Friday, February 24, 2006

 

Creep: Kelly Wood

This week’s creep is Kelly Wood of Bozeman who writes in to the Bozeman Chronicle with her opinion on “Brokeback Mountain,” “Don’t fall victim to movie’s ‘agenda-driven’ marketing” :
In a recent feature article, the Chronicle stated "Now playing for its seventh week [Brokeback Mountain] has sparked . . . no letters to the editor." At great risk of having a giant pink ribbon burned into my lawn and ‘you hateful homophobe!' messages left on my answering machine, let me be the first. "Brokeback Mountain," though a wonderful piece of cinematography, not surprisingly fails to address the presence of the 900-lb. gorilla in the room, i.e., the fact that male homosexual behavior has more to do with promiscuous lust than romantic love. A widely cited 1978 study by A.P. Bell and Martin Wineburg reported that 43 percent of homosexuals had more than 500 sex partners during their lifetime, with 28 percent claiming over 1,000 sexual partners. Though promiscuity undeniably exists within the heterosexual population, it doesn't come anywhere close in proportion; Wilt Chamberlain and other NBA players, almost singlehandedly go a long way in skewing those numbers. Nature or nurture? Sexually abused young men are "up to seven times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused" concludes a peer-reviewed 1998 study, "Sexual Abuse of Boys," by W.C. Homes, M.D., and Gail Slap, MD. Not all gay males are pedophiles, but an overwhelming majority of pedophiles are gay males. One of the first male couples "married" by Massachusetts filed for divorce a scant six months after their "marriage" because they couldn't agree on how to raise their cats. In a community where "boys night out" sex parties are commonplace, do we as a society, want to deal with the fallout of relationships where adopted children, not cats, are the innocent victims? If you find yourself at the conclusion of Brokeback, wistfully sighing and having a Rodney King "can't we all just get along?" moment, you my friend have become an unwitting victim of agenda-driven marketing, of which Brokeback is a small part. Gay males have long since achieved acceptance of "privacy to do in the bedroom" whatever they want. They now want to shove down your throat the notion that they are cultural heroes. They are not.
Hm, it seems like someone has an agenda... I also reject the notion that "Brokeback Mountain" is merely a "love" story. I, too, think it's primarliy about gay sex. More specifically, I think it's about the danger and isolation homosexuals face in a climate of fear and hatred -- one that Ms. Wells apparently would like to perpetuate with her specious "studies" that prove only that gays, like any of us, react poorly in the face of institutional hatred.
Comments:
A bit creepy, but they've printed worse. Then again, this is probably worse than some of the crazy ones. You can dismiss those as just some loon, but people like this sound almost calm and rational in their bigotry.

Among other problems, the study he cites by Homes and Slap contradicts the very next sentence of his letter.
 
Touchstone, I think you are somewhat incorrect in a damaging kind of way.

I also reject the notion that "Brokeback Mountain" is merely a "love" story. I, too, think it's primarliy about gay sex.

If you accept that gay sex is the focus, as opposed to emotional attachment, then you help perpetuate the myth of deviancy. It becomes a tail of people trying to hide from the shame of their deviancy as opposed to being about the human connections that we all must face the horror of (interacial relations, cross-religious relations, ...)

If you remove the emotional content from the argument, then Ms. Wells actually has a point. Just sayin' ...
 
If you accept that gay sex is the focus, as opposed to emotional attachment, then you help perpetuate the myth of deviancy.

I understand where you're coming from, Wulfgar. However, I don't think there's anything inherently deviant about gay sex.

And sex is at the core of the romance, isn't it? I mean, if they're just making googly eyes at each other, there's no story.

I think the basic problem at the center of a lot of "cultural" disputes, abortion, homophobia, etc. is sexuality.
 
We set out to find a face for Kelly Wood and were shocked yet thrilled to find that he/she is the "Creep of the Week!" We replied to the Chronicle with this...

Don’t fall victim to “agenda-driven opinion”

Everyone has an opinion and Wood you’re certainly entitled to yours but while on your soapbox we felt you really lost track of your ever-important 900 lb. gorilla. More importantly, our problem arises with your use of dated literature, incorrect synthesis of cited works, and your inability to correctly spell the authors’ names which you use to bolster your argument.

Your main point is that the movie Brokeback Mountain fails to address “the fact that male homosexual behavior has more to do with promiscuous lust than romantic love.”
Your only related but poorly made argument for the above is, as you state, “A widely cited 1978 study by A.P. Bell and Martin Wineburg (actually spelled W-E-I-N-B-E-R-G) reported that 43 percent of homosexuals had more than 500 sex partners during their lifetime, with 28 percent claiming over 1,000 sexual partners.” We knocked 28 years of dust off this book to get the details. Turns out, these statistics are only representative of white homosexual males in the San Francisco Bay Area. The authors make explicitly clear the danger of extrapolation by stating, “The nonrepresentative nature of other investigators’ samples as well as of our own precludes any generalization about the incidence of a particular phenomenon even to persons living in the locale where the interviews were conducted, much less to homosexuals in general.” You also forgot to mention the footnote associated with these data which states, “We are aware, of course, that these figures may reflect exaggeration on the part of some respondents.” In fact, they suggest this phenomenon may be a result of society in general providing little or no opportunity to meet on anything more than a sexual basis.

From here, your nonsensical argument climaxes when you correlate a gay couple’s divorce over cats to the “fact” that male homosexual behavior has more to do with lust than love.

Luckily, this is a venue for opinions rather than facts. However, if you feel compelled to use facts to strengthen your argument, we suggest you use examples that actually support your case and use sources whose facts don’t need to be taken out of context to augment yours.

Not Straight but our facts are,
Steph and Amy
 
We set out to find a face for this loon and were thrilled to find this "Creep of the Week" stuff! We replied to the Chronicle with the following:

Don’t fall victim to “agenda-driven opinion”

Everyone has an opinion and Wood you’re certainly entitled to yours but while on your soapbox we felt you really lost track of your ever-important 900 lb. gorilla. More importantly, our problem arises with your use of dated literature, incorrect synthesis of cited works, and your inability to correctly spell the authors’ names which you use to bolster your argument.

Your main point is that the movie Brokeback Mountain fails to address “the fact that male homosexual behavior has more to do with promiscuous lust than romantic love.”
Your only related but poorly made argument for the above is, as you state, “A widely cited 1978 study by A.P. Bell and Martin Wineburg (actually spelled W-E-I-N-B-E-R-G) reported that 43 percent of homosexuals had more than 500 sex partners during their lifetime, with 28 percent claiming over 1,000 sexual partners.” We knocked 28 years of dust off this book to get the details. Turns out, these statistics are only representative of white homosexual males in the San Francisco Bay Area. The authors make explicitly clear the danger of extrapolation by stating, “The nonrepresentative nature of other investigators’ samples as well as of our own precludes any generalization about the incidence of a particular phenomenon even to persons living in the locale where the interviews were conducted, much less to homosexuals in general.” You also forgot to mention the footnote associated with these data which states, “We are aware, of course, that these figures may reflect exaggeration on the part of some respondents.” In fact, they suggest this phenomenon may be a result of society in general providing little or no opportunity to meet on anything more than a sexual basis.

From here, your nonsensical argument climaxes when you correlate a gay couple’s divorce over cats to the “fact” that male homosexual behavior has more to do with lust than love.

Luckily, this is a venue for opinions rather than facts. However, if you feel compelled to use facts to strengthen your argument, we suggest you use examples that actually support your case and use sources whose facts don’t need to be taken out of context to augment yours.

Not Straight but our facts are,
Steph and Amy
 
We set out to find a face for this loon and were thrilled to find this "Creep of the Week" stuff! We replied to the Chronicle with the following:

Don’t fall victim to “agenda-driven opinion”

Everyone has an opinion and Wood you’re certainly entitled to yours but while on your soapbox we felt you really lost track of your ever-important 900 lb. gorilla. More importantly, our problem arises with your use of dated literature, incorrect synthesis of cited works, and your inability to correctly spell the authors’ names which you use to bolster your argument.

Your main point is that the movie Brokeback Mountain fails to address “the fact that male homosexual behavior has more to do with promiscuous lust than romantic love.”
Your only related but poorly made argument for the above is, as you state, “A widely cited 1978 study by A.P. Bell and Martin Wineburg (actually spelled W-E-I-N-B-E-R-G) reported that 43 percent of homosexuals had more than 500 sex partners during their lifetime, with 28 percent claiming over 1,000 sexual partners.” We knocked 28 years of dust off this book to get the details. Turns out, these statistics are only representative of white homosexual males in the San Francisco Bay Area. The authors make explicitly clear the danger of extrapolation by stating, “The nonrepresentative nature of other investigators’ samples as well as of our own precludes any generalization about the incidence of a particular phenomenon even to persons living in the locale where the interviews were conducted, much less to homosexuals in general.” You also forgot to mention the footnote associated with these data which states, “We are aware, of course, that these figures may reflect exaggeration on the part of some respondents.” In fact, they suggest this phenomenon may be a result of society in general providing little or no opportunity to meet on anything more than a sexual basis.

From here, your nonsensical argument climaxes when you correlate a gay couple’s divorce over cats to the “fact” that male homosexual behavior has more to do with lust than love.

Luckily, this is a venue for opinions rather than facts. However, if you feel compelled to use facts to strengthen your argument, we suggest you use examples that actually support your case and use sources whose facts don’t need to be taken out of context to augment yours.

Not Straight but our facts are,
Steph and Amy
 
Loved that comment I had to post it three times!
 
also...should we notify kelly wood that a pink ribbon is a breast cancer gig...not for homos like me. perhaps a pink triangle?

wish i knew if kelly was a male uncomfortable with gay males (bet he likes us lesbos though)...or some faaarrr right woman with a corn cob shoved...yada yada yada...
 
deserv_ed: sorry about the comments thing. Nice post, great letter. I thought something was fishy about the cited works, but didn't have the time to check them out.

And I didn't notice this about the letter, but the dude/chick is obviously obsessed with man on man action.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Thanks for posting Fred, but I'm not going to publish Wood's email. That's something Michelle Malkin does.

(I think it's okay for a public official, but a private citizen [even a creepy one] doesn't deserve to have her personal info published.)

Anyway, here's the comment in full with email X'd out.

Anonymous said...
If anyone is still interested in this thread, "Kelly" is a middle-aged white hetro male. He can be contacted at [XXXXXXXX]. (and someone certainly needs to let him know he has received the honor of "creep of the week."

Although he is married, his thesis suggests that he has never been in love (and, that like most men, his relationship driver is simply to get laid).

--Fredbaiser
 
Sorry, my bad. Just that i've been reading his overblown, self-important comments in the Chron for a couple of years now (he *has* provided his email address in the past--look thru the archives and you'll find him) and, while i've found his position on other topics irritating, this one was simply "mean," as evidenced by his inability to support his thesis with accurate data. Apparently, he is an unhappy, emotionally-dead creature who can't imagine the pain of unrequited love.
--Fred
 
No problem, Fred. It's just that I've had my personal info posted by freepers before...feel free to trash the man all you want - and email him with the link!...but I think we need maintain a little civility.

But thanks for visiting! Keep coming back and keep trashing the Woods of the world...
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?