexual, nor less worthy of being heard or represented. Although I’m no fan of BEE (and, FWIW, cringe whenever I discover that Rupert Everett has made another public statement) I do agree that the ‘positive representation of GLB+ people’ that GLAAD and others try to force on the media is bland, unrealistic and often sickeningly saccharine.

        I’m with Samuel B. on this one.

    2. What, the same Guardian commentators who we can always depend on to support our fight for equal rights and who stand up for us against the put downs of elements of the right?

      Oh the irony!!

  11. Martin Leyland 14 May 2013, 2:52pm

    I don’t agree with most of what he has said. In one respect he is right unfortunately. I was present at a Pride meeting where an organiser asked for local Coming Out stories and then added “but not any negative ones.” We like to project as one big happy cuddly pink family but like any family we have faults and dysfunctions. We rarely if ever acknowledge this. I don’t loathe myself at all but coming out didn’t work out so well. Sometimes, it just happens.

    1. Well said Martin!

      As I said, so long as the mainstream perception of the gay “community” is sanitised and airbrushed into total PC oblivion then it meets with the militants’ approval.

      But dare say it as it really is and the knives come out.

      Anyone ever consider that it is because these self-appointed “leaders” delude themselves that everything’s rosy and that despite millions of dollars in funding – of which they refuse to spend a penny on addressing the real issues – problems such as endemic rates of depression and suicide still exist among the very people they claim to be speaking on behalf of?

      The likes of GLADD only care about where their next donor check is coming from as they jostle for that prime seat next to Ellen Degeneres at the one of many awards fundraisers they host year in, year out.

      Like many non-profits in the US, GLADD exists primarily to serve the needs of its staff, and as a convenient way to evade paying tax among many of its five-figure donors.

      1. Midnighter 14 May 2013, 4:51pm

        Perhaps you would rather leave the religious fundies to do all the ‘airbrushing’ without interference?

        If you are fighting a PR battle, you don’t “tell it like it is” without equivocation. The facts of the situation don’t matter to the religious right, or they wouldn’t exist. I don’t like that being the way the world is any more than it sounds like you do, but its human nature: Henry V wouldn’t have done terribly well if he’d clinically noted how horribly outnumbered, injured and sick the English were in his pre-battle speech.

        GLAAD may well be a parasitical organisation as you suggest, however for all your posts on the topic you’ve given us no facts to go on. While its important that such questions get asked, I have to question the benefit to the community of attacking a much-needed advocacy organisation with vague negativity rather than (eg) mobilising opinion on specific factual issues that the community feels GLAAD needs to address.

        1. So better propaganda than truth? Do people not eventually turn against those whom they discover have been misrepresenting things to them?

          1. Midnighter 15 May 2013, 7:25pm

            You appear to have missed the bit where I said “I don’t like that being the way the world is …”.

            Lets not be naive here – you do not persuade very many people to your cause by passively sitting by and waiting for them to come to you for information.

            PR campaigns (or propaganda if you prefer) are designed to get people into your zone of interest so that you can THEN push your product, in this case ‘the truth’ about gay civil issues or whatever.

            Unlike those who oppose gay rights, we do not need to use graphic fairy tales to draw people in, which I think makes such campaigns immediately more honest.

            Would I rather we convince people through open and honest debate? Absolutely. And while that happens as well, the reality is that some people respond better to theatre and emotive depictions than they do to cold hard facts.

          2. I did not miss it and would ask again, “the world being as it is, is it better that people be fed propaganda instead of truth?” I would further ask, “the world being as it is, should truths that undermine a propaganda (or PR, if you prefer) campaign be suppressed?”

          3. If you can explain which truths are being surpressed in this instance and by whom I might be able to help you with an answer. Regarding the one specific item that was mentioned in the post which I replied to, there are plenty of gay advocacy groups whose goal is to draw attention to the suicide and depression issues, some of whom advertise on this very site. Do you feel that counts as ‘propoganda’ in some way?

            Your insistence on that negatively loaded word seems to be an attempt to suggest that all efforts LGBT groups make are universally and misleadingly positive. If there are facts to support this argument I would be more than happy to see them so that I can add my voice to those trying to correct that issue, but as yet I’ve heard none.

          4. As an example of suppression in this very sub-thread I could point you to Martin Leyland’s post about the stifling of “negative” coming out memories. As for drawing attention to suicide and depression, yes, I would describe that as propaganda, albeit generally without distortion or hiding of the facts.

            Regarding “all efforts LGBT groups make [being] universally and misleadingly positive”, I would certainly not state that of all efforts of all GLB+ organisations. Those such as GLAAD, though, do seem to me to want to push what could be described as a “misleadingly positive” set of images to the general public while attempting to quash representations that are true to life but not in line with their goals.

          5. Drawing attention to suicide and depression is propaganda? That’s a terribly cynical view.

            For that specific example, assuming the audience was random sample of the population then yes, it would be better to be wholly honest. I have already stated that would be my preference. If – on the other hand – it was a support group for suicidal and depressed people, then as an educator and youth counsellor I’m aware that there could be excellent reason to seek only positive examples.

            To take an isolated example and use this to predicate an argument that suggests “all” or “most” advocacy groups do the same thing is a logical fallacy – a faulty generalization.

            If there is evidence that GLAAD or the LGBT community routinely are grossly dishonest, I’d be concerned I have yet to be persuaded that they are doing any such thing. Even if proven, I’d have to look at the bigger picture of using such tactics to fight for my personal freedoms against those who are demonstrable liars.

  12. Writing for Out magazine, the gay author criticises the outpouring of support given to gay basketball player Jason Collins who came out last month.

    Collins was treated, Ellis says, like a “kind of baby panda who needed to be honoured and praised and consoled and – yes – infantilised”.

    Ouch! Somebody has a very bad case of the “Look at me I want attention too”‘s. Somebody get Bret a baby bottle before he shards diarrhea all over the wall and starts slinging it at people.

  13. I have never heard of this guy before but he sounds like a dick. With regard to Jason Collins the man should be lauded and I have to agree with D McCabe, Easton Ellis comes across as being jealous. I think his analogy of Glee to a
    puddle of HIV is in very poor taste and if that comment is any indication of his skill at penmanship I don’t think I will ever
    waste my time reading anything he has written. However, I must admit I am no fan of Glee. Although I let my daughter watch it I have to admit the main character who is gay makes me cringe and one episode was all I could stomach.

    1. I'm gonna say it... 14 May 2013, 4:42pm

      Brett E. E. is a writer. Taking his words too literally or anyones is always going to ‘read’ differently to different people. GLEE…is kind of a puddle of gay piss. I mean as much as I loved (past tense) parts of it, I really loathed the gay male heavy handed characterizations of what a straight popular female should be like or a gay male high school student ‘should’ be like or a fat black tranny fag who is non stop bitchy should be like…. I am not sure he ment it as HIV literally. But rather it is disease how gay male writers write like. Not all the writers on the staff are gay and male, I assume. But the producers certainly fit the stereotype of brilliant gay queens. Ryan Murphy is brilliant, but the two gayest shows on TV are annoying. Glee and The New Normal. The New Normal is a puddle of pee for sure. I can’t STAND IT or any of the characters. EEEkkk.. so does that make me anti gay. ? How can I be gay and anti gay at the same time ?

      1. I'm gonna say it.. 14 May 2013, 4:46pm

        In the lesbian community…i am too ‘flashy’ ..too trendy…not homely enough…too smart ass…too well travelled…too arrogant. Gosh
        I should have been born STRAIGHT. Then I would be seen as just ‘the popular’ girl or a glam girl … But as a lesbian I don’t fit in and I feel
        a lot of backlash from people who have never spoken to me. Because i don’t wear ugly ill fitting clothing…or walk like a truck driver…
        I also do fit the femme sterotype of helpless victim.

        I give the middle finger to the ‘community as a whole’ hahaha…. i love you and i detest you.

        1. I'm gonna say it.. 14 May 2013, 4:47pm

          i ment to type DO NOT FIT the femme stero…

        2. I think I understand how you feel. The PC media/’community’/commercial scene portrayals of how GLB+ people ‘should’ be likely affect many people in a similar manner to the use of skinny airbrushed models in advertising: leading them to feel like inadequate outsiders who should force themselves to change to be ‘acceptable’. The stereotypes in series like ‘Glee’ and ‘Will & Grace’ are still stereotypes and in their own ways could be just as damaging as any from series of the early seventies.

  14. Jay De Hall 14 May 2013, 6:24pm

    I don’t understand what this man is trying to say. Yes, perhaps the word “loathing”, whether it is “self” or aimed outward, probably is a good word to use. I have never really understood why people have double last names in English-speaking countries (unless they are strong, independent women, of course). Does the doulbe name imply that somewhere in the pedigree there was a woman who was stronger and richer than her husband? OR does it mean that a double last name makes you more powerful and impressive? I am glad that all of my names are SHORT and SWEET. ha. Anyway, I am sorry that this Easton Ellis gets any publicity at all. Are his comments worth reading?

  15. He’s bitter and nasty for sure.

    But when it comes to GLAAD I agree with him.

    Only last month GLAAD honoured Bill Clinton of all people – the man who signed DOMA into law, used that fact in his campaigning and who has not apologised for it.

    Clinton’s action damaged the lives of countless LGBT people.

    I cannot understand why GLAAD would wish to honour such a person.

    1. One two three, SteveC, cos they’re in it together!!

      “Gee, Bill, say something gooey about gay marriage in the media and we’ll award you with one of our gongs to add to your collection, never mind your many abuses of power or assaults on basic human rights.

      In other words, you scratch our back and we’ll scratch yours.”


  16. Bret has come under significant attack – indeed as have I for apparently being his “apologist” – for being self-loathing, not least due to his past reticence for calling himself gay.

    Perhaps his reticence was a reluctance to be defined as gay by association with the way the gay identity has been co-opted and stereotyped by the likes of GLAAD?

    Perhaps we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all had gay people bandied together and said in one voice decades ago:- “Sorry, our sexuality is not available for commodifying and politicising, least of all by any far left extremist fringe for your own self-serving interests, ta very much,” and thank God people like Bret Ellis aren’t afraid to step out of line and say just that today.

    Being brave paints him as a self-hating homophobe by those indoctrinated by the dictates and caprices of the likes of GLAAD, Stonewall et al:- self-appointed spokespeople who claim to speak for gay people and who deign to tell us how to behave and think.

    1. Well, if that’s how you choose to live your lives, fine, but stop denigrating others for daring to point out a few truths about what self-serving organisations like GLADD really are and who they exist to serve, which a cursory glance through their list of corporate donors will help confirm.

      Any wonder some of us struggle coming to terms with accepting ourselves as “gay” when self-appointed gay mafias like GLAAD go to great lengths to hijack and co-opt the gay identity for their own ends while morphing and twisting it into a falsified and exagerrated version of what a same-sex identity really means for most?

      This is the “gay lie” Bret refers to:- a manifestation of the gay identity in its ugliest extreme that is alien to most of us who choose to live normal as opposed to loud and out there lives:- a reason ITV’s aptly named Viscious, for example, makes uncomfortable viewing for many and which serves to keep as many gay people in the closet as it did in encouraging us to come out.

      1. This was the highest rated comment on the Guardian web site today in response to its coverage of this story.

        If we can put our preconceived and reflexive notions and mind-made-up consensus about gay rights to one side for one moment, we could actually learn an awful lot from it:-

        “I’ve been out for over 20 years now and saw the entire culture fly out of the closets and on to the streets via acid house, ecstacy and a greater visibility through the media (ecstacy changed everything). In that time the whole culture has been split in to increasingly smaller groups, some defined by sex, some defined by fashion or age and there are groups, websites and magazines that speak to virtually all of them. The problems start when these groups get corralled by an organisation, such as GLAAD or Pride who begin to assume control and dictate what is and isnt acceptable behaviour under given circumstances and, basically, for plenty of cash (witness San Francisco Pride kow-towning to corporate…

        1. …America and withdrawing Bradley Manning as grand marshal of the Parade this year).

          Organisations such as Pride have cherry picked the most dollar friendly aspects of the culture and are busy selling a heaving sanitised version of it to the rest of the world so they can line their own pockets and i think that is a major part of the ‘gay lie’ that is mentioned here. I’ve boycotted Pride for over five years because of the way something I love has been butchered and sold back to me in a saccharine package for private profit, but this in itself is something that many in the community cant face; the awful realisastion that after all of that work to liberate ourselves we are doing a much more effective job at oppressing than anyone else around x


          How true, how so very true…

          1. Jesus christ. People need to remember that our “community” has never, ever been formed outside of oppression. Since the liberation movement of the 60’s, there has had to be a sudden accomodation of something that was systematically repressed and oppressed for centuries.

            Society is in a post-traumatic stress disorder regarding the LGBT community, and self loathing yet out-and-proud men like this are a result

    2. Midnighter 14 May 2013, 8:04pm

      As I said earlier, neither you or Bret own the rights to “Gay” any more than those you criticise of the same thing, so why do you feel entitled to do what you wish to deny to them?

      If advocacy groups go for high visibility, high remuneration tactics, they are still a drop in the ocean compared to the Right’s fund-raising.

      There is nothing that you or Bret have said that provides evidence of damage to our collective reputations, nor have you demonstrated a causal link between your vague portents of doom and and anything GLAAD may or may not have done. All I’m hearing is a lot of emotive negativity and very little substance, all of which risks harming a group who – even IF flawed – still do a lot of important work. Rather than bash them,lets have some constructive suggestions and specifics the community can support you in.

      Being loud and opinionated makes Bret neither brave nor correct, otherwise by your logic I’d be saluting the WBC. Facts speak louder to me than florid rhetoric.

    3. I’m not sure that I would describe BEE as “brave”. I do, however, share a reluctance to describe myself as ‘gay’. I don’t like bars or clubs, don’t wear fashionable clothes, can’t dance, don’t read the magazines, don’t buy the personal grooming products, have very few pink pounds and don’t even have good taste in curtains.

  17. Sam Maloney 14 May 2013, 8:36pm

    The Gay equivalent of an Uncle Tom: the minority person who believes his only way to survive is licking the boots that trample him.

    If we don’t have a word for it yet, maybe we should call them ‘Uncle Bret’…

  18. Chester666666 14 May 2013, 9:43pm

    Bradley Manning was rejected due to cowardice
    Bret has a habit of being self-hating, he tends to attack gays regardless such as when he wasn’t happy about a gay actor playing a hetero:

    1. Pray explain how Bradley Manning was a coward?

      He has more courage in his little pinkie than you will ever muster in your backbone!

      1. Midnighter 22 May 2013, 1:17pm

        I’m with you on that one, Sam :P

  19. Janet Lameck 14 May 2013, 10:31pm

    Hes just mad and jealous that the article wasn’t all about him instead.

  20. Oh for f*** sake shut up! I’ve read one of his books and it was pure crap, who the hell is he? Why can a gay man not play a straight role in 50 Shades? It seems possible for ‘straight men’ to be gay 4 pay in porn and have actual gay sex… why can’t a gay man fake straight sex in a moive? The man is a moron!

  21. he looks like what perez Hilton will look like in a few years time

    1. just saying I saw a similarity to their looks and brett is older – nothing sinister…

  22. burningworm 21 May 2013, 9:09am


    If we could step back for a brief moment maybe we would understand what he is trying to say. Instead we are caught up in groupthink and cannot order our thoughts.

    How can the gay majority be completely right? How can you dismiss this idea that each public person should be praised when they come out? What about a post coming out world? How about we focus on white hierarchy or transphobia, or the disgust that shoots out of gay male mouths in relation to image, origin and time and space?

    No lets, settle on lashing those who say fag, wagging our fingers who use the word queer, get up in arms when another gay guy is beaten, march for marraige having never attending a religious service. The train of thoughtlessness goes on, ChooChooChoo

    1. Midnighter 21 May 2013, 3:27pm

      I’d be delighted to see some ‘ordered thoughts’ that explain these views, so perhaps you could help me understand your comments as I’m none the wiser.

      “How can the gay majority be completely right? ” Right about what? If an answer is logical and the explanation well known, its quite easy for the majority to be right.
      Are you for or against praising public people coming out? Personally I’m not dismissing the idea we should praise them; is that wrong in your view?
      Why do we have to “focus”, why can’t we be consistently fair and tolerant?
      In what way are gay males expressing disgust about time and space?
      Do you think that we should accept offensive comments violence?
      How does marching for marriage relate to attending religious services when the issue is explicitly civil marriage and explicitly separate from religion?

      The problem I have with any comments in this discussion in support of Brett are fundamental : I have yet to hear a rationally presented argument based on fact.

    2. Oh my word this is so bizarre and delusional I can hardly believe it. I can’t even fathom the logic behind this person and some other people’s posts here.

      1. Aplogoies, I have been up without sleep for quite some time. By “logic” I actually meant “psychology”.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.