This Movie is Turning Alexander into laughing Stock

[iskander_32]

Comrades Hi.Wether you call yourselves open minded or not nor judgmental fromk the wise cracks Alexander is becoming laughing Stock.A guy asked me the other day how could I admire a gay bum basher, Now I know you will all have opinions about this so called homophobia. I dont think or call it phobia just because we disagree or dont like something it dont mean we are afraid.When Asked that I really couldnt be bothered explaining as the publics view I feel will be the same and that now is how Alexander The Great as we know him will be seen the world over,, Deny it it if you like but thats a fact.There was absolututely no need at all for Stone to cover the sexuality as he did it has done iS Make hima laughing stock call me a liar if you will but its the trueth.Kenny.Only thinkers like ourselves or people like us caqn take context but todays society can opnly trash and thats what they will do.

[iskander_32]

At the same time I can enjoy what I see and reflect because i do know the real Alexander and nothing will make me stray.Kenny

[Linda]

Kenny Change your friends - or maybe this guy was just trying to tease you because he knew you would react. I don't think Alexander is a laughing stock - apart from those who probably never gave him a thought before and now have somethign else to hang their prejudice on...it is Stone who is getting the flack, not Alexander.

[luisfc1972]

it is trully sad whats happening. this movie was not bad, its just everyone is concentrating on the gay issue. what is pathetic is the first thing out of peoples mouths when alexander is mentioned is "he was gay".
very mature

[iskander_32]

Linda Luis hailFair enough with your comments, Irrespective of what people think of Stone Alexander is deffinately getting stick.For what Alexander was, The Greatest Military leader and conquerer the world has seen,, The toughest and most resorseful of men with the stamina and bravery of the gods.All the above had nothing at all to do with who he slept with nor who he had sex with, Even though he was his mothers and fathers son,,, I totally believe he was his own man and his achievements were his own,, And apart from all the greatness of our man the only thing viewers consontrate on is the sex,, Indeed it does make him a laughing stock.And that does hurt me as much as it would hurt a christian for Jesus to become as such.Kenny

[Nax]

I'm gonna borrow some stuff I've read on this site before & in other places so if its copyright, I hope I'm forgiven & excused and if its not, then maybe my post will have to be deleted:"Homophobia doesn't necessarily mean that people are afraid of gays- sometimes, it means they're afraid of their own reactions & responses.This is why male/male sexual behavior is usually more disturbing & arouses more anger in a male-dominant culture than female/female sexual behavior.." This doesn't mean you wanna jump a guy "Most cultures are homoerotic in the sense that they laud the male & tend to admire men who are strong, dominant, courageous, confident- we admire & want to emulate them- and most young men experience a homoerotic feeling when young, as when masturbating"
- suddenly, we learn that a guy we admire & emulate, want to be around, talk to- is either gay or bisexual. Alarm bells in our head go off! Its because we've been taught to SEE them as wrong by religion & culture- which aren't necessarily TRUTH but just the way we've been taught to BELIEVE is "truth" or we act like just cuz we found out he's gay or bi means he'll jump us- maybe we flatter ourselves too much hahahaha& I'm not gonna get in a debate about the truth or not of the bible cuz that's subjective, too- not everyone follows that religion & not everyone believes the bible is literal word & not everyone interprets it the same so its a moot point-Alexander- probably like MOST of the people around him- wasn't straight OR gay- he responded to his own cultural conditioning- which was pretty natural-& that oughta be okay. Maybe thats the point Stone was trying to make (badly)- that people are what they are & do what they do & who Alexander had sex with just doesn't matter to who he was as a person or what he was capable of & the sooner we get over the idea that it does the better we'll all be off- so we shouldn't be forced to portray everyone as straight or be forced to make people fit other peoples ideas of whats moral & what IS moral anyway? I mean, some of the people who are whining about morality regarding the sexual overtones in the movie don't seem to mind all the killing, or that historically he killed, enslaved & crucified people!!!This stuff about sex- including here on Pothos- is getting old. Get over it. Alexander loved males & females. So what? Some posters here a while ago said Alexander's emotional attachments were to men- its true- & so what? I don't care. He's Th

[Nax]

This stuff about sex- including here on Pothos- is getting old. Get over it. Alexander loved males & females. So what? Some posters here a while ago said Alexander's emotional attachments were to men- its true- & so what? I don't care. He's The Man, the Big A & I'd STILL like to meet him!The people snickering about the sex thing- I'd ask what THEY'VE accomplished lately!

[S]

Greetings All,I was going to post a comment here but in looking over Nax's post, I suppose this says enough (even though the quotes are not *quite* accurate- said with a smile). For those who admire Alexander and are upset over the responses they receive from others, consider the person complaining and yes, ponder what that person has achieved in life compared to Alexander; if upset over their own feelings that too much play is given the sexual side, remember that it does not matter to the story of the real Alexander in the long run...
every person on this site is the story of Alexander.Regards,
Sikander

[ruthaki]

I agree with you Linda. These homophobics who can't deal with the way life was back then are ignorant. And as far as the movie goes, I'm certain it is Stone who is getting the knives the back. ruthaki

[boris]

Bi-Sexuality was different in the ancient world than in the modern as well. I'm not going to go into it in too much detail, but whilst male/male relationships could be physical, much of it was more a 'soul mates' kind of bond. Penetration was seen as disrespectful and did not tend to happen between men who held such bonds.

[jona]

Does it matter? Personally, I can only take things seriously if I also have the possibility to laugh about them. I understand that Oliver Stone's movie was not intended to be funny, but I would not object to a comedy.I admired Benigni's Holocaust comedy "la vita +¿ bella", simply loved "To be or not be" (Hitler saying "Hail myself"), and I haven't mentioned "The great dictator" yet.Jona

[me]

Sikander deals with this issue much better than I do, but the sexual behaviour you describe is of one kind, an aristocratic Athenian model. Not everyone adhered to this. And how much it was theory, and how much practice. The Greels loved categorising things, but as we see in Symposium, they realise that the erastes/eromenos model is not water-tight..(discussion about Achilles, and Patroclus). And there does seem to be a basic confusion here - between sexual behaviour and the idea that a soul is split in two and spends its time searching for its mate - who might be the same sex or the opposite, as postulated by Plato. And that latter idea is not so far from basic beliefs today - that people are orientated one way or the other. Actual sexual behaviour is dependent on lots of factors. we are all prducts of our times, but I think there are basic similarities in sexual identity - ie who you loved, rather than who you had sex with. But if Alexander lived now, he might have been happily with a Hephaestion, or a Roxanne, but in all these discussions there is an underlying idea that he isn't like all those nasty gays today that is frankly insulting.God, we have done this topic to death. Can we talk about something else? Can someone start a discussion on Macedonian Supply Lines, or something?

[marcus]

OK ..."Fellow Pothosians - Hephaestion was often put in charge of administrative tasks. Was his ability in administrative areas a result of his sexuality?":-)

[marcus]

"There was absolututely no need at all for Stone to cover the sexuality as he did ..."Although to be fair, Kenny, Stone would probably disagree with you. Whether he was right or wrong to do so is surely subjective?I might agree with you once I've seen the film, but I'm not sure that that will necessarily mean that Stone was 'wrong' to do what he did.All the bestMarcus

[me]

Hmmm