Oh Mr Fry
Edited to add (8/11):
Stephen Fry explained his side of what happened here (on the 4th) and I'm happy to accept he was misrepresented and hung out to dry by the media. Sorry I took it at face-value. Whoops. Shoulda known better.
"Sometimes I have to pinch myself. I am sitting on an aeroplane writing a blog which tries to reassure the world that I am quite aware that women enjoy sex. No one can say my life isn’t unpredictable, interesting and … well, Fryish…"
Quite so.
--------
Previous post (1/11) begins:
“I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want. They want a boyfriend and then they want commitment.
“Of course a lot of women will deny this and say, ‘Oh, no, but I love sex, I love it!’ But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?
“Gay men are the perfect acid test. If they want to get their rocks off, they go into a park where they know they can do it.”
And how right he is. The Girl with the One-Track Mind and other women like her lie. And lesbians do not exist. [/sarcasm]
Oh Stephen. Oh dear.
(He claims to have been misquoted and is stropping that "everyone thinks [he's] the Anti-Christ").
Not so, just explain yourself (this may be hard) - or go do some reading (try a bit of Feminism 101) - or better yet, say "Whoops, I frivolously mis-spoke and frankly I know zero about female sexuality, as you so rightly" ended with the patented Fry knowing look.
We'd all laugh and it'd be at an end.
(The man has bucket-loads of good will in the general populace), so Stephen, just say you did a whoopsie.
4 comments:
Really, really weird, wasn't it?
The logic seems to go: because someone doesn't go about sex just like me they mustn't really like it.
He is normally very funny and I suppose he was trying to be so here, but he just wasn't.
Yes. Apparently he's said (joked about?) stuff like this before.
I think it's a bit tiresome that some of his defenders think this kind of humour is 'edgy' when actually it's retrograde drivel.
Oh yes, he's done all that sort of thing. This blog sent me looking him up on Twitter which links to his blog and he's written about six pages there about why and how and how he knows naaathing about female sexuality. It was because he was interviewed by some very low circulation gay magazine, and they were talking about gay sexuality, and he was just exaggerating in a humorous manner and trying to big up gay sex to cheer up the readers (cos there's so much homophobia around these days apparently) and this nasty journalist then made a "story" out of it and turned his humorous exaggerating into a "declaration" to be made much of in other media.
The guy's been famous for thirty years, it is bizarre that he hasn't figured out the snake in the grass way journalists behave by now. He needs to be more circumspect and say "no" to requests for interview more often. Still at least he has a blog where he can put his side when he's been wronged in print. It's all a big pile of horsefeathers I think. And proof if proof be need be, never to take any story in the media at face value. Seeing the way the media reports strife within the Church of England taught me that. Anything said by a minister is then filtered through the journalists' agenda and comes out the other side looking nothing like what was meant. It's made me a lot more cynical about what I read. Abster.
That blog's cheered me up.
Should have known better than to take the media reports of it at face value.
Although the people who were defending his words as reported still need a kick up the arse. :)
Post a Comment