Some guys will do anything for publicity.

whitefork · Post by **whitefork** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:47 pm

When "anything" that includes marrying into the Kardashian circus, I think the price far outweighs the value of the publicity.
I feel kinda bad for the guy, great athlete gets on Wheaties box, appears in Village People movie, ends up being a joke and a foil for guys like Howard Stern.
He just doesn't have what George Takei has. On the other hand he's not a whackjob like Bob Richards. Or nearly as annoying as Mary Lou Retton.

(Is there a possible Curse of the Wheaties Box?)

Evolver · Post by **Evolver** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 7:24 pm

I used to think he was a dick.

whitefork · Post by **whitefork** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 7:39 pm

I don't know anything about the guy. I figure he's paid the price for most of his dickishness by now.
Jesus Buffy, the Kardashians?

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Fri Feb 06, 2015 7:52 pm

Evolver wrote:I used to think he was a dick.

Evolver wins.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Sat Feb 07, 2015 2:21 pm

I do remember the Wheaties box days from my youth. Didn't hear much about him after that until recently, when his name started coming up in association with the Kardashians. Now I hear he wants to become a woman. OK, I don't really understand it -- at his age? -- but I guess it's none of my business so whatever makes you happy. Seems like he must be very sad inside to want to do this to himself though.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Sat Feb 07, 2015 2:31 pm

I heard there's a new TV show, which I haven't seen, but it's called Transparent (get it?: trans parent) about something similar. Old dude with adult kids decides he wants to become a woman is the premise I hear. Haven't seen it, as I said before, but the critics seem to like it. I know from seeing it on metacritic. I was looking to see if I could find anything new that's good, and it scored particularly high with critics. I'm a little suspicious about why the critics seem to like it though. Is this one of those things we're supposed to like purely for political reasons, or is it actually good? I've seen that sort of thing before. Things we are supposed to like because they are so progressive, but which actually turn out to be boring as fuck.

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:15 pm

I recall the Mad Magazine satire of The Hulk show where David Banner explains his name is not "Bruce" because it is not a masculine enough name as Bruce Jenner wins the decathlon on television.

Either way this will end badly.

--J.D.

Pyrrho · Post by **Pyrrho** » Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:57 pm

Reports in the news are that Jenner rear-ended a car which crashed into other traffic. Driver of that car is dead. Allegedly Jenner claimed to have been fleeing from paparazzi.

http://gawker.com/bruce-jenner-involved ... 1684436160

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:22 am

Fuck. I wonder if the part about being chased by paparazzis will check out. I can imagine they would be wanting pictures of him given the recent news. I don't think that makes it OK to drive recklessly though.

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Sun Feb 08, 2015 4:15 am

His Humble MagNIfIcent wrote:Either way this will end badly.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264 ... 7ad267.gif

--J.D.

Pyrrho · Post by **Pyrrho** » Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:07 pm

Reports are that the driver of the white car rear-ended someone else before Jenner rear-ended the white car. Apparently Jenner himself did not claim to have been fleeing from paparazzi, only that they were following him "as always." They must have collectively creamed their jeans when the accident happened.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:13 pm

There are pictures of the moment of impact. Taken by a paparazzi apparently. I can't see the front of the white car but there doesn't appear to be any damage to it when he rear-ends her.
http://www.tmz.com/2015/02/07/bruce-jen ... photo-dead

As far as I can tell from the article, the sequence of events was that Bruce rear-ended the white car, which then rear-ended a prius ahead of her before crossing the median into oncoming traffic where she was hit by a hummer, and that's probably what killed her. He was driving a cadillac escalade and towing a trailer with some sort of vehicle on it.

Evolver · Post by **Evolver** » Mon Feb 09, 2015 12:58 am

I'm shocked. I was expecting a train wreck.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Mon Feb 09, 2015 1:16 am

So he wasn't speeding and he wasn't drunk.

Was he texting? As of yet, there is no evidence of that, but they're looking into it.

Jenner phone records, texts could be issue in crash probe

LOS ANGELES — Investigators will likely seek Bruce Jenner’s cellphone records to determine if the Olympic gold medalist was texting when he was behind the wheel of an SUV involved in a chain-reaction crash in Malibu that killed a woman, authorities said Sunday.

The agency will likely collect phone records for all the drivers involved in Saturday’s multi-vehicle accident, so investigators can check call and text data, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Sgt. Philip Brooks said.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Mon Jun 01, 2015 11:34 pm

She does look good in the photo but I kinda suspect a big assist from photoshop and/or other glamour photography techniques like soft focus. Caitlyn is no spring chicken.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Mon Jun 01, 2015 11:41 pm

Is ophelia benson one of those feminists who think that any woman who puts on makeup or wears high heels is a traitor?

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 5:11 am

Abdul Alhazred wrote:Caitlyn Jenner is an oppressor because she looks what is alleged to be good.

http://twitchy.com/2015/06/01/marc-lamo ... of-beauty/

In other news ...

https://hollywoodlife.com/2015/06/01/ca ... ic-attack/

Who here remembers Myra Breckinridge, particularly the surprise ending?

PZ Meyers gets in on the action:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... 00x333.jpg

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... s-and-all/

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 5:18 am

Oh, and one person not on the "You Go Girl!" bandwagon: her ex-wife:

http://time.com/3904673/caitlyn-jenner-kris-bruce/

In an interview with Vanity Fair, Kris maintains that their relationship ended abruptly when her former husband “just decided, ‘I’m done.’ ”

Knowing what she knows now, Kris tells the magazine the way Caitlyn approached their separation and subsequent divorce felt like “the most passive-aggressive thing I think I’ve ever experienced.”

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:11 am

How dare this remove Deflategate from the international headlines?!!!111!

--J.D.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 9:13 am

Abdul Alhazred wrote:Caitlyn Jenner is an oppressor because she looks what is alleged to be good.

http://twitchy.com/2015/06/01/marc-lamo ... of-beauty/

So what is Whitey to do? If you if you adhere to traditional European beauty standards, that's cis/Eurocentric (ungood), but if you "appropriate" African-American beauty standards, that's Cultural Appropriation (doubleplusungood).

Any woman who tries to appear attractive to heterosexual white men is a traitor, amiright?

Bruce · Post by **Bruce** » Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:32 am

Won't someone please do something newsworthy to get this crap out of the headlines?

Ed, can you maybe launch a crocodile from a cannon into Katy Perry's back yard?

Rob, can you maybe sneak into the white house and wap Obama upside the head with your dong during a press conference?

AC, can you.......maybe just go about a typical day.......except wear a head cam and put it on youtube?

Come on. Anythings got to be better than what's in the headlines now.

specious_reasons · Post by **specious_reasons** » Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:45 pm

Anaxagoras wrote:Is ophelia benson one of those feminists who think that any woman who puts on makeup or wears high heels is a traitor?

No.

She's definitely someone who bristles at anything that implies a woman's worth is in her looks, though.

DrMatt · Post by **DrMatt** » Thu Jun 04, 2015 7:20 pm

https://fbcdn-photos-g-a.akamaihd.net/h ... ffd2c807ff

Pyrrho · Post by **Pyrrho** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 2:31 pm

"Reality." Hah. In a pig's eye.

Pyrrho · Post by **Pyrrho** » Thu Jun 11, 2015 11:09 pm

In other news, Lance Armstrong has compared himself to Voldemort. In a whiny sort of way.

"Fuck you, Lance."

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Fri Jun 12, 2015 2:01 am

He is just a Cunt. Does not need a Should Have Won the Oscar caliber actor to play him.

--J.D.

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Tue Jul 07, 2015 9:33 pm

Even Howard Cosell started calling Cassius Muhammad

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:23 am

One should be more interested in how his vehicular homicide case will progress.

--J.D.

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:31 am

Doctor X wrote:One should be more interested in how his vehicular homicide case will progress.

--J.D.

The ratings will be spectacular. His lawyers will demand television coverage.

Pyrrho · Post by **Pyrrho** » Tue Aug 25, 2015 11:02 am

Should run for President. It's the thing these days.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Tue Aug 25, 2015 10:38 pm

This is very important! Bigger than Deflategate maybe!!!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/2015 ... /32326565/

A gag "Call Me Caitlyn" Halloween costume, based on her lingerie-clad Vanity Fair cover, has sparked a backlash of outrage on Twitter about "transphobia."

. . .
A smaller, counter-backlash of outrage at the outrage also cropped up from tweeters who protested it was "just a joke."

. . .
Tweeters called for boycotts and urged protesters to sign petitions.

Petitions!

And not just on Twitter; spokespeople for transgender people condemned the costume as unfunny, contemptuous and mean.

"There's no tasteful way to 'celebrate' Caitlyn Jenner or respect transgender people this way on the one night of the year when people use their most twisted imaginations to pretend to be villains and monsters," said Vincent Villano, spokesman for the National Center for Transgender Equality in Washington.

The people at GLAAD, which monitors gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans images in the media, weren't happy either.

"When transgender women step out into the world as their authentic selves, they aren't wearing a costume," said a spokesman, Nick Adams. "Companies should think twice before seeking to profit from mocking trans women."

Honestly don't understand why this is such a big deal.

Is it kind of like the war between drag queens and some trans women? (Yes, certain trans women resent RuPaul and company. He's not "serious" enough I guess. And no, I did not "misgender" RuPaul by calling him he.) I kinda doubt there would be the same outrage about a RuPaul costume.

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Wed Aug 26, 2015 4:46 am

Anaxagoras wrote:This is very important! Bigger than Deflategate maybe!!!

http://memecrunch.com/meme/4RLWB/goodel ... /image.jpg

--J.D.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Wed Sep 23, 2015 12:39 am

From Abdul's link:

“Women are afraid to be a wife. Young males are afraid to be men. It’s not cool man, they aren’t marketing that. They’re not marketing families and husbands and wives no more, they marketing young girls, you know what I’m saying, transgenders, they marketing evil man. It’s really evil dog,” he said.

Well, everything becomes clear simple.

More generally I wonder up to what point one can troll celebs into answering insane questions. Are there famous examples?

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Wed Oct 07, 2015 11:28 pm

Sort of related: want to see what taking testosterone for 3 years does to a woman?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstrudwic ... .codyGY9ol

Gotta admit, by the end of it his face looks like a man's face.

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Thu Oct 08, 2015 1:56 am

To be fair, he did not appear that feminine to begin with. Now part of that is "make up" in that he wore his hair short. Had he worn his hair more "feminine," wore make up and all of that, she would look very female. Part of it is expectation.

Which is not a criticism. If she wanted to "shock"--oooo . . . Cubbies fuck up a double-play . . . is Steve Bartman in Pittsburgh?--she could have worn her hair long, put on make up, "dressed feminine" and all of that. Instead, she started as he preferred prior to taking the medication.

And, yes, I am having fun with pronouns.

--J. "Now I DEMAND That You Shoot Me Now!" D.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:34 am

Yeah, make-up, clothes and hairstyle is a big part of it, but I was trying to just focus on the shape of the face itself, which does appear to be different. I wonder if hormones work as well the other way around? My understanding is that it works best if started before puberty but of course that means a decision has to be made while the child is still a minor (although puberty can be delayed too).

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:02 am

I do not know if you can make hard and fast rules. Does someone "truly" feel they are a different gender or not? The problem is that some modalities are not reversible. In the case of children--CHILDREN!!!--I am afraid one should defer to caution in that you do not do surgery on them, give various hormones, and all of that based on reported preference.

--J.D.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Thu May 05, 2016 10:12 am

You won't be able to see. The genitals, whatever they may be, won't be visible in whatever photos they publish.

Evolver · Post by **Evolver** » Fri May 06, 2016 8:19 pm

Anaxagoras wrote:You won't be able to see. The genitals, whatever they may be, won't be visible in whatever photos they publish.

No matter what, there's gonna be at least one big dick showing in the photo.

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Sat May 07, 2016 2:27 am

. . . or a Cunt given his behavior after killing a woman.

--J.D.