Interestinng story about a Chicago celebrity

Are you awake?! Can't sleep?! Remember, for relaxing times, make it Suntory time at the New York Bar with stunning Tokyo views!

Moderator: Bob

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
52FM
Inactive/Deleted user
Posts: 562
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 3:49 pm

Interestinng story about a Chicago celebrity

#1 Post by 52FM » Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:32 pm

I must timidly admit that I always leaned toward the side of "Oprah is gay but hypocritcally won't admit it". It disturbed me that she of all people would choose to hide what I and many people wrongfully assumed was true despite her denials.

But a story today made me feel almost ashamed for those narrow minded assumptions - the explanation hit me because I can relate to having a feeling or connection or liking in a circumstance that few people could understand and therefore would rather label it in some other more conventional way. In two different ways - this has now happened twice in my life.

I've come to realize this last year just how difficult it is to label me - and it is hurting me to either be pulled away from who I am or put up with the hurt and misunderstanding of people close to me.

Anyway - here's the Oprah story. Yes, it's easier to just assume she's gay than to try and accept the true nature of the connection she has with this woman. And very wrong to not simply believe she and this woman are experiencing something rare and wonderful.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/07/1 ... index.html
"Willoughby. Next stop is Willoughby."

jm
Inactive/Deleted user
Posts: 441
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:10 am

#2 Post by jm » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:02 pm

"?[/size:30caee93fe]

Am I the only one who doesn't know what this is about?"
Last edited by jm on Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
52FM
Inactive/Deleted user
Posts: 562
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 3:49 pm

#3 Post by 52FM » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:27 pm

Well, think of it in relation to LiT:

Oprah has this very close female friend - so close that people just assume they must be gay. A lot easier than trying to understand how two women can be such close friends without something sexual going on.

Bob and Charlotte had a deep connection that (despite any possible sexual tension) was simply platonic. And yet most people assumed in watching the movie that they woudl get it on or they were holding back with all their might. Many people coudln't understand how they coudl go back to their spouses.

Relationships don't always fall into areas easy to label or categorized. I've personally expereinced two such relationships (each VERY different than the other, and yet impossible to label.) And I've affected negatively from the reactions from people close to me reagrding them. Rather than just believe me as to what it is (and isn't), they'd rather label it their way and criticize me for it.

I often simply thought Oprah was gay and was hiding it. My obejection to that was certainly not if she were gay, but that she - of all people - would hide it. I realize now that I was wrong.

I hope that helps explain it.
"Willoughby. Next stop is Willoughby."

jm
Inactive/Deleted user
Posts: 441
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 1:10 am

#4 Post by jm » Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:07 pm

"[quote:c54ef4c286="52FM"]And yet most people assumed in watching the movie that they woudl get it on or they were holding back with all their might. Many people coudln't understand how they coudl go back to their spouses.[/quote:c54ef4c286]
If you ask me, and why would you, "gay" is worrying if Oprah is gay or not. :lol: :lol: :lol:

But seriously, I think people thought they'd get it on because it was a movie and a boink-free movie is usually full of animated animals."
Last edited by jm on Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

I65
Inactive/Deleted user
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 3:47 pm

#5 Post by I65 » Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:10 am

Someone had told me that people thought Oprah was gay, and I never knew why. I have no "gaydar". I had no idea it was related to her friend Gayle. I have a couple of friends I'm that close with. We don't always talk everyday, we don't need to. But there is this kind of connection that defies definition.

I'm sorry that people have made you feel bad about having a special relationship with someone. You can't let it affect you negatively though. If someone else hasn't had such a bonding, then there is no way to explain it to them. There aren't enough words. All you can do is hope that someday they get to experience something similar.

Carpe diem! 8)

User avatar
Pitman
Suntory Time
Posts: 412
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:12 am
Location: Toronto

#6 Post by Pitman » Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:16 am

Well, personally I don't care if Oprah is gay or not, nor if she hides it... but in regards to having relationships outside a marital one, it kind of goes with the territory that if you step outside the boundaries of what is appropriate and responsible with regards to your spouse you suffer the consequences and pay for those actions.

User avatar
52FM
Inactive/Deleted user
Posts: 562
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 3:49 pm

#7 Post by 52FM » Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:45 am

If only it was that simple, Pitman. You see, there are no "rules" regarding what is appropriate and responsible. Nor should there be.

Well, on second thought I think responsibility is relatively unambiguous - but regarding what is appropriate, well let's say there can be a wide range of opinions.

To one extreme - there are people who feel a married man having ANY kind of social interaction with another woman is absolutely wrong. There is a marriage counselor (licensed) I discovered on the internet who wrote a book about this very thing. His views are darn close to the Taliban; if you start talking to a woman about anything outside of business, you are asking for trouble potentially. Dancing with another woman is absolutely out of the question.

While I think that most people would find this extreme, there were a surprising number of women who seemed to subscribe to this for their husbands. To me, that is wrong on so many levels I couldnt' begin to type it all this morning.

Yet their point is - why ask for trouble? What's the big deal if he really loves his wife? Why would he object unless he has something in mind?

Well, why not put a camera at various places in every street and public building as a way to prevent crime? Why would anyone object unless they planned on doing something wrong?

Not surprisingly, this author actually advocates that as well.

So he (and many people) feel that personal freedom can and should be sacrificed for the "greater good". Dangerous thinking in my mind.

OK - but maybe few people would go that far. The question is still difficult - what is inappropriate? Who decides? Obviously the couple has to be comfortable - but what is the best way to create that comfort zone?

To me, trust is the key - not setting limits. Setting limits is a sign of mistrust. I would never mess with cocaine or heroin - I don't need a law to tell me not do that that. Make it all legal and I still wouldn't do it. Likewise, I would never cheat on my wife - I don't need her to ask me or tell me not to. (And the aspect of men being so weak that once they get to know a woman they will sucumb to temptation is ultimately insulting to both the man and woman involved.)

Still - I agree there would be practical limits in deference to outside opinions or appearances. For example - having dinner in a decent restaurant (something upscale from a fast food place) could raise questions that are better avoided. Vacationing with a female friend would be stretching people's understanding way too far.

But talking occasionally? Dangerous? Again - depends on the person. I could get in more trouble with male friends ("c'mon - we'll only stay for a few drinks and a couple of lap dances"; or "she said WHAT to you? I tell, you, you better do what I do - slap her around. And if you don't have the b*lls to do that, then leave her.")

Now I don't have friends like that, and my wife knows I wouldn't.

Shouldn't she have that same trust in my choice of female friends?

I'm sorry to generalize - but in all honesty I think the mistrust and conditions that women may feel are appropriate to place on their husbands are really a sign of insecurity. (And yes, I feel the same way if a husband puts conditions on his wife.) Almost by definition, that's what jealousy is. To me, any person who feels it's OK - even desirable - to be jealous really feels their marriage is not strong. And so THAT'S the issue to deal with.

Setting limits is a lazy way out in my mind - and ultimately demeaning.
"Willoughby. Next stop is Willoughby."

I65
Inactive/Deleted user
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 3:47 pm

#8 Post by I65 » Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:38 pm

Pitman wrote:Well, personally I don't care if Oprah is gay or not, nor if she hides it... but in regards to having relationships outside a marital one, it kind of goes with the territory that if you step outside the boundaries of what is appropriate and responsible with regards to your spouse you suffer the consequences and pay for those actions.
Was bob and Charlette's relationship outside of what is appropriate and responsible? If so, where did it cross the line?

(I'm not saying that parts of it didn't cross the line in my mind, but curious where you think it did.)

User avatar
Pitman
Suntory Time
Posts: 412
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:12 am
Location: Toronto

#9 Post by Pitman » Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:50 am

Was bob and Charlette's relationship outside of what is appropriate and responsible? If so, where did it cross the line?

(I'm not saying that parts of it didn't cross the line in my mind, but curious where you think it did.)


I have broadened my opinion on what is appropriate and responsible with regards to relationships. It's a very complex area and not subject to such a simplistic view. With regards to Bob and Charlotte, did their relationship cross a line? Great question. There is no simple or complete answer. It depends on who's point of view we are considering for that line. But I would say that the spouses of Bob and Charlotte would probably think a line had been crossed and there was inappropriate contact even though their relationship remained on a friendship level.

hannidan
Tokyo Insomniac
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:03 pm
Location: USA

#10 Post by hannidan » Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:39 am

I have broadened my opinion on what is appropriate and responsible with regards to relationships. It's a very complex area and not subject to such a simplistic view. With regards to Bob and Charlotte, did their relationship cross a line? Great question. There is no simple or complete answer. It depends on who's point of view we are considering for that line. But I would say that the spouses of Bob and Charlotte would probably think a line had been crossed and there was inappropriate contact even though their relationship remained on a friendship level.
Your comment has got me wondering, which relationship would Lydia be most offended by. Bob and Charlotte's close but non-physical intimacy or Bob's drunk night with the singer? Which was the greater betrayal?

User avatar
Pitman
Suntory Time
Posts: 412
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:12 am
Location: Toronto

#11 Post by Pitman » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:41 am

Your comment has got me wondering, which relationship would Lydia be most offended by. Bob and Charlotte's close but non-physical intimacy or Bob's drunk night with the singer? Which was the greater betrayal?
Great question. I guess you'd have to ask Lydia that. Since I'm a man, my response may be different (generally speaking) to that of a woman's. For me, the sexual trist would be the greater betrayal. But, I'm betting that the majority of women would believe the emotional betrayal is greater. This is most likely not the first time Bob has sexually cheated on his wife. Does Lydia know? Does she suspect this to be the case? Maybe she does. From the tone of their conversations, you can tell their relationship is unstable. "Do I have to worry about you Bob?" A question like this shows Lydia does still care. So, I think the relationship with Charlotte, who is so much younger, would affect Lydia much more than a one-night stand. And if Lydia found out about this, she may even leave Bob.

User avatar
TokyoGirl
Lounge Singer
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 6:07 am
Location: Alone In Kyoto

#12 Post by TokyoGirl » Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:39 pm

It's maybe stereotypical but I would have to agree with that Pitman. As a woman I would definitely feel more betrayed by the emotional relationship than the sexual. I can understand how sex could just happen. I think an emotional betrayal is far worse.

As for Lydia, from her tone it appears that she's way past caring about anything to do with Bob, but I still think she'd be bothered about any kind of other woman being involved regardless of how she felt about him, maybe it's an in-built territorial thing!
She's got the moves to rule the world...

hannidan
Tokyo Insomniac
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:03 pm
Location: USA

#13 Post by hannidan » Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:39 pm

I've always seen Bob's sad night with the singer more as a passive-aggressive response to Lydia's hurtful conversation. The one while he was in the health club pool. Later, at the bar Bob's just totally pulled in on himself, almost curled around his drink and cigar, for him to be open to the singer at that point seems more a drunken rejection of his marriage than anything approaching passion. But in spite of that, and the fact that I see things from a man's perspective, I sort of think the Bob/Charlotte thing would bother Lydia more. Any women could do what the singer did but the Bob/Charlotte relationship was tender, sincere and unique. Lydia was totally resentful at just Bob's chance to go to Tokyo and away from his share of parenting. Think of her response to his experiencing something as special as his time with Charlotte.

I've always been fascinated with a possible second follow-up story done several years after LiT. In it Charlotte discovers an obituary of Bob's death in the newspaper and goes to the funeral, meeting Lydia and allowing us to see the other side of the relationship (not to mention the tension of the situation).

User avatar
Bob_san
Site Admin
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 3:55 pm
Location: United States
Contact:

#14 Post by Bob_san » Tue Aug 25, 2009 4:11 pm

hannidan wrote:I've always been fascinated with a possible second follow-up story done several years after LiT. In it Charlotte discovers an obituary of Bob's death in the newspaper and goes to the funeral, meeting Lydia and allowing us to see the other side of the relationship (not to mention the tension of the situation).
On that note I would be fascinated to see a story where Charlotte discovers an obit of Lydia, and goes to the funeral and meets Bob again! In that time what had happened with her and John?! Are they kaput?! Do Bob and Charlotte have a chance now?!

Post Reply