Saturday, 2 May 2009

Stephen Fry: Dearest absurd child

Just who was the young, arrogant and confused man to whom Stephen Fry recently felt compelled to write a long and heartfelt letter? Himself, 35 years ago.

Oh, lord love you, Stephen. How I admire your arrogance and rage and misery. How pure and righteous they are and how passionately storm-drenched was your adolescence. How filled with true feeling, fury, despair, joy, anxiety, shame, pride and above all, supremely above all, how overpowered it was by love. My eyes fill with tears just to think of you. Of me. Tears splash on to my keyboard now. I am perhaps happier now than I have ever been and yet I cannot but recognise that I would trade all that I am to be you, the eternally unhappy, nervous, wild, wondering and despairing 16-year-old Stephen: angry, angst-ridden and awkward but alive. Because you know how to feel, and knowing how to feel is more important than how you feel. Deadness of soul is the only unpardonable crime, and if there is one thing happiness can do it is mask deadness of soul.

I finally know now, as I easily knew then, that the most important thing is love. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether that love is for someone of your own sex or not. Gay issues are important and I shall come to them in a moment, but they shrivel like a salted snail when compared to the towering question of love. Gay people sometimes believe (to this very day, would you credit it, young Stephen?) that the preponderance of obstacles and terrors they encounter in their lives and relationships is intimately connected with the fact of their being gay. As it happens at least 90% of their problems are to do with love and love alone: the lack of it, the denial of it, the inequality of it, the missed reciprocity in it, the horrors and heartaches of it. Love cold, love hot, love fresh, love stale, love scorned, love missed, love denied, love betrayed ... the great joke of sexuality is that these problems bedevil straight people just as much as gay. The 10% of extra suffering and complexity that uniquely confronts the gay person is certainly not incidental or trifling, but it must be understood that love comes first. This is tough for straight people to work out.

Straight people are encouraged by culture and society to believe that their sexual impulses are the norm, and therefore when their affairs of the heart and loins go wrong (as they certainly will), when they are flummoxed, distraught and defeated by love, they are forced to believe that it must be their fault. We gay people at least have the advantage of being brought up to expect the world of love to be imponderably and unmanageably difficult, for we are perverted freaks and sick aberrations of nature. They - poor normal lambs - naturally find it harder to understand why, in Lysander's words, "the course of true love never did run smooth".

You would little believe that I can say to you now across the gap of 35 years that we are the blessed ones. The people of Britain are happy (or not) because of Tolpuddle Martyrs, Chartists, infantry regiments, any number of ancestors who made the world more comfortable for them. And we, gay people, are happy now (or not) in large part thanks to Stonewall rioters, Harvey Milk, Dennis Lemon, Gay News, Ian McKellen, Edwina Currie (true) et al, and the battered bodies of bullied, beaten and abused gay men and women who stood up to be counted and refused to apologise for the way they were. It has given us something we never thought to have: pride. For a thousand years, shame was our lot and now, turning on a sixpence, we have arrived at pride - without even, it seems, an intervening period of well-it's-OK-I-suppose-wouldn't-have-chosen-it-but-there-you-go. Who'da thought it?

But don't kid yourself. For millions of teenagers around Britain and everywhere else, it is still 1973. Taunts, beatings and punishment await gay people the world over in playgrounds and execution grounds (the distance between which is measured by nothing more than political constitutions and human will). Yes, you will grow to be a very, very, very, very lucky man who is able to express his nature out loud without fear of hatred or reprisal from any except the most deluded, demented and sad. But that is a small battle won. A whole theatre of war remains. This theatre of war is bigger than the simple issue of being gay, just as the question of love swamps the question of mere sexuality. For alongside sexual politics the entire achievement of the enlightenment (which led inter alia to gay liberation) is under threat like never before. The cruel, hypocritical and loveless hand of religion and absolutism has fallen on the world once more.

So my message from the future is twofold. Fear not, young Stephen, your life will unfold in richer, more accepted and happier ways than you ever dared hope. But be wary, for the most basic tenets of rationalism, openness and freedom that nourish you now and seem so unassailable are about to be harried and besieged by malevolent, mad and medieval minds.

You poor dear, dear thing. Look at you weltering in your misery. The extraordinary truth is that you want to stay there. Unlike so many of the young, you do not yearn for adulthood, pubs and car keys. You want to stay where you are, in the Republic of Pubescence, where feeling has primacy and pain is beautiful. And you know what ... ?

I think you are right.

Source: Stephen Fry's letter to himself: Dearest absurd child
Official website: The New Adventures of Mr Stephen Fry
Wikipedia: Stephen Fry

992 comments:

1 – 200 of 992   Newer›   Newest»
Jackie said...

@
@ Previous post's comments

reposting Ted said...

From Ted's twitter

Ted: Doesn't anybody want to know about #toothytile anymore? I feel lonely for the poor boy, in so many ways!

jael_rd: @theawfultruth the whole Toothytile drama kept me going through a rough spot...what's going on now???

Ted: @jael_rd it's only getting worse. His balls are toast.

irisdorbian: @theawfultruth Oh Ted, just OUT him already. We all know who it is. He is ridiculous and his BF is much cuter than his beard.

Ted: @irisdorbian you sound like a smart gal in her butch suit.

Ted's twitter

reposting Ted said...

Do-Me Meter: Balthazar’s Got Some Balls!

Balthazar Getty obviously wasn't satisfied with just wife Rosetta or Sienna Miller spelunking around his nether regions, so he's decided to take matters into his own hands. Or did he just get hit in the groin with a football?

Wonder which slighted babe threw it? All despicable stuff aside (tho its hard to ignore it, since he proudly prances his infidelities in the public's face), the Brothers & Sisters star is usually quite doable.

But, Balth, no offense, when it comes to the cycling thing, you are no Lance Armstrong. You're not even Jake Gyllenhaal. Or his biking buddy._____

Get even dishier with @theawfultruth on Twitter!

The Awful Truth

Anonymous said...

Damn Yankees (2012)

3 years?! Damn!

Anonymous said...

I love Stephen Fry. It's really sad that he looks back on his miserable adolescence with nostalgia.

Anonymous said...

Miserable, but so very much alive:

"I am perhaps happier now than I have ever been and yet I cannot but recognise that I would trade all that I am to be you, the eternally unhappy, nervous, wild, wondering and despairing 16-year-old Stephen: angry, angst-ridden and awkward but alive. Because you know how to feel, and knowing how to feel is more important than how you feel. Deadness of soul is the only unpardonable crime, and if there is one thing happiness can do it is mask deadness of soul."

wikipedia said...

Stephen Fry is a friend of British comedian and actor (and Blackadder co-star) Rowan Atkinson and was best man at Atkinson's wedding. He was best man at the wedding of Hugh Laurie (whom he considers to be his best friend)["House M.D."] and is godfather to all three of Laurie's children.

Stephen Fry said...

I know what you are doing now, young Stephen. It's early 1973. You are in the library, cross-referencing bibliographies so that you can find more and more examples of queer people in history, art and literature against whom you can hope to validate yourself. Leonardo, Tchaikovsky, Wilde, Barons Corvo and von Gloeden, Robin Maugham, Worsley, "an Englishman", Jean Genet, Cavafy, Montherlant, Roger Peyrefitte, Mary Renault, Michael Campbell, Michael Davies, Angus Stewart, Gore Vidal, John Rechy, William Burroughs.

So many great spirits really do confirm that hope! It emboldens you to know that such a number of brilliant (if often doomed) souls shared the same impulse and desires as you.

Anonymous said...

A lot of interesting comments and confessions:

"If only this had been in the paper when I was sixteen. I hope there are sixteen-year-olds reading the Guardian."

Stephen Fry's letter to himself: Dearest absurd child

bad moms said...

Conservative group One Million Moms wants people to send Miley Cyrus letters saying they do not approve of her writing in several Tweets to Perez Hilton that she supports gay marriage. Miley made comments like, "Jesus loves you and your partner and wants you to know how much he cares! That's like a daddy not loving his lil boy cuz he's gay and that is wrong and very sad!" [ONTD]

Anonymous said...

Go Miley! :)

Anonymous said...

^^^ And you thought you would never root for Miley :)

Anonymous said...

LOL - I never ever thought I'd root for Miley! :)

Anonymous said...

"That's like a daddy not loving his lil boy cuz he's gay and that is wrong and very sad!"

Thank you Miley.

Dalai Lama Lite said...

2003

I first met the Dalai Lama almost 20 years ago when I was a teenager studying at a college run by Roman Catholic monks. He had come to see a Christian monastery in action. Although the Dalai Lama was not a globally famous figure at that time, I was captivated immediately by his charisma, and by the tragic plight of the Tibetan people.
...

In reality, Tibetan Buddhism is not a values-free system oriented around smiles and a warm heart. It is a religion with tough ethical underpinnings that sometimes get lost in translation. For example, the Dalai Lama explicitly condemns homosexuality, as well as all oral and anal sex. His stand is close to that of Pope John Paul II, something his Western followers find embarrassing and prefer to ignore. His American publisher even asked him to remove the injunctions against homosexuality from his book, "Ethics for the New Millennium," for fear they would offend American readers, and the Dalai Lama acquiesced.

New York Times

Jake and Austin said...

Fuck!

Dalai Lama Lite said...

"Jake and Austin said...
Fuck!"

You boys ever try calf-ropin'"

Anonymous said...

All religions suck, long live atheism!

Anonymous said...

Ted: @jael_rd it's only getting worse. His balls are toast."

I wonder what he means by this.

Anonymous said...

"I wonder what he means by this."

Don't know, but it doesn't sound too good does it.

Free Dictionary said...

toast - a person in desperate straits; someone doomed; "I'm a goner if this plan doesn't work"; "one mistake and you're toast"

urban dictionary said...

toast - destroyed, terminated, ceased functioning, ended abruptedly by external forces

burned out, been up too long, ozoned, fried, out of it, worn to a frazzle, extreemely tired.

Anonymous said...

His balls are toast = He has no balls = He has no bravery, courage

Dr House said...

"The reason I am in Los Angeles is that I'm making a television show that I can be proud of. One of my principle goals in life is to avoid embarrassing my children by doing what I do. And I think I've just about managed that."
-Hugh Laurie [DailyMail]

Anonymous said...

Gooberballs, he said it himself

Goobers = peanuts

Toast? Id guess T means "burnt out"

But it's an odd thing to say -

Anonymous said...

Gooberballs

Prop. Name - How a drunk british lady defines Jake Gyllenhaal's (and, we asume, his sister Maggie's) last name.

"I swear to God you look like Jake Gooberballs!"
"Ey! That's Jake Gooberballs!"

urban dictionary

Gooberballs said...

Goobers = peanuts

Drunk british lady got it right! lol

destiny said...

Thanks for the very interesting post Jackie.

Who'd have thought it, Clay and Miley having the courage to stand up and do the right thing despite having fan bases that are more conservative than a lot of other celebrities.

Anonymous said...

I think that takes a lot of guts. :)

Lao Tzu said...

Great acts are made up of small deeds.

Anonymous said...

Wonderful words by Mr. Fry. I hope many young gay men struggling with their identities have an opportunity to read them.

Anonymous said...

Is the tipping point for full and equal gay rights coming in the near future as the homophobic old farts die out? How many Miss Califronia types are out there to replace them?

Anonymous said...

Quite a lot, I'm afraid.

guardian.co.uk said...

Gay people don't need marriage

It's secularism that has given gay people rights. And in civil partnerships, we have a secular institution fit for their celebration

The question: Is gay marriage a religious issue?
Who would have guessed the dainty opinions of a Miss America candidate would have been taken so seriously by gays and liberals?

Miss California, a practising Christian, was last week denounced by Miss America gay judge Perez Hilton on his blog as "a dumb bitch" and unworthy of the Miss America crown because she gave the "wrong" answer to his chippy question about gay marriage. Like most Americans – including the current Democratic president of the United States – she believes that marriage is "between a man and a woman". Boo! Hiss! Rip her to shreds!

It wasn't just the famously bitchy gossip-monger Hilton casting stones, however. For honestly and somewhat courageously answering his question Miss California was roundly condemned as a "bigot" by hosts of gay and liberal blogs, and was even denounced by the directors of the Miss California pageant who declared themselves "saddened" by her views and that they had no place in the "Miss California family", whatever that is. Most now agree with Hilton's gloating claim that her answer cost her the crown.

Candidate Obama expressed the exact same view during the Presidential Election: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. You know, God's in the mix."

Of course, instead of being scorned as a bigot and a dumb bitch, Obama was handed the Mr America crown by liberals and probably most gay voters. But I suppose that being president of the United States is a rather less important title than Miss America.

Branding Christians and traditionalists "bigots" for being Christians and traditionalists and thus none too keen to fundamentally revise the definition of marriage is a highly unattractive exercise in liberal self-righteousness that makes Miss America look quite sophisticated. Not to mention something that puts you in mind of pots and kettles. It's faintly absurd to have to even say this, but it isn't bigoted to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's just being conventional. And after all, marriage itself is convention and tradition tied up in a big red bow and covered in confetti. Which is exactly why lesbians and gays and also most liberals should have nothing to do with it. Today's out and proud same-sex relationships are very unconventional and a very new kind of phenomenon. And so are in fact many of today's cross-sex relationships in a brave new world of gender parity. Marriage, on the other hand, is an antiquated, failing institution based on inequality and traditional roles. Much like Miss America.

Marriage is, whether you like it or not, also based on religious sentiment: "God's in the mix." Especially in a very religious country like America. And I have a hunch, based on millennia of violent opposition to sex that doesn't produce more Christians, that God is never going to sanctify "sodomy".

New ways of living and loving require new institutions. Or in the words of the famously unmarried Galilee carpenter and fisher of men: put new wine into new wineskins. And keep the flippin' Pharisees out of it. Or else you'll end up with a tacky mess.

It needs to be said out loud that full civil unions with the same legal rights and privileges of marriage at both the state and federal level, supported by President Obama and many Republicans and even some rightwing evangelicals – and the large majority of American voters – are not only much more politically achievable in the US than gay marriage, they are also a better fit for most same-sex relationships. What's more, they represent an entirely dignified way of side-stepping this endless, unsightly domestic between liberal and conservative, secular and religious, metropolitan and rural America.

But instead, gay marriage zealots, many of whom admit that they themselves don't wish to get married, insist on characterising civil unions as "second class", "social apartheid" or "riding at the back of the bus". I'd like to think it was merely a ploy to make fully-recognised civil unions more achievable, but many really seem to believe their own propaganda. Worse, they've made even more of a fetish of the word "marriage" than the religious right they rail against.

In the UK, where nationally recognised same-sex civil unions with the same legal status as marriage – called civil partnerships – were introduced a few years ago, there is little or no appetite now for gay marriage. In my experience few lesbians or gays feel they are "riding at the back of the bus". Maybe because in many ways they're actually riding at the front. It's probably only a matter of time before gay civil partnerships in the UK are made available to all, as they are in France – where the vast majority of applications are now made by cross-sex couples disenchanted with traditional marriage.

Fully-recognised, open-to-all civil unions are a secular institution that helps to shore up a fragile secular society. And make no mistake, it is secularism on which most of the – historically very, very recent – freedoms enjoyed by lesbians and gays are based, along with those of women.

But so far the gay marriage crusade in the US doesn't seem very interested in any of this or lessons it might learn from the experience of other countries. Instead it seems too busy proving itself holier-than-thou. And less sophisticated than Miss America contestants.

guardian.co.uk

Anonymous said...

"In the UK, where nationally recognised same-sex civil unions with the same legal status as marriage – called civil partnerships – were introduced a few years ago, there is little or no appetite now for gay marriage."

"Separate but equal" isn't equal.

I hope US will continue the fight for full civil rights.

Anonymous said...

Whatever. For all that matters, marriage is a secular institution, calling it civil union for gay couples is just mincing words to appease the lesser bigots like the writer of the article who wants their marriage i.e. "sacred union" distinguished from "civil union". Love is love. Marriage doesn't belong to any religion, get over it.

Anonymous said...

Candidate Obama expressed the exact same view during the Presidential Election: "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. You know, God's in the mix."

There is a long, winding road ahead.

Anonymous said...

Politicians are idiots. Obama is a politician.

Anonymous said...

Too bad we can't do without them.

Anonymous said...

April 27, 2009

Poll: Support For Same Sex Marriage Grows

Forty-two percent of Americans now say same sex couples should be allowed to legally marry, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds. That's up nine points from last month, when 33 percent supported legalizing same sex marriage.

Twenty-eight percent say same sex couples should have no legal recognitio - down from 35 percent in March - while 25 percent support civil unions, but not marriage, for gay couples.

link

51% said...

"Forty-two percent of Americans now say same sex couples should be allowed to legally marry"

Almost there :)

Miss California Banned From Competing in Miss Fag Hag Pageant said...

That's the funny title of a press release that went out promoting the Miss Fag Hag Pageant--a procession of real-life Will and Graces at Comix (353 W. 14 St.) on Sunday May 17, which will feature 10 fruit fly contestants and their tres-gay boyfriends.

Says the email, "In lieu of a contender who only supports 'opposite marriage,' pageant producers Paul Case and Shawn Hollenbach are presenting 10 contestants representing their gayborhoods fighting for the title of Miss Fag Hag. The candidates will compete in categories including:

-- Evening Wear
-- Fabulous Talent
-- Presenting Her Gay in a Swimsuit
-- And Sassy Question & Answer

Musto - Miss Fag Hag Pageant

Jake said...

Cmon Reese lets sign up!

Reese said...

Jake you have to take the trash out first!

Anonymous said...

The Chin wouldn't stand a chance.

Miss Fag Hag Pageant - Meet the contestants!

Anonymous said...

"Miss Fag Hag Pageant - Meet the contestants!"

My favorite: Miss Lower East Side - Jillian Snow Harris

Her Gay: Sean Pinzin Needles

Occupation: Sassy Waitress.

Dream Friday Night: Dinner and a classic flick with my gay.
Then, of course, sloppy drunk times, Broadway karaoke straight
bar style, finding semi stimulating boys for my gay, and butt
slaps all the way home.

Why should Jillian be Miss Fag Hag: As a fag hag, I cannot live
without my gays. Gay men understand me in the way straight
men and women never will. When I slap on some rouge and
paint my lips to take out the trash, do gay men ask me why?
Never.

Anonymous said...

Dlisted

The other night in Miami, George Clooney spent 4 hours inside of a restaurant becoming one with a tequila bottle. Georgie's drunktardian ass finally wobbled out of the place with two Sarah Larson-wannabes at his side.

Drunky Georgie

Anonymous said...

So, no one knows where Jake is?

Anonymous said...

No.

Anonymous said...

Getting drunk with Georgie-boy in Miami :)

Anonymous said...

Don't know where Jake is but Jared has pictures of Reese at the Milan airport dated today, can't tell if she is arriving or departing.

Anonymous said...

Posted on OMG

Name Andy
Location Austin, TX

Oh, and I think Jake Gyllenhaal tried to hit me, @bwalker, and @thelbane in a Land Cruiser today.

1:48 PM May 1st

twitter

Anonymous said...

The pictures of Reese in Milan were from earlier in the week.

Before I get excited about Jake being in Texas, I will wait. Remember that sighting of him at some shop in London picking out lingerie? Jake was in the states at the time.

There's also that story out there about his sister getting married in Italy.

Anonymous said...

"The pictures of Reese in Milan were from earlier in the week."

Where did you see them?

Anonymous said...

IHJ gallery

Jake's shoes for Foster Soles Celebrity Shoe Auction

Anonymous said...

"Jared has pictures of Reese at the Milan airport dated today"

The Celebrity City - pictures are from Thursday, 04/30/2009

pics

Anonymous said...

The Celebrity City - Reese LA pictures posted on 05/01/2009

pics

Anonymous said...

Pics at the airport in Milan dated 4/30 and pics of her in LA dated 5/1, both from sites I never heard of. Since there are pics of her in LA on Tuesday, how long was she there? 3 days? Perhaps a business trip and it was a coincidence that it was in Italy but something doesn't seem right.

She obviously isn't filming a movie, all reports say that it doesn't start until July, but yet pics were posted last week from the set of her new movie supposedly to be filmed in Philly. Most likely that was an Avon commercial shoot.

8:41, since you are a member of that community, do they say when those pics were taken or were they posted on 5/1.

Anonymous said...

8:41 PM pictures were posted on 05/01/2009, there are no other details.

Anonymous said...

This whole thing is so annoying, these people are so annoying, Im annoyed that I ever got involved with JG's annoying life.

I hope they all come down with Swine Flu.

Anonymous said...

LOL!

Anonymous said...

Now don't say that! ;)

Reese's Pet Pig said...

How much is it worth to you?

Anonymous said...

LMAO!

Anonymous said...

I bet they were taken earkier in the week like Tuesday or Wednesday and she flew to Milan on Thursday. By posting them on Friday it will look like she didn't run off to Itsly first thisng instead of waiting until Ryan got home thie weekend from filming according to IMDB.

Jared has them dated 5/2 and that may be correct but the other site says 4/30. If they were taken on 4/30, why are they making the rounds now (barely) and dated 5/2?

Or is that site incorrect and they posted them today and dated them 4/40, if so i'm surprised they haven't shown up elsewhere until today.

Anonymous said...

What difference does any of this make? Some of you spend way too much time majoring in the minors.

Anonymous said...

"Or is that site incorrect and they posted them today and dated them 4/30"

No. The Celebrity City pics - pictures are dated 4/30 and posted on 4/30 (check out the upper left corner).

Anonymous said...

IHJ has pics, M&P wedding in Italy May 2. Ma and Pa there, Jake. M&P and Jake riding bikes. No Chin (so far).

Anonymous said...

Only thing, the 4th bike parked has a really low seat, something the Chin would have. Could be someone else's or she mighta been there (gag) or, she mighta paid someone to put a bike her size there. Wouldn't put it past her. Oh here's a thought: maybe

Anonymous said...

Oh here's a thought: maybe it was a double wedding! Bwahahahahaaaa

Anonymous said...

"On IHJ, the description that came with pics: Maggie Gyllenhaal and Peter Sarsgaard married at a small chapel on the grounds of the luxury hotel Masseria in Brindisi near Rome, Italy. There were about 40 guests including Maggie's brother Jake and Reese Witherspoon. 5.2.09"


^^I'll believe the Chin was there when I see pics.

Anonymous said...

Jake's wearing the friggin' fedora in the wedding pics! What is with that hat anyway? Does it have special powers?

Anonymous said...

maybe he's becoming an orthodox jew? And you'd think he could have shaved.

Anonymous said...

If they got married near Rome, it does not make sense to arrive or depart from Milan.

Anonymous said...

ihj says Brindisi, and looking at the cycling pics, those weren't taken anywhere near Rome, but seemed to confirm Brindisi as they look like Apulia (where Brindisi is).

Have to say its not the first place in Italy I'd choose to get married, but then each to there own eh.

Anonymous said...

3:24 here, adding to my comment above, does anyone know whether Maggie or Peter have any special connection to Apulia. Because it does seem abit strange / sad to me to get married somewhere where you have no family or personal connection. If they wanted Europe, you'd have thought somewhere in Sweden would be more fitting, however that might still be abit chilly at this time of year.

Anonymous said...

3:24 here again, regardless of my opinion of wedding venue (and possible midget guests), good luck and congrats to M&P. Let's hope they had a great day and will have a wonderful life together.

btw.. crazy dad and bitter mum must have been a joy together at the reception, but that's what weddings are like isn't it.

Anonymous said...

The 4th bike is a man's bike. look at the bar and look at Maggie's' bike bar which is curved.

Unless teeny tiny decided to ride a man's bike! yikes!!

No pics? no teeny tiny at wedding. Wanna bet she was never there?

Anonymous said...

"Jake's wearing the friggin' fedora in the wedding pics!"

Then the chin was there!!!

Anonymous said...

"The 4th bike is a man's bike. look at the bar and look at Maggie's' bike bar which is curved."

It's probably Chris's.

Anonymous said...

That must be a tiny man.....look at the position of the saddle.

Who wants to take a bet that we will see pictures of Reeke lovey-dovey in Italy during the next days?

Good luck and all the best to Maggie and Peter!

Anonymous said...

From Datalounge, a follow-up regarding Pink "coming out" (from the same poster who said Jake and Penelope were gay):


Well, there it was, another Diva cover article (alongside countless Curve covers) where we had to publish how "straight" but gay-friendly Pink was. Just like Kelly McGillis.

Now waiting for Missy Elliot to come out, and then we will have hit the trifecta of hypocritical closeted-lesbian/bi-cover articles. The LGBT community colludes with Hollywood's homophobia.

Don't even get me started on the Advocate and the boys.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't be surprised if Reese wasn't invited to the wedding but still went to Italy to a) pose for pics with Jake and-or b) had Italian airport pics done, so that it would seem that she attended the wedding. Unless I see pics of her at the wedding I won't believe she was there, and if she was, I'll know that Maggie, like Jake, has also sold out.

Anonymous said...

"That must be a tiny man.....look at the position of the saddle."

I didn't notice but you're right!

Anonymous said...

Congratulations to Maggie and Peter!

Anonymous said...

The caption says 40 guests attended the wedding, you don't see pics of them either just Jake, Maggie, Peter and the parents. I would assume Peter's parents were there as well, but no pics.

Anonymous said...

IHJ gallery

May 2 - Bike Riding With Maggie & Peter In Italy

****
May 2 - Attending Maggie & Peter's Wedding In Italy

Anonymous said...

^^Are the Gyllenhaal's that big stars that paparazzi in Italy are interested in them?

Anonymous said...

No.

Anonymous said...

The papz probably heard that Witherspoon'll be there and hoped to get a pic of her.

Anonymous said...

The Chin is a much bigger and well known star in Europe than Jake. If she was posing around the paps would have gotten her pics over Jake bike riding. Wonder if Chinormica went to Italy to join Jake and Maggie didn't want her at her wedding and told her to leave. Imagine the spin control PR will try to do if there are pics placing the Chin in LA on the same time that the Gyllenhaal clan is together in Italy.

Anonymous said...

Maggie and Peter wouldn't do something like that. If Reese was there, it was because they were doing a favour to Jake.

Anonymous said...

That won't happen. If Maggie and Peter didn't want her there she wouldn't have bothered traveling to Italy (pics at Milan airport). There are no pics of the wedding party/guests which would include Reese and that was on purpose. You barely see pics of the parents and I would assume Peter's family was there but no pics.

The bike pics were probably done for the paps, mom and pop probably didn't want to participate since they are divorced.

Since this is Maggie and Peter I doubt that yo will see any pics, if you see Jake and Reese it will be the day after the wedding.

Anonymous said...

"If Maggie and Peter didn't want her there she wouldn't have bothered traveling to Italy (pics at Milan airport)."

It's possible Reese had some other reason to visit Milan.

Anonymous said...

"That must be a tiny man.....look at the position of the saddle."

Are you saying they got a lady's bike for Maggie but didn't for Reese? that they got a men's bike with a low saddle? lol!
And if Reese was bike riding with the 3 of them you could bet the farm there would have been pics of Reeke.

Anonymous said...

8:33 am, if she was in Milan on 4/30 how come she was on her way home. There are pics of her in LA on 5/1. So she went to Italy for a few days and then left before the wedding? I agree that Maggie wouldn't have her wedding be a photo op, but can't imagine Reese passing up the chance for a photo op, especially one that would show how Reeke and Jake's family are one big happy family and that Reeke would be able to pose for more of the "we are so in love" shots.

Anonymous said...

We'll have to wait and see what Reeke PR and Us Reekly had in mind for this occasion.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the bike belonged to dad, he was there. No one else wanted to particpate in the family photo op apparently.

Reese could have been in Italy on business and it could be just a coincidence, but the caption did say she was there along with 40 guests, no pics of them either.

We will soon see, the day is still early. She was in L.A. on Saturday she made a quick trip and returned and they made up that she was there, or she and the other guets made sure to lay low on the wedding day, but we may see them today or them returning at LAX.

Anonymous said...

"the caption did say she was there along with 40 guests"

Please, there is no reason to believe the caption without pictures as a proof. Remember that "dinner with Gwyneth and Chris" bullshit?

Anonymous said...

"Reese could have been in Italy on business and it could be just a coincidence, but the caption did say she was there along with 40 guests, no pics of them either."

Why would the paps take pics of the other guests. Peter's parents, Chris, and Jake's uncle, etc are not famous, no one would know who they were looking at. The pics of other guests would only be of interest if Maggie, Peter or Jake were in the shot. Why would a rag mag reader want to look at pics of Peter's parents? Reese doesn't seem to know how to do low key.

Anonymous said...

The pics were posted on 5/1, no indication on when they were taken. Some on OMG speculated that they were taken earlier in the week to make it look like she took off for Italy before Ryan returned home from flming his movie. The airport pics were posted and dated 4/30. Can't imagine what kind of business trip she needed to go to for two days that couldn't wait until Ryan got home.

She is arriving in those pics on 4/30 not departing, it looks like she is waiting for a connecting flight, the wedding took place way off the beaten path.

Anonymous said...

Maybe this time Reese had no choice to be low key, it was Maggie and Peter's wedding, she had no say in the matter.

The wedding was taken indoors in a chapel, I will be shocked if we see any pics of the wedding or their guests as per Maggie and Peter.

The best Jake and Reese can do is them returning via LAX together.

Anonymous said...

In those pics on 4/30 it looks like she is departing. It doesn't make sense to go to Milan if you are traveling to Rome.

Anonymous said...

"Can't imagine what kind of business trip she needed to go to for two days that couldn't wait until Ryan got home."

PR business.

Anonymous said...

"The he pics were posted on 5/1, no indication on when they were taken."

There is no way to know for sure, but Celebrity City usually post candids the same day they're taken and such pictures aren't dated.

Anonymous said...

"It doesn't make sense to go to Milan if you are traveling to Rome"

Rome?? Who said she was travelling to Rome? Brindisi is in south Italy - Apulia. No direct flights from the US.

PR wants us to believe she was there for the wedding. Only 4 pictures so far. Perhaps we get more during the day.

Anonymous said...

"Brindisi is in south Italy - Apulia. No direct flights from the US."

Rome has an airport with direct flights from the US and is much nearer to Brindisi than Milan.

Anonymous said...

Reese pics in LA...

Why are all the cars on Reese's right coming towards the camera? In a left hand drive country like the US & Italy shouldn't they be the other way around?

Sorry if I'm mistaken...

Anonymous said...

I'm a member of celebrity city and if they were taken on 5/1 they would say so like the 4/30airport pics. When there is no date to indicte when the pics were taken, that usually means they don't know and were probably taken during the week.

She was arriving at the Milan airport and was about to make a connecting flight, i have ben at that airport. Where was she headed? US? Brindisi?

Anonymous said...

"When there is no date to indicte when the pics were taken, that usually means they don't know and were probably taken during the week."

Not true, majority of pictures are posted the same day they're taken.

Anonymous said...

9:45 I thought they drove on the right in Italy.

Anonymous said...

5/1 pictures - those cars have California plates.

Anonymous said...

So, Jake wasn't in Texas?

Anonymous said...

"When there is no date to indicte when the pics were taken, that usually means they don't know and were probably taken during the week."

Paparazzi pictures are always dated - no date indicates that pictures are from the same day.
On that site older candid photos are dated.

Anonymous said...

LOL!! Reese is so popular they post pics 11:48am on the same day they were taken!Up bright and early in L.A. she was. Must have been a slow day. 11:48 LA or eastern time? If LA time they were actually posted 8:48am! If LA time that is quite early.

Reminds me of the pics of reesse posted last week on another site that had her on the set of her movie supposedly being filmed in Philly.

We now know that was BS and she is't due to start filming until July, LOL!! Fan sites, just as dicey as sites like x17 with dodgy dates o pics.

We will soon find out!!

Anonymous said...

Odd the pics of Reese in LA dated 5/1 has not shown up on any other site including thealways reliable Popsugar and Jared, yet. Same with the fake film set pics.

Anonymous said...

We will probably know for certain Tomorrow. It is the beginning of the work week. The news will be on all of the gossips site then with whatever photos are available.

Anonymous said...

"Reese is so popular they post pics 11:48am on the same day they were taken!"

Reese isn't popular, but that site posts tons of celebrity paparazzi pictures every day.

They posted her Milan pictures 2 days before JJ.

Anonymous said...

If I were to bet money, I would bet that Reese was there and not Austin.

Anonymous said...

"So, Jake wasn't in Texas?"

No, he wasn't.

Anonymous said...

So, is it possible that Jake left earlier to spend time with his family in beautiful Italy before the wedding and Reese followed later after taking care of business at home?

This doesn't seem out of the question to me. Is this possible?

Anonymous said...

Why not?

They aren't working, they can travel and reeke as they please.

Anonymous said...

Off topic for a minute. I once heard that Namoi doesn't like Austin. Is this true? Does anyone know Maggie's feelings regarding Austin? Or the clan's feelings in general?

Anonymous said...

Off topic? Hardly :)

Anonymous said...

There is a story about Jake, Austin and Naomi attending the same party and Naomi being pissed off with Jake and Austin, but I can't remember details.

Anonymous said...

"So, Jake wasn't in Texas?"
No, he wasn't."

Jake had enough time for Texas and Italy.

Anonymous said...

Jake might have enough time to be in Texas on the 1st and in Italy on the 2nd but I really doubt it.

It was his sisters marriage and I assume they spend a little time together in Italy.

Anonymous said...

I think Jake has been in Italy all of this time. Austin lives in LA. Jake has no reason to go to Texas to see him. It would make more sense to go to beautiful Italy and spend time with his family before the wedding.

Anonymous said...

Jake might have enough time to be in Texas on the 1st and in Italy on the 2nd but I really doubt it."

ITA. Also Italy is 5 hours ahead of Texas if I’m not mistaken and what about the duration of the flight. No way was Jake in Texas.

Anonymous said...

I don't know what the fuss is about. I would expect Reese to be there. I certainly wouldn't expect Austin to be there; I don't know why anyone would expect him to be there. He's not Chris.

Anonymous said...

Everyone would expect Reese to be there.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if it's Reese, but in the wedding pics you see a little blond hair head in front of mummy naomi, specially in the pic 4!
Someone on OMG noticed too.

Anonymous said...

Reese isn't the only (fake) blonde.

If Reese was there, PR will make sure to provide us with Reeke pictures.

Anonymous said...

"Reese isn't the only (fake) blonde.


Yeah of course there is a lot of others tiny blond o but here it would be an odd coincidence! lol
I think she was there !!!

Anonymous said...

Think whatever you want, I'll wait for the photos.

Anonymous said...

Peter is Scandinavian so I wouldn't be surprised if there are natural blondes in his family. Or it could be greatgrandma who's gray hair is now bottle blonde. Btw the 4 pics under the canopy show only family members (Peter, Maggie, Jake, Stephen and Naomi) so the mystery blonde could be a family member on Peter's side or Maggie's maid of honor/best friend. Or it could even be Ramona sitting in a high chair and with her hair done elegantly for a little princess!

Anonymous said...

yeah it could be Austin with a wig too LOL

Anonymous said...

Or it could even be Ramona sitting in a high chair and with her hair done elegantly for a little princess!Awwwww, cute. :)

Austin in a blond wig - lol. :)

Anonymous said...

Over at Omg, they are saying there is another guy there with a hat on (implying that it may be Austin), but I don't see this. I just don't think Austin would be there.

Does anyone else see this guy with a hat? Or are some people just grasping at straws again?

Anonymous said...

"Does anyone else see this guy with a hat?"

No.

Anonymous said...

yes next to Peter there is a guy with a hat pic 4. Don't know though.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone else see this guy with a hat? Or are some people just grasping at straws again?"

No and yes. yawn

Anonymous said...

Papa Stephen is looking good.

Anonymous said...

I love OMG sometimes. They are trying so hard to place Austin at this wedding, as if his being there is some kind of validation.

It's a little sad, but still sweet.

Anonymous said...

we will be allowed to see what PR wants us to see. Austin could be there but we'll never see him. PR made sure we saw the beard at the airport. We'll probably see more Reeke.

Anonymous said...

The guy with the hat doesn't seem tall thought!

Anonymous said...

^they could be standing at different levels of the ground. The hair and ear matches if the pic is made larger.

Jake said...

Fuck! I told him to hide!

Anonymous said...

posted on OMG:

man with hat

Anonymous said...

"they could be standing at different levels of the ground. The hair and ear matches if the pic is made larger."

LOL, Jaustinites are hopeless.

Anonymous said...

^"they could be standing at different levels of the ground. The hair and ear matches if the pic is made larger."

Possible

Anonymous said...

Why are they wearing fedoras? It's warm in south Italy, it must be hot in those things.

Anonymous said...

Thats probably Austin - and the tiny blonde is Reese - they are best "man" and best "Woman"......*lol*

Anonymous said...

Who says it's Italy?! There's enough cactus there to be Joshua Tree or Arizona!

Anonymous said...

Dalai Lama Lite said...

You boys ever try calf-ropin'"

May 02, 2009 11:40 AM
.

LOL!

Well, at least he acquiesced; maybe he's educable. :-\

Jake, Stephen, Reese said...

We fit right in, we're all pricks!

Anonymous said...

What a great post Jackie! W

hen I was a kid I used to promise myself that when they invented time travel I would come back in time to that moment and tell myself how to survive...

Anonymous said...

12:45 PM

I hope you're doing good :)

Anonymous said...

Jaustinites are hopeless. The guy in the hat is probably Jake. We do know he has a hat on.

Why is it so important for Austin to be there?

Anonymous said...

"The guy in the hat is probably Jake."

Second guy can't be Jake because Jake is in the same picture.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the guy with the hat is Chris or probably some other man. You do realize there were other men at the wedding, don't you. Anyway the guy is at least an inch shorter with the hat on than Peter. Austin is taller.

Anonymous said...

Jake looks like a Hassidic Jew with that black hat, all he needs is the side curls. Esp. in one picture where he is glaring at the paps.

Anonymous said...

Isn't Austin like 6'4? Are you trying to tell me that there is that much difference in the ground level for two people standing next to each other? That is a hazard, and I doubt a professional establishment would allow that (lawsuits just waiting to happen).

I agree with one of the other posts. Why is it important for Austin to be there? Does it imply something I don't get if he's not there?

Anonymous said...

Side curls! Yes, that sounds like a great idea! lol

Anonymous said...

Jake with side curls

Anonymous said...

Because Austin has no life and no friends and has nothing better to do than stalk Jake, Reese, his family and any other person Jake is friends with!!

Anonymous said...

Ted: @jael_rd it's only getting worse. His balls are toast."

I wonder what he means by this
.

Clearly an allusion to deer testicle stew.

Chris said...

*Mmm, that sounds like a good idea.*

Anonymous said...

The man next to the guy in the hat is not Peter.

Anonymous said...

Why wouldn't Austin go to Maggie's wedding. I'm sure Jake took his real partner, Austin, why is that any stranger than taking his beard. Funny how it's Austin who supposedly doesn't have a life, and yet Reese does I guess, so it's no problem for her to be there.

People who insist Austin couldn't possibly be there are no less "pathetic" than the people who insist he couldn't possibly have been there.

Anonymous said...

The point is Austin does have a life outside of Jake and the sad attempt to pencil in Austin into every scenerio with Jake is pathetic. He has his own life and family.

There were 40 guests at that wedding, the man in the hat could anyone. Geez.

Anonymous said...

Marriage is, whether you like it or not, also based on religious sentiment:

And keep the flippin' Pharisees out of it. Or else you'll end up with a tacky mess.

It needs to be said out loud that full civil unions with the same legal rights and privileges of marriage at both the state and federal level, supported by President Obama and many Republicans and even some rightwing evangelicals – and the large majority of American voters – are not only much more politically achievable in the US than gay marriage, they are also a better fit for most same-sex relationships. What's more, they represent an entirely dignified way of side-stepping this endless, unsightly domestic between liberal and conservative, secular and religious, metropolitan and rural America.

Fully-recognised, open-to-all civil unions are a secular institution that helps to shore up a fragile secular society. And make no mistake, it is secularism on which most of the – historically very, very recent – freedoms enjoyed by lesbians and gays are based, along with those of women.

But so far the gay marriage crusade in the US doesn't seem very interested in any of this or lessons it might learn from the experience of other countries. Instead it seems too busy proving itself holier-than-thou. And less sophisticated than Miss America contestants.
Sorry but The Guardian (like Elton John) is mistaken here. #1, Marriage does NOT belong to churches. Marriage IS a civil function, not a religious function. The way that we keep the frickin Phariseess out is to remind them of this fact. The Guardian is inadvertently proposing that we hand a civil function over to churches.

#2, no matter what any state law says, civil unions are NOT equal to civil marriage in the United States. If you are married and your spouse dies, you get Social Security benefits. If you are civil unioned, you don't.

#3 Obama is just mistaken on this one. Unfortunately, either he is an outright homophobe or he is afraid of outright homophobes. I think it's the latter but not sure. He committed at least two blatant acts of censorship against gays at the pre-inaugural concert: he censored gay bishop Gene Robinson's invocation, and he censored a pro-gay line in Garth Brooks's song "We Shall Be Free." This was a deep shock to me.

#4 The word "marriage" in the United States means civil marriage. If the word "marriage" in the UK means a religious ceremony, then the Guardian and Elton John need to square that up in their minds before they speak so they don't undercut the dramatic civil progress that is being made in the US right now.

Anonymous said...

"Ted: @jael_rd it's only getting worse. His balls are toast."

I wonder what he means by this."

I think Ted meant "balls ON toast" - an allusion to Jake's friend Chris, who specializes in offals cookery, and was once heard to say, of his childhood pal, JG, "son of a bitch, Im gonna serve that fucker's balls on toast. . . "

Anonymous said...

1:26 PM

The Guardian writer is trying his best to convince people that gays should be happy and satisfied with being second class citizens.

Anonymous said...

Forty-two percent of Americans now say same sex couples should be allowed to legally marry, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds. That's up nine points from last month, when 33 percent supported legalizing same sex marriage.

Twenty-eight percent say same sex couples should have no legal recognitio - down from 35 percent in March - while 25 percent support civil unions, but not marriage, for gay couples.

May 02, 2009 3:01 PM
Fantastic. Thanks for the good news. I think the "civil union" people are coming around to understand that what they mean is "civil marriage". They just don't want any given preacher to be forced at gunpoint to perform a wedding for two cocksuckers.

They are coming around to realize that this is already built in. No church has to perform weddings for anybody they don't want to. Catholic churches won't even marry two Baptists, and why the heck would the Baptists want that?

When a mere 40% of those 25% (that makes 10% of the total population) come around to recognize this and support civil marriage instead of civil unions, then we will have the majority: 42% plus 10% = 52%.

And that is an outright majority of the entire US, not just the more progressive states.

Anonymous said...

"Marriage IS a civil function, not a religious function. The way that we keep the frickin Phariseess out is to remind them of this fact. The Guardian is inadvertently proposing that we hand a civil function over to churches."

Good point. Changing our centuries-old legal system by handing marriage over to churches would be like putting churches in charge of home mortgage lending.

Oh boo hoo, America is founded on the principle that The Church has always been the one to decide who is allowed to get a loan and who is not! How can you take this religious function away from them?!

Anonymous said...

Her Gay:

:D :D

Miss Fag Hag Pageant said...

Presenting Her Gay in a Swimsuit

:)

Anonymous said...

The Church has always been the one to decide who is allowed to get a loan and who is not !

The Founding Fathers also intended for The Church to be in charge of automobile licenses, just like marriage licences.

Anonymous said...

The Founding Fathers have a sense of humor!

Anonymous said...

"Chris, who specializes in offals cookery, and was once heard to say, of his childhood pal, JG, "son of a bitch, Im gonna serve that fucker's balls on toast. . . "

LOL!

Anonymous said...

Reese is Jake's public girlfriend, so yes, everybody and his mama would expect her to be at the wedding of her boyfriend's sister.

Austin and Jake are not joined at the hip (or anywhere else), there is no reason for Austin to be there. Besides, the wedding may be a private affair, but Jake's pr knows that paps can always get pictures (as we see today), I sure they would insist that Austin not go (even if he was invited, which I doubt).

Anonymous said...

IA

Anonymous said...

Actually, Austin is hiding inside of Jake's hat. That way, Jake can carry him everywhere.

Anonymous said...

No more gossiping, start writing!

"Reminder - the deadline for The Great Chocolate Fanfic Challenge is midnight tonight."

BBM Drabbles

Anonymous said...

As far I'm concerned the situation is dual-fold but simple:

If Austin is Jake's real-life partner and Jake's balls are indeed toast (like Ted is saying), Jake left Austin home and brought Reese the Beard to the wedding instead.

But if Jake still has a little bit of balls left, he took his real-life BF to his sister's wedding, as any normal guy with a partner would do.

Jake said...

To tell you the truth the blonde in the pics is a lifesize cardboard cutout of Reese's head. She rents it out, actually at triple the cost of her really being there in person, but believe me it's worth it not having to put up with her big bossy phony ass. All I had to do was prop up the picture on the wall and voila, everyone thinks she was there! Call 1 800 Reese-Piece-Lease for yours today and tell them Ryan sent you.

Anonymous said...

LOL!

Jake said...

3:12 PM

As you can see, my balls are between a rock and a hard place. Ouch!

Anonymous said...

I'm sure that if Reese was actually at the wedding photos will turn up. Do you seriously think if she was there she wouldn't find a way to be in a photo???? We're talking about one of the biggest fame whores on the planet.

And why does everyone find it so hard to believe that Jake would take his boyfriend to his sister's wedding? I think Austin is with Jake, and that means he's part of Jake's family. How many of you here would go to your sibling's wedding without your husband, wife, significant other?? Ever think one of the reasons for having the wedding in such a remote place was so that Austin could go with being caught?? I doubt many people in Italy, particularly outside the big cities, would have a clue who Austin is.

But they'd sure all know Reese. Time will tell, but I'm betting we don't get any pictures of her anywhere near that wedding.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure only very small number of people in Italy know who's Reese Witherspoon.

Anonymous said...

"Ever think one of the reasons for having the wedding in such a remote place was so that Austin could go with being caught??"

Surely Maggie and Peter planned their entire wedding around Austin. LOL

Anonymous said...

Are you serious???? You can't possible believe that Maggie chose to have her wedding (her WEDDING) in this location for Austin's, or Jake's, convenience. There are plenty of remote locations in the US. And Austin being with Jake does not make him part of Jake's family.

Damn, some of you are desperate.

Anonymous said...

3:27 PM, SpecialK is that you?

Anonymous said...

I'm sure that if Reese was actually at the wedding photos will turn up. Do you seriously think if she was there she wouldn't find a way to be in a photo???? We're talking about one of the biggest fame whores on the planet.I think we will get photos, not necessarily wedding pics (I think Maggie, Peter and even (cough, cough) Jake have put their collective feet down on this one) but photos nonetheless. I don't know how they will spin it but I'm sure they will find some twisted ways to "prove to the world" that she was there.

I also think Austin is Jake's guy. Only those who think that he's with Reese or Chris would say that Austin being invited is weird.

Anonymous said...

And Austin being with Jake does not make him part of Jake's family.How long does it take for a gay BF to be considered part of the family? For us heteros a couple of years usually suffice. Is the timetable different for "the gays"?
I thought Jake and Austin were together since TDAT... Up and down, on and off but together anyway. So, again, how long for Austin to be considered "part of Jake's family"???

Anonymous said...

Why are some of you so desperate to convince the others that Austin was there? There's nothing to indicate he attended the wedding, he or the Chin.

Anonymous said...

Why are some of you so desperate to convince the others that Austin was there? There's nothing to indicate he attended the wedding, he or the Chin.Hee, hee... don't tell me, you're a Jake-and-Chris fan right? :D

Chris said...

Everyone is my fan!

Anonymous said...

"Hee, hee... don't tell me, you're a Jake-and-Chris fan right? :D"

Uh, wrong. I just don't like grasping at straws like you.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 992   Newer› Newest»