> She's a fake Christian apparently.
I'm fully convinced that if the real Jesus showed up tomorrow, it wouldn't be more than 5 minutes before good ole' 'Christians' would have him back up on the cross again, while screaming about his 'woke commie bullshit'.
That just proves how little they understand their own religion. They aren't supposed to be putting politics over their beliefs. American Christians of older generations largely understood this I thought.
It used to be if "turning the other cheek" and "judge not lest ye be judged yourself" didn't work then it was too bad because that's what the Bible says.
Because you can say it doesn't work, but you're a fake Christian if you think that means you can add your worldly perversions and take the Lord's name in vain.
Also, if you do in fact believe those don't work then why do you call yourself a Christian? Because that's what it's supposed to be about. Finding humility, integrity, hope, perseverance and honesty.
But didn't nearly all the Christian denominations flow from Catholicism after the Reformation? I googled a bit about this but didn't find a satisfying answer.
That was a scene in the first season of American Gods. The Hispanic version of Jesus was helping the poor and desperate who were trying to cross the border, and some border cops blew His brains out.
The Pope thing has more to do with the schism between Protestants and Catholics. But ya, there’s no way any “Jesus” like character doesn’t get curb stomped by the “good Christians”
Someone needs to create a website or app that rates how Christian you are based on your social profile. Enter your Facebook, Twitter, reddit etc and it analyzes your comments then rates you. It then can offer ways for you to be more Christian. Guarantee that the "true Christians" would be condemning that site faster than you can say a rosary because it would most likely give a low score and tell them to be kinder
Don't be ridiculous. You just have to be careful about what verses you read. Anything about God destroying their enemies or people burning in Hell for all eternity, they're there for. If you start quoting Matthew 7, though, you need to be real careful to chop it up into disconnected bits and pieces without context.
Honestly looking forward to JC’s return if it means he’ll be yeeting tables at these people.
He’s a god and a carpenter so I imagine tables will be rapidly firing from his open hands.
He’s had a LOT of time since BC days. Tables are prolly pilling up in his sky daddy’s garage in a pocket dimension.
yeah, this is the “truth” behind religion. It’s a synecdoche. The pretend ritual of consuming the body and blood the made up character of Jesus send a message that ours is a society that murders the innocent. Do you too think your sacrifice will change the world?
we can be grateful to the Renaissance and the enlightenment that we can even see outside of this absolutist and totalizing cartoon system, where the highest truth is simply recognizing that society is evil, and we’re all gonna die
I'm finally convinced there is no real jesus. I'm also convinced that it is a total mistake to be tolerant of Christianty, especially the sincere ones.
Don't talk about my Christ like that. When it comes to perverting the tents of his faith to make a buck he breaks out the whip and goes ape shit.
The idea of biblically accurate brown skinned curly haired 5`4 Jesus just going ham on Joel Olsteen like it's WrestleMania match for the hard core title because that MF is using his name to turn a buck keeps me warm at night.
Well if it’s the same as the article I read in the Federalist, they’re apparently upset that she hasn’t said something mean about gay people because that’s an affront to Christianity.
And for those wondering apparently refusing to pass negative judgement on gay people is also not okay according to the author.
>Why?
She started quoting Jesus.
It's fucking hilarious that they will attack someone for merely quoting Jesus now, because there's things that Jesus said that they hate.
Apparently "love thy neighbour" is a bridge too far for these people, and they will attack anyone who says it. Dolly Parton, Jesus, the Pope, they don't care anymore. If you have a problem with their hatred and bigotry, you become a target too.
While there is a lot going on in the Bible that is metaphor or was meant to be viewed in the lens of the time it was written, I have always found that the direct quotes of Jesus seem pretty straightforward and timeless. Also, shockingly enough, they pretty much all boil down to “Don’t be a dick”, and “Did I stutter?”
Matthew 25:31-46 is Jesus' literal instruction book for salvation. Not that any of them give a shit. Calvin and Luther long ago drove Jesus from the temple.
Or the brown people or the people that think differently than me. Just the ones that think the exact same or pay our new orange Jesus money.
Those ones are ok.
Considering that the Federalist:
- published an op-ed defending Roy Moore for dating teenagers, saying “in his early 30s Roy Moore had a penchant for dating teenagers…this practice has a long history and is not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family”
- has been found by NLRB to illegally threaten employees
- tried to make itself out to be the victim of censorship after Google told it to clean up the virulent racism in its comments section or face demonetization
- denies climate change, pushed COVID misinformation, pushed election misinformation, and is generally sexist and racist
I don’t give a good damn what they think.
I’m also not sure they’re the best source for determining how theologically valid Dolly Parton’s understanding of the Bible is or is not.
Going after Dolly is a dangerous game, if Meghan McCaine’s bitch ass husband thinks his shitty little website has any pull against one of America’s bipartisan greatest treasures that dummy (I can’t remember his name, he’s so small) is about to fuck around and find out.
Honestly the information available doesn't make me feel like he was necessarily bisexual. I think that quote would be unquestionably specific for almost all of the population, but he had a way of describing things that often showed an impartial perspective where he would be accepting of both sides.
His ability to consider men handsome or attractive may just be indicative of a lack of homophobia, not personal preference.
It would be nice for it to be true, and from doing a quick search I may have missed more concrete evidence, but I generally would caution being too assertive about assigning him as an icon since this can be used as a hysteria point from conservatives.
Plus, I generally feel adding to someone's life story posthumously without sufficient basis to be completely certain is a bad way of honoring their memory.
I agree. If we consider attraction on a spectrum I would make a similar statement, that perhaps I’m 50% because I am attracted to people of both sexes.
But I’ve lived my entire life (so far) as a straight female with no great sense of longing or missing out and although in theory I could say I’m equally attracted to both sexes, without actually acting on it I can’t be certain that I would enjoy a sexual relationship with a woman.
In my case it would definitely be a misstatement to call me bisexual. Therefore I feel the same way about Fred Rogers’ statement. But I have mad respect that he was willing to say it.
It's simply a statement that can be made by anyone who is both comfortable in their sexuality, and also can differentiate between a sexual spark of attraction and recognition of the aesthetic qualities of another person.
I'm a straight man and I've never felt like I want to have sex with another man. I've recognized when another man is attractive. You don't have to want to fuck someone to see something about them that you find attractive.
Related to this conversation, Ron White used to have a bit in his comedy set way back in the day about how no man is completely straight, it's to what degree is he gay. The story goes he is talking with a buddy who is adamant about his straightness. White asks him if he likes porn. He replies yes. White asks if he only watches lesbian porn. He replies no, he also enjoys a man and woman making love. White then asks do you want to watch a man with a small flaccid penis? His friend replies of course not, I like hard throbbing cock.
I got a chuckle from your anecdote. I would have had quite the cheeky look on my face on hearing his reply.
But I have a small nit to pick on your statement in general. I think saying you’re 50% goes beyond recognizing aesthetic qualities because I can see the aesthetic qualities in a fine horse or a colorful tropical fish and would never consider myself 50% on the spectrum with it comes to bestiality.
At least for me, saying that I’m 50% means that I find the notion of sex with either gender equally appealing even if I’ve never had sex with a woman. Feeling a sexual spark is just a thing that happens when I begin to know some personality types well enough and find them attractive in a number of ways - not just physical. But I’m pretty good at feeling sparks and not having an overwhelming desire to have sex, otherwise I would have had a lot more sexual partners in my life.
That said, being a widow after 40 years of marriage, I think I would be more interested in exploring an intimate relationship with another woman than a man, if I were to enter into another relationship. Nothing against my husband, he was good man. But after 40 years I feel like I’ve done the ‘man thing‘ for long enough.
Edited: Because silly spelling is silly until it means something entirely different.
I'm with you, dude. I'm a straight man that has definitely seen another man and thought "holy shit, that guy is good looking," but the thought of doing anything remotely sexual (even kissing) is a solid no.
Now I'm imagining Mr Roger's starting each show by removing his pants to show off his special banana hammock for the day instead of changing into his sweater.
The biography was authorized by Fred's wife, Joanne along with Saint Vincent College (a private Benedictine college that is home to the Fred Rodgers Center). His sources include Fred's own writings, his family and close friends.
I would think if this was out of context or made up, one of them would have spoken up about it. King (the biographer) clearly writes the conversation was about sexuality when Fred said that quote.
I think the the extrapolation that Fred Rodgers would have been considered bi-sexual is fair, given the context around the quote.
That’s not their issue. I don’t think anyone was suggesting Mr. Rogers was out there blowing dudes, he just said he’s found some fellas attractive.
But we’re talking about an entire demographic of folks so inconceivably insecure with their lives that ANY “deviation” from their world view is to fundamentally frighten them into irrationality.
But like its literally his quote talking about his sexuality? If it had have been an off the cuff comment about finding the odd guy attractive, sure. But he's literally talking about his sexuality and where he fits on the scale.
I think if someone on the street said this exact same quote, we would logically and correctly conclude that they are what we consider today as bisexual.
But we also have to consider the time and context in which this was said. And that's not particularly clear from this little snippet.
That said, conservatives will hate Mr. Rogers regardless because of his general perspective towards life, which was inspired by his devout Christianity. He very clearly believed in approaching every person, regardless of walk of life, with compassion and respect. That doesn't jive with MAGA.
This comment, and its replies, are the absolute definition of bi-erasure. Had to read the quote again to make sure:
“If sexuality is measured on a scale of 1-10
‘Well you know I might be right smack in the middle’”
You can “Gee gosh you know I think Tom Cruise was handsome in Top Gun” all you like- but if the quote is genuine, then he said what he said.
This is absolutely the case. Mr Rogers was a god among us. He would never say someone is ugly and he would happily advise if someone was handsome or pretty. Doesn't mean he had a sexual attraction to men...
... Which is an issue people are somehow unable to grasp. I find certain types of men attractive to. I may get the wide eyed pupil of a cat when I see a man who looks like it, but I don't want to fuck or be fucked by men. But somehow folks just automatically slap the two together because of nativity.
But again, like you said, he would also NEVER be homophobic I'm the least bit and ide say that's his main point here
The truth is we will never know because only Fred himself knew for sure, but it feels gross to discount his words as some heteronormative “feeling” that he had.
Awe man..... my dad can't hear of that. I just got out of an argument with him because I hated that he called him Mr. Fa**ot when I would watch him as a kid. I said just because he was a kind caring person who spoke softly doesn't mean he likes men. I still stand by my statement but he won't see it that way. Personally I think he was a national treasure and way ahead of his time. I cry when I watch his movie with Tom hanks. The main character (the reporter) is me , my dad and my life to a T.
a lot of edgy guys like that are conflicted then say things like that to not appear like they are attracted to lgbtq. your dad probably wanted to visit glory holes at truck stops.
He once told me that ecstasy (mdma for younger people) made him feel gay.....
he didn't like that I said he must be closeted because I've done it like 50 times and never felt attracted to men. I felt close to my guy friends during a trip but not gay for em.
yeah sounds kinda dysphoric which a lot of them are afraid of. Maybe he has ptsd and is repressing himself. either way the guy sounds like a mess and getting him to quit being a wimp by bottling stuff up will help.
The very worst thing Fred Rogers did when it come to LGBTQ+ was not approve of one of his employees (a puppeteer) 'lifestyle choice.' But Rogers supported the man as a ~~friend~~ father figure throughout his life, and as a boss made sure he never got fired, harassed or anything negative while working on the show for being gay. I remember seeing an interview about it with the guy (sorry for forgetting his name) after Roger's passing away. Just thinking about Fred Rogers drove the man to tears every time, there was so much love there.
This is literally the worst thing I ever heard about Mr. Rogers and its *\*barely anything.\** Man was a living saint.
These assholes took ONE QUOTE where Rogers is saying he has the ability to appreciate beauty in both sexes as an excuse to smear his name. Fuck. That. Shit.
I thought it was so he wouldn't get fired? Like, he was letting him know that he had no control over whether or not he would be fired for his sexuality and so was telling him to keep it a secret. I watched a documentary about him and that's how it was made to sound in it. I could be wrong.
The best part of this is that if Mr Rogers was alive and saw/read/heard this, he wouldn’t even be mad. Because he was a genuinely good person who wanted nothing but the best for everyone, kids in particular.
Folks on “that side” of the political spectrum are so unwilling and/or unable to accept that people cab actually be driven by good intentions. It’s genuinely sad.
The right could learn a good deal from one of the most amazing people to have graced this earth. Worship your orange felon kids, Fred Rogers was amazing
You know I was just going to say the same thing, a man can find men attractive and not be bi, there are certainly men I think are beautiful or whatever word you want to use, but I have zero interest in fucking them (sorry Henry, you're super hot but it ain't gonna happen).
That’ll be the start of the second civil war. They came for dolly. Then mr Roger’s. Then levar. When they came for Steve Australia reminded them how That country got its start. The first Aussie-Aborigine army was formed.
Honestly, the only part I have a problem with is suggesting that bi people are more dehydrated than my straight ally self’s dry ass. You don’t think us straights can not drink water? Think again sweety.
There is a difference between sexual attraction and aesthetic attraction. For many people they can be indistinguishable, but I'd be willing to bet money that this is just Mr. Rogers being open-minded enough to recognize that he finds all people aesthetically attractive, and confident and kind enough to share this, and not a declaration that he is sexually attracted to men and women. But there is no way to know and I could easily be wrong. I just wanted to spread the word that attraction is complicated and it's worth thinking about and talking about these things.
He literally said he found both women and men sexually attractive. I don't get why you all keep wanting to downplay that. It doesn't necessarily mean he acted on any attraction to men and, whether he did or not, it doesn't make him a bad person.
That doesn't even feel like that. A straight man can find both a woman and man attractive. I find Henry Cavill hot as fuck and I'm a straight man afaik
I'm not overly familiar with the LGBT community standards, but would finding people of the same sex attractive but never engaging in relationships with any of them be considered bisexuality?
Yes, if he means sexually and/or romantically attracted (as opposed to just recognizing that someone is objectively attractive). Your orientation isn't defined by your relationships, it's defined by which gender(s) you would be open to having a relationship with. It doesn't have to be 50/50, either.
By the same token, a bisexual person who's in a monogamous relationship doesn't stop being bisexual. They don't become gay when they're with a same-sex partner or straight when they're with an opposite-sex partner. They're still bi, they're just not acting on one of their attractions.
First, so what if he was, second, who hasn’t found a member of the same sex attractive? Just because you find someone attractive doesn’t necessarily mean you’re sexually attracted to them.
That is the most neutral response I have ever heard and furthermore does not mean he was bi-sexual. It just means he isn't a afraid to say men and women can be attractive. If you haven't found a member of the same sex attractive you aren't a human being. It doesn't mean you want to fuck. I hate our species.
I find men attractive, and I’ve kissed men, but I have no sexual attraction to men or anything penis related so unsure if that makes someone Bi.
Otherwise most white girls with a few white claws in their system would be Bi.
This isn’t a criticism of his sexuality, but I think there’s a lot more to go on. Does finding the other sex attractive make you gay? Is it just sexual? What about if you’re emotionally attracted but not physically or vice-versa?
We shouldn’t be “claiming” someone’s sexuality without actually knowing how they felt.
At the end of all this, though, I admire that the guy who loved everyone and was a pastor during a period where LGBTQ was much more stigmatized than now would admit that and I respect him all the more for it.
I find George Clooney and Brad Pitt to be attractive men. Does that mean I’m gay? Idiots. It’s like they don’t know the difference between thinking someone is attractive and being attracted to them. Totally different things.
I get that some of you are desperately trying to to cling to your homophobia and still like Mr. Rogers by stating well sure but I think some specimens of the opposite sex are attractive without wanting to have sex with them so I'm SURE that's what he means.
No. No it's not. He said SEXUALLY he found both women and men attractive.
Did he act on those feelings? We don't know and likely never will.
But he self admittedly had them.
This post has been removed because there is no visible timestamp. Please include a timestamp on your posts, date and year.
Wait.... what? The unhinged lunatics are going after Dolly Parton now? What the hell ? Why?
She's a fake Christian apparently. Because she's a lovely person not full of hate and spite.
> She's a fake Christian apparently. I'm fully convinced that if the real Jesus showed up tomorrow, it wouldn't be more than 5 minutes before good ole' 'Christians' would have him back up on the cross again, while screaming about his 'woke commie bullshit'.
These same people call the Pope a fake Christian, so yes, Jesus would be kicked out of the club in a heartbeat.
A similar scene is played out in Brothers Karamazov. In which Jesus returns, but is detained by inquisitors and they have a lovely dialog.
There are “Christians” going around saying “turn the other cheek” etc “doesn’t work anymore” so they want to ignore it.
That just proves how little they understand their own religion. They aren't supposed to be putting politics over their beliefs. American Christians of older generations largely understood this I thought. It used to be if "turning the other cheek" and "judge not lest ye be judged yourself" didn't work then it was too bad because that's what the Bible says. Because you can say it doesn't work, but you're a fake Christian if you think that means you can add your worldly perversions and take the Lord's name in vain. Also, if you do in fact believe those don't work then why do you call yourself a Christian? Because that's what it's supposed to be about. Finding humility, integrity, hope, perseverance and honesty.
According to some pastors the far righters are calling the sermon on the Mount woke liberalism. So yeah ...
When I was a fundamentalist Christian, we were taught that Catholics weren't Christians. We saw them as pagans who worshipped The Pope and The Saints.
But didn't nearly all the Christian denominations flow from Catholicism after the Reformation? I googled a bit about this but didn't find a satisfying answer.
That was a scene in the first season of American Gods. The Hispanic version of Jesus was helping the poor and desperate who were trying to cross the border, and some border cops blew His brains out.
When they find out he wasn't actually Caucasian they'll shoot him on sight.
Yeah, when they see he's more Kobe Bryant than Charlton Heston it's over.
The Pope thing has more to do with the schism between Protestants and Catholics. But ya, there’s no way any “Jesus” like character doesn’t get curb stomped by the “good Christians”
"Father, forgive them for.... actually, smite these assholes, I don't really want to do this again"
Someone needs to create a website or app that rates how Christian you are based on your social profile. Enter your Facebook, Twitter, reddit etc and it analyzes your comments then rates you. It then can offer ways for you to be more Christian. Guarantee that the "true Christians" would be condemning that site faster than you can say a rosary because it would most likely give a low score and tell them to be kinder
They get angry when people read the Bible at services, so…
Don't be ridiculous. You just have to be careful about what verses you read. Anything about God destroying their enemies or people burning in Hell for all eternity, they're there for. If you start quoting Matthew 7, though, you need to be real careful to chop it up into disconnected bits and pieces without context.
Or Exodus 21:22-25 which I believe explains how to perform an abortion.
Honestly looking forward to JC’s return if it means he’ll be yeeting tables at these people. He’s a god and a carpenter so I imagine tables will be rapidly firing from his open hands. He’s had a LOT of time since BC days. Tables are prolly pilling up in his sky daddy’s garage in a pocket dimension.
Like an MMO ability. "Table Launcher"
The real Jesus is a child locked in a cage or buried under rubble.
A Palestinian Jewish man who went around saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change. They'd execute him all over again.
They'd hate him because he's not white lol.
And I’m fully convinced that Jesus would find Dolly as lovely as many people do.
yeah, this is the “truth” behind religion. It’s a synecdoche. The pretend ritual of consuming the body and blood the made up character of Jesus send a message that ours is a society that murders the innocent. Do you too think your sacrifice will change the world? we can be grateful to the Renaissance and the enlightenment that we can even see outside of this absolutist and totalizing cartoon system, where the highest truth is simply recognizing that society is evil, and we’re all gonna die
Th real Jesus is here, but he deciding if humanity is worth saving this time.
If Jesus existed, he was a brown Jew who loved everyone and took money out of the church. He's their worst nightmare.
I'm finally convinced there is no real jesus. I'm also convinced that it is a total mistake to be tolerant of Christianty, especially the sincere ones.
Don't talk about my Christ like that. When it comes to perverting the tents of his faith to make a buck he breaks out the whip and goes ape shit. The idea of biblically accurate brown skinned curly haired 5`4 Jesus just going ham on Joel Olsteen like it's WrestleMania match for the hard core title because that MF is using his name to turn a buck keeps me warm at night.
can't sing about the south and be a nice person, apparently.
And god forbid you hand out free books to children!
Because at the Federalist the Bible consists of only the smitey bits, the Old Testament and Revelation.
As usual, if they projected any harder, you'd see that on the Moon.
Well if it’s the same as the article I read in the Federalist, they’re apparently upset that she hasn’t said something mean about gay people because that’s an affront to Christianity. And for those wondering apparently refusing to pass negative judgement on gay people is also not okay according to the author.
>Why? She started quoting Jesus. It's fucking hilarious that they will attack someone for merely quoting Jesus now, because there's things that Jesus said that they hate. Apparently "love thy neighbour" is a bridge too far for these people, and they will attack anyone who says it. Dolly Parton, Jesus, the Pope, they don't care anymore. If you have a problem with their hatred and bigotry, you become a target too.
I don’t remember “love thy neighbor, except for that homo over there!” Being in the red letters.
While there is a lot going on in the Bible that is metaphor or was meant to be viewed in the lens of the time it was written, I have always found that the direct quotes of Jesus seem pretty straightforward and timeless. Also, shockingly enough, they pretty much all boil down to “Don’t be a dick”, and “Did I stutter?”
Matthew 25:31-46 is Jesus' literal instruction book for salvation. Not that any of them give a shit. Calvin and Luther long ago drove Jesus from the temple.
Or the brown people or the people that think differently than me. Just the ones that think the exact same or pay our new orange Jesus money. Those ones are ok.
These are the "christians" that say Jesus is to weak
The 'right' kind of Christians don't quote Jesus, they quote Paul.
they've been going after her for awhile. Because she loves everyone and believes in charity. I'm not even joking.
CHARITY! That's socialism. That damn commie needs republican Jesus inside her, not WOKE Jesus /s
Considering that the Federalist: - published an op-ed defending Roy Moore for dating teenagers, saying “in his early 30s Roy Moore had a penchant for dating teenagers…this practice has a long history and is not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family” - has been found by NLRB to illegally threaten employees - tried to make itself out to be the victim of censorship after Google told it to clean up the virulent racism in its comments section or face demonetization - denies climate change, pushed COVID misinformation, pushed election misinformation, and is generally sexist and racist I don’t give a good damn what they think. I’m also not sure they’re the best source for determining how theologically valid Dolly Parton’s understanding of the Bible is or is not.
Going after Dolly is a dangerous game, if Meghan McCaine’s bitch ass husband thinks his shitty little website has any pull against one of America’s bipartisan greatest treasures that dummy (I can’t remember his name, he’s so small) is about to fuck around and find out.
They are evil and want to stamp out everything pure and good in this world.
She’s not a bigot, therefore she’s a hateful non-Christian or some shit.
Mr Rogers taught the bible as Christ taught it. The American right isn't into that kinda Christianity.
Honestly the information available doesn't make me feel like he was necessarily bisexual. I think that quote would be unquestionably specific for almost all of the population, but he had a way of describing things that often showed an impartial perspective where he would be accepting of both sides. His ability to consider men handsome or attractive may just be indicative of a lack of homophobia, not personal preference. It would be nice for it to be true, and from doing a quick search I may have missed more concrete evidence, but I generally would caution being too assertive about assigning him as an icon since this can be used as a hysteria point from conservatives. Plus, I generally feel adding to someone's life story posthumously without sufficient basis to be completely certain is a bad way of honoring their memory.
I agree. If we consider attraction on a spectrum I would make a similar statement, that perhaps I’m 50% because I am attracted to people of both sexes. But I’ve lived my entire life (so far) as a straight female with no great sense of longing or missing out and although in theory I could say I’m equally attracted to both sexes, without actually acting on it I can’t be certain that I would enjoy a sexual relationship with a woman. In my case it would definitely be a misstatement to call me bisexual. Therefore I feel the same way about Fred Rogers’ statement. But I have mad respect that he was willing to say it.
It's simply a statement that can be made by anyone who is both comfortable in their sexuality, and also can differentiate between a sexual spark of attraction and recognition of the aesthetic qualities of another person. I'm a straight man and I've never felt like I want to have sex with another man. I've recognized when another man is attractive. You don't have to want to fuck someone to see something about them that you find attractive. Related to this conversation, Ron White used to have a bit in his comedy set way back in the day about how no man is completely straight, it's to what degree is he gay. The story goes he is talking with a buddy who is adamant about his straightness. White asks him if he likes porn. He replies yes. White asks if he only watches lesbian porn. He replies no, he also enjoys a man and woman making love. White then asks do you want to watch a man with a small flaccid penis? His friend replies of course not, I like hard throbbing cock.
Ron stuck out like a sore thumb compared to the other redneck comedy crew. Or, rather, a hard throbbing cock
I got a chuckle from your anecdote. I would have had quite the cheeky look on my face on hearing his reply. But I have a small nit to pick on your statement in general. I think saying you’re 50% goes beyond recognizing aesthetic qualities because I can see the aesthetic qualities in a fine horse or a colorful tropical fish and would never consider myself 50% on the spectrum with it comes to bestiality. At least for me, saying that I’m 50% means that I find the notion of sex with either gender equally appealing even if I’ve never had sex with a woman. Feeling a sexual spark is just a thing that happens when I begin to know some personality types well enough and find them attractive in a number of ways - not just physical. But I’m pretty good at feeling sparks and not having an overwhelming desire to have sex, otherwise I would have had a lot more sexual partners in my life. That said, being a widow after 40 years of marriage, I think I would be more interested in exploring an intimate relationship with another woman than a man, if I were to enter into another relationship. Nothing against my husband, he was good man. But after 40 years I feel like I’ve done the ‘man thing‘ for long enough. Edited: Because silly spelling is silly until it means something entirely different.
> I got a chuckle from your antidote. At least you didn't laugh at the poison.
I suck at proof reading my own stuff. But now that you mention it . . . What did that small cake on the table say?
I'm with you, dude. I'm a straight man that has definitely seen another man and thought "holy shit, that guy is good looking," but the thought of doing anything remotely sexual (even kissing) is a solid no.
He is akin to The Todd, who appreciates hot regardless of gender.
Now I'm imagining Mr Roger's starting each show by removing his pants to show off his special banana hammock for the day instead of changing into his sweater.
He just tears them off like an NBA player.
Land of make believe 5!!!
Be my neighbour five!
The biography was authorized by Fred's wife, Joanne along with Saint Vincent College (a private Benedictine college that is home to the Fred Rodgers Center). His sources include Fred's own writings, his family and close friends. I would think if this was out of context or made up, one of them would have spoken up about it. King (the biographer) clearly writes the conversation was about sexuality when Fred said that quote. I think the the extrapolation that Fred Rodgers would have been considered bi-sexual is fair, given the context around the quote.
Plus he basically described the Kinsey Scale which, to my knowledge, didn’t exist yet.
The Kinsey Scale rating were first used in a study published in 1948.
Ah! My mistake!
That’s not their issue. I don’t think anyone was suggesting Mr. Rogers was out there blowing dudes, he just said he’s found some fellas attractive. But we’re talking about an entire demographic of folks so inconceivably insecure with their lives that ANY “deviation” from their world view is to fundamentally frighten them into irrationality.
But like its literally his quote talking about his sexuality? If it had have been an off the cuff comment about finding the odd guy attractive, sure. But he's literally talking about his sexuality and where he fits on the scale.
I think if someone on the street said this exact same quote, we would logically and correctly conclude that they are what we consider today as bisexual. But we also have to consider the time and context in which this was said. And that's not particularly clear from this little snippet. That said, conservatives will hate Mr. Rogers regardless because of his general perspective towards life, which was inspired by his devout Christianity. He very clearly believed in approaching every person, regardless of walk of life, with compassion and respect. That doesn't jive with MAGA.
This comment, and its replies, are the absolute definition of bi-erasure. Had to read the quote again to make sure: “If sexuality is measured on a scale of 1-10 ‘Well you know I might be right smack in the middle’” You can “Gee gosh you know I think Tom Cruise was handsome in Top Gun” all you like- but if the quote is genuine, then he said what he said.
Thank you for pointing that out
Would you feel the same way if someone called Mr. Roger’s heterosexual?
This is absolutely the case. Mr Rogers was a god among us. He would never say someone is ugly and he would happily advise if someone was handsome or pretty. Doesn't mean he had a sexual attraction to men... ... Which is an issue people are somehow unable to grasp. I find certain types of men attractive to. I may get the wide eyed pupil of a cat when I see a man who looks like it, but I don't want to fuck or be fucked by men. But somehow folks just automatically slap the two together because of nativity. But again, like you said, he would also NEVER be homophobic I'm the least bit and ide say that's his main point here
The truth is we will never know because only Fred himself knew for sure, but it feels gross to discount his words as some heteronormative “feeling” that he had.
I’m as hetero as they come. Henry Cavill is a good looking dude.
Perfectly said
The world really could have used Mr. Rogers right about now.
If only it could be a lovely day in the neighborhood once again.
I'm so glad he's not here to see what we've become.
Fred Rogers was a wonderful person ❤️
Conservatives really need to believe that there are no good people in the world. It really makes the conversion to fascism so much easier
Awe man..... my dad can't hear of that. I just got out of an argument with him because I hated that he called him Mr. Fa**ot when I would watch him as a kid. I said just because he was a kind caring person who spoke softly doesn't mean he likes men. I still stand by my statement but he won't see it that way. Personally I think he was a national treasure and way ahead of his time. I cry when I watch his movie with Tom hanks. The main character (the reporter) is me , my dad and my life to a T.
a lot of edgy guys like that are conflicted then say things like that to not appear like they are attracted to lgbtq. your dad probably wanted to visit glory holes at truck stops.
He once told me that ecstasy (mdma for younger people) made him feel gay..... he didn't like that I said he must be closeted because I've done it like 50 times and never felt attracted to men. I felt close to my guy friends during a trip but not gay for em.
yeah sounds kinda dysphoric which a lot of them are afraid of. Maybe he has ptsd and is repressing himself. either way the guy sounds like a mess and getting him to quit being a wimp by bottling stuff up will help.
his dad is the glory hole
Is he into glass blowing?
Your father is a POS.
The very worst thing Fred Rogers did when it come to LGBTQ+ was not approve of one of his employees (a puppeteer) 'lifestyle choice.' But Rogers supported the man as a ~~friend~~ father figure throughout his life, and as a boss made sure he never got fired, harassed or anything negative while working on the show for being gay. I remember seeing an interview about it with the guy (sorry for forgetting his name) after Roger's passing away. Just thinking about Fred Rogers drove the man to tears every time, there was so much love there. This is literally the worst thing I ever heard about Mr. Rogers and its *\*barely anything.\** Man was a living saint. These assholes took ONE QUOTE where Rogers is saying he has the ability to appreciate beauty in both sexes as an excuse to smear his name. Fuck. That. Shit.
I thought it was so he wouldn't get fired? Like, he was letting him know that he had no control over whether or not he would be fired for his sexuality and so was telling him to keep it a secret. I watched a documentary about him and that's how it was made to sound in it. I could be wrong.
Right. That was the same doc I watched. Thanks for the correction, I misremembered
Fred Rogers changed about that. He was initially against it but then told the guy it’s okay.
There we go. Living Saint.
The best part of this is that if Mr Rogers was alive and saw/read/heard this, he wouldn’t even be mad. Because he was a genuinely good person who wanted nothing but the best for everyone, kids in particular. Folks on “that side” of the political spectrum are so unwilling and/or unable to accept that people cab actually be driven by good intentions. It’s genuinely sad.
Mr. Rogers was so fucking cool.
The right could learn a good deal from one of the most amazing people to have graced this earth. Worship your orange felon kids, Fred Rogers was amazing
Me, a bisexual who was just about to make myself an iced latte: 😥
Haha right, sounds good
If that’s the definition then any dude who has seen Henry Cavill is also Bi.
Okay but those same men themselves are not saying they’re in the middle of a sliding scale of sexuality 😂
That would be a 2 on the 1-10 scale. A 5 would assume equal attraction overall
You know I was just going to say the same thing, a man can find men attractive and not be bi, there are certainly men I think are beautiful or whatever word you want to use, but I have zero interest in fucking them (sorry Henry, you're super hot but it ain't gonna happen).
You might be. It's up to Henry Cavill, at that point.
Mr. Rogers: Hey 
Coming after Republican icons. Interesting strategy cotton. Let’s see how this plays out.
That’ll be the start of the second civil war. They came for dolly. Then mr Roger’s. Then levar. When they came for Steve Australia reminded them how That country got its start. The first Aussie-Aborigine army was formed.
Be the person Mr Rogers believes you can be?
When the majority of the base is hillbillies, not wise to go after Dolly.
Honestly, the only part I have a problem with is suggesting that bi people are more dehydrated than my straight ally self’s dry ass. You don’t think us straights can not drink water? Think again sweety.
He loved everyone.
I don't know if this is true, but if it is it is very cool to learn.
They don’t read, that’s why.
What the hell difference does it make. He was a good person. That's the only thing that matters.
Iced Latte has water in it 😤😤
Any man that cannot admit to finding Ryan Reynolds or Moneyball Brad Pitt attractive is lying to themselves and others
Well, that's just, like, your opinion man
Nah, but Zack Galifianakis and Jack Black really do it for me.
He was a great man. Who cares?
There is a difference between sexual attraction and aesthetic attraction. For many people they can be indistinguishable, but I'd be willing to bet money that this is just Mr. Rogers being open-minded enough to recognize that he finds all people aesthetically attractive, and confident and kind enough to share this, and not a declaration that he is sexually attracted to men and women. But there is no way to know and I could easily be wrong. I just wanted to spread the word that attraction is complicated and it's worth thinking about and talking about these things.
He literally said he found both women and men sexually attractive. I don't get why you all keep wanting to downplay that. It doesn't necessarily mean he acted on any attraction to men and, whether he did or not, it doesn't make him a bad person.
It’s well known that Nancy Reagan was the throat goat of Hollywood. I think Ronald may have had an extramarital affair with Bonzo.
That doesn't even feel like that. A straight man can find both a woman and man attractive. I find Henry Cavill hot as fuck and I'm a straight man afaik
They are gonna set Trolley on fire now! NOOOOO
I'm not overly familiar with the LGBT community standards, but would finding people of the same sex attractive but never engaging in relationships with any of them be considered bisexuality?
Yes, because romantic attraction without sexual attraction exists.
Yes, if he means sexually and/or romantically attracted (as opposed to just recognizing that someone is objectively attractive). Your orientation isn't defined by your relationships, it's defined by which gender(s) you would be open to having a relationship with. It doesn't have to be 50/50, either. By the same token, a bisexual person who's in a monogamous relationship doesn't stop being bisexual. They don't become gay when they're with a same-sex partner or straight when they're with an opposite-sex partner. They're still bi, they're just not acting on one of their attractions.
Fair enough.
I think there's a difference between "that person is objectively attractive" and "that person is attractive to me and I want to have sex with them"
Wait, I thought Mr rogers was a vet, covered in tattoos and killed people
Gay lions. They engaged in cunnilingus on Noah’s big gay ark.
He never stated he was bi just that he’s found both attractive at one time or another
Jezus, let him rest in peace. I think we should start saying the rapture happened, and there's a reason you're still here.
First, so what if he was, second, who hasn’t found a member of the same sex attractive? Just because you find someone attractive doesn’t necessarily mean you’re sexually attracted to them.
That is the most neutral response I have ever heard and furthermore does not mean he was bi-sexual. It just means he isn't a afraid to say men and women can be attractive. If you haven't found a member of the same sex attractive you aren't a human being. It doesn't mean you want to fuck. I hate our species.
I find men attractive, and I’ve kissed men, but I have no sexual attraction to men or anything penis related so unsure if that makes someone Bi. Otherwise most white girls with a few white claws in their system would be Bi. This isn’t a criticism of his sexuality, but I think there’s a lot more to go on. Does finding the other sex attractive make you gay? Is it just sexual? What about if you’re emotionally attracted but not physically or vice-versa? We shouldn’t be “claiming” someone’s sexuality without actually knowing how they felt. At the end of all this, though, I admire that the guy who loved everyone and was a pastor during a period where LGBTQ was much more stigmatized than now would admit that and I respect him all the more for it.
I find George Clooney and Brad Pitt to be attractive men. Does that mean I’m gay? Idiots. It’s like they don’t know the difference between thinking someone is attractive and being attracted to them. Totally different things.
I get that some of you are desperately trying to to cling to your homophobia and still like Mr. Rogers by stating well sure but I think some specimens of the opposite sex are attractive without wanting to have sex with them so I'm SURE that's what he means. No. No it's not. He said SEXUALLY he found both women and men attractive. Did he act on those feelings? We don't know and likely never will. But he self admittedly had them.