WaPo: 'Bruno' Exposes America's Fear of Sex

WaPo: 'Bruno' Exposes America's Fear of Sex

By Colleen Raezler (Bio | Archive)
July 10, 2009 - 09:12 ET

Bruno

For Hank Stuever of the Washington Post, Sacha Baron Cohen's latest movie, "Bruno," is a reflection of America's "giant case of sex phobia."

Cohen's movie tells the tale of Bruno, a gay Austrian fashionista who embarks on a quest for fame (to become "the most famous Austrian since Hitler"). Its depictions of gay sex and a gay man flamboyantly flaunting his sexuality caused worry among gay activists about an increase of homophobia, despite a statement from Universal Pictures that the film aimed to "shed light on the absurdity of many kinds of intolerance and ignorance, including homophobia."

Stuever offered Post readers an inside look on July 9 at what it felt like to be a gay man watching "Bruno" and concluded that the movie didn't teach anything "other than sex is basically a total gross out."

He outlined his argument:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

After watching Brüno, a character played by Sacha Baron "Borat" Cohen, traipse across America and incite whatever homophobic responses and misadventures he can (especially in such places as Arkansas and Alabama), gays seem ready to accept that "Brüno," which opens tomorrow, will not hinder their hopes for pop-culture progress. Nor is it likely to inspire any. What "Bruno" inspires in gays is a lot of talking and typing and thinking. Here is some more.

"Brüno" gave me a new (and not new) thought about homophobia. The straight people seen in the movie, such as a heterosexual swingers group infiltrated by Brüno, have just as many issues about their orientation and desires as anyone else. Homophobia, schmomophobia. America has a giant case of sex phobia. The bedroom is a bigger hang-up than it's ever been, which is bizarre, after all the supposed revolution we've been through. Gays just happen to be on the unfortunate side of the bed.

We're all afraid of sex. Any kind of sex -- gay, straight, bi, May-December, Michael Jackson, whatever. Forty years of gay rights after the Stonewall Inn riots in New York have not moved actual hot sex forward. In fact, the more political being gay gets, the more afraid everyone gets of sex. So much for liberation. Now we just cringe in movies, waiting to watch straight people laugh and scream and affirm their complete fear of outre carnality.

In his attempt to belittle as cold and frigid those who do not choose to have sexuality flaunted at every turn, Stuever ignored a major point: Cohen's "exposition" of homophobia isn't really an exposition at all.

Newsweek's Ramin Setoodeh argued that "Bruno" is the "most depressing movie of the year" largely because he felt the movies played on gay stereotypes for no other reason than "cheap laughs." Yet he also made the point that the set-ups Cohen used to expose homophobia don't really ring true. After describing a scene in which a naked Bruno wandered into the tents of the "country bumpkins" he was camping with, Setoodeh asked, "Wouldn't you be weirded out too?"

Variety's Todd McCarthy noted a second problem with "Bruno." "But there is also a pronounced nasty streak to the innumerable provocations staged by the title character," he wrote. Gay or straight, audiences don't respond positively to "nasty" characters.

Maybe, as Stuever insisted, Americans are uncomfortable with sex. But they're more uncomfortable with being thrust into bizarre, nasty situations for someone else's amusement.

—Colleen Raezler is a research assistant at the Culture and Media Institute

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Afraid of sex? No...I'm

July 10, 2009 - 09:22 ET by tater

Afraid of sex? No...I'm afraid of how sex has been perverted by these lunatics.

www.theholyrosary.org

"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia

Bruno

July 10, 2009 - 09:37 ET by someloudthunder

Uh that's not the purpose of his movie. That's just his style of comedy. Anyone would feel uncomfortable with a bumbling idiot who does stupid crap 99% of the time.

Afraid of sex? Hardly!

July 10, 2009 - 09:49 ET by jefflebowski

Normal (yes, normal!) people get sick of hearing consistently that if we don't adoringly accept homosexuality we're afraid of it. We're not afraid of homosexuality....we're just tired of hearing about it every minute of every day!

Angry White Dude

www.angrywhitedude.c...

AWD... Hear, Hear...and

July 10, 2009 - 13:08 ET by bigtimer

AWD...

Hear, Hear...and Amen to that!

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

it's not fear.

July 10, 2009 - 13:32 ET by puredmashie

it's a loathing disgust for something that is not normal.

swing hard in case you hit it.

Sacred sex

July 10, 2009 - 09:58 ET by KC Mulville

Some of us, including me, believe that sex is sacred. It's the ultimate expression and communion of one human being with another. We don't take that lightly. Quite the opposite, we reverence it. We refuse to treat sex as just a little fun.

However, there are others, who don't have a mature self-respect for their own spirit and soul. They can't afford to risk opening their souls to others (you can't give what you don't have). Therefore, they can't see sex as anything more than a little fun. It's too threatening to them to treat sex as sacred, because that would force them to be vulnerable to someone else.
Naturally, they compensate by claiming that they're the ones who have no hangups. They misinterpret our reverence as fear. They claim to be "courageous" in trampling over our reverence.
When they challenge "conventional" morality, all they're really doing is revealing their own shallowness.

Anyone can share a bed. Sharing a soul requires maturity.

Perhaps for some

July 10, 2009 - 22:33 ET by shawn228

it takes sharing a bed with a few different people, before you decide to share your soul.

He had my vote

Whatever

July 10, 2009 - 10:36 ET by Paul Atreides

Follywood gets so little of my money as it is that it is getting so I don't care anymore how much these bastions of mediocrity build up and try to find something groundbreaking in the newest exercise in mediocrity.

I'm sure that every time they break wind it is some sort of profound political statement.

Once again...the "groups" have to blow this out of context...

July 10, 2009 - 10:44 ET by NavyBuckeye

This movie is meant to be nothing but a comedy to make people laugh. It is not meant to do anything for gays, good or bad. But once again someone somewhere feels the need to worry that it may cause harm. It has a hidden meaning.

No hidden meaning. No harm. It's a comedy.

I for one find Cohen very funny. But I'm not offended by anything. I don't care. Everyone has their own tastes and if people don't like the context, then they can make the choice not to watch it.

These "groups" just need to move on.

"You see Obama is going to tax those not paying taxes...those making over 97,000 dollars ayear. Once you make that much you don't pay taxes...he's going to make them pay. And I will finally get a break." -My mom who is on welfare and food st

The old "its a joke!" routine.

July 10, 2009 - 11:09 ET by Mike76

funny how liberals always claim "it's just a joke!" but when the opposite happens, like say, when normal people make fun of queers, they start shrieking like someone just raped their grandmother.

I can't think of an example

July 10, 2009 - 12:07 ET by Another Dead Kennedy

I can't think of an example off hand when "normal" people making fun of "queers" was met with a liberal overreaction. It could be the fact that you're referring to gays as queers that makes people sensitive.

→ Right on Kennedy

July 10, 2009 - 12:15 ET by Cool Arrow

By the way, did you watch "Gay Eye For The Straight Guy"

Oh? What's that you say? It was "Queer Eye"

Silly me.

Was it a show featuring heterosexuals masquerading as homosexuals?

Well, now that you've straightened me out (no pun intended) on that issue, I'm certainly mad.

Oh Cool, haven't we argued

July 10, 2009 - 12:26 ET by Another Dead Kennedy

Oh Cool, haven't we argued this before? It is factually correct to say that certain groups refer to themselves in negative ways. I don't know why. Gays certainly call themselves and each other fags and queers. Some black people certainly use the word n*gger on a regular basis. Do we really want to raise our kids to make them think it's okay to refer to others in derogatory ways? I most certainly would not be proud if my kid came home from school, suspended because he called a gay classmate a queer. There's nothing beneficial to society to keep this act up, either by you and I on the outside, or the groups who continue to perpetuate this thinking.

→ Kennedy you racist

July 10, 2009 - 12:31 ET by Cool Arrow

You said "black people". Do you deny there are some African Americans who resent being referred to as "black"

It's a mine field out there.

You racist!

Oh sure, everyone's a

July 10, 2009 - 12:38 ET by Another Dead Kennedy

Oh sure, everyone's a racist. I'm a quarter Russian - does that make me Asian-American? I refuse to refer to blacks as African American because they're not all African American. Black people live in many different countries. Jamaicans, Dominicans, Haitians, are not African Americans when they're living in America.

People are too sensitive, but referring to them with negative language doesn't help ease the issue.

→ Well, then

July 10, 2009 - 12:50 ET by Cool Arrow

So you refuse to refer to people in the way they prefer.

So if a homosexual (not a preferred term, btw) prefers to be referred to as "gay", how is it different if I say "I refuse to refer to them as gay. Gay means happy"

No different. Except that would get me the monniker, "homophobe", while you come across as a racist.

That's not what I'm saying.

July 10, 2009 - 13:31 ET by Another Dead Kennedy

That's not what I'm saying. If you and I are speaking about someone who is black, I will call them black. If you, me, and a 3rd person (who is black) are speaking, and that 3rd person prefers to be referred to as African American, I will respectfully follow that request. Now I'm pretty certain that homosexual and gay are the accepted terms these days. But again, how do you prefer to teach your kids? If you're walking down the street with a 6 year old and he says, "hey dad, look at that homo (or queer or fag or any other negative)" would you be especially proud? When it comes to blacks, you can not assume he or she prefers to be referred to as African American. Black is perfectly acceptable. Last night on 30 Rock Tracy Morgan referred to himself as black, not African American. Of course, this has little to do with this thread. I'm just seeing too many people on this site push how far they can refer to others in negative ways. "Black" is not a negative term. Queer is. Once upon a time it wasn't, but then again negro and faggot were once acceptable too.

Coincidentally, this was

July 10, 2009 - 13:33 ET by Another Dead Kennedy

Coincidentally, this was just posted:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-sargent/2009/07/09/ny-senate-dems-fire-200-color-their-skin-wheres-media-coverage#comment-972977

→ Now I get it

July 10, 2009 - 13:39 ET by Cool Arrow

You're just saying you'll talk differently about people behind their backs than you will in person.

Why didn't you just say so!

Please understand, Kennedy. I'm just having fun here. And I do understand what you're saying.

I'm off for three days to the Texas Hill Country for my yearly family reunion.

I hope my sister the school teacher and her husband the trial lawyer are there. That makes it so much fun.

Later, all.

Of course, Cool. No hard

July 10, 2009 - 13:46 ET by Another Dead Kennedy

Of course, Cool. No hard feelings. You know I'm just always looking for things you and I can agree on. I would have much less respect for you if you didn't give me a hard time! Have fun at the reunion. I'm off to Montana next week for almost 2 weeks. I'm sure I won't be missed! But I will have lots of conservatives to talk politics with.

reply

July 10, 2009 - 22:44 ET by Mike76

"I can't think of an example off hand when "normal" people making fun of "queers" was met with a liberal overreaction."

funny, I can't think of an example "offhand" when normal people making fun of queers was NOT met with a liberal overreaction.

"It could be the fact that you're referring to gays as queers that makes people sensitive. "

It's not my fault that liberals can dish it out but can't take it.

But, the last thing they are is "gay." "Suicidally depressed" would be better "truth in advertising." Having interacted with a group of queers, the only thing they hate more than themselves and other queers are "straights" and "breeders." Hate is the glue that binds them together.

I have rarely if ever come across a more dishonest, unhappy backstabbing group of people than queers. They are so promiscuous, you'd need a flowchart updated every couple of days to keep up with who is screwing who. This is not the exemption to the norm, it IS the norm.

they have more problems than the average person can imagine. Drug problems, alcoholism, depression, manic-depression. Every one of them has very serious "issues." Lesbians are ALWAYS sick with something, the flu, a cold, a fever, something. They are always sick. Then, there's the high rate of violence.

Nobody in their right mind would hold them up as any sort of role model, or their lifestyle as something to be "proud" of. They certainly have NO credibility when it comes to making judgments on anyone else's sex life.

please don't refer to them as queer.

July 10, 2009 - 13:34 ET by puredmashie

they are fags.

swing hard in case you hit it.

Reverse the roles. Have a

July 10, 2009 - 10:54 ET by FreakyBoy

Reverse the roles.

Have a nasty straight women interview gay men, come on to them, strip in front of them, insult them and make lewd comments about her vagina to them.

I am sure we would end up with a lot of very offended and turned off gay men on film.

Does this mean that they are uncomfortable with sex?

up is down and down is up

July 10, 2009 - 11:04 ET by Mike76

I suppose if a person doesn't wallow in every sick sex act possible, it means they have "hangups in the bedroom" and "sex phobias," according to the pro-queer state-run media.

A normal, healthy disgust of, and aversion to, homosexuality is now called "homophobia," which sure seems to be just another made up "illness" by the haters on the left.

I'm assuming many on this board are aware that promiscuity and homosexuality were planks of the old USSR communist party. Nothing has changed.

So this crappy movie, following old communist formula, will be touted as "ground breaking," "thought provoking," "wildy bold" and the usual over-the-top hysterics that the left always uses to promote their wretched garbage.

Well, I guess everybody can

July 10, 2009 - 12:56 ET by TruthMatters

Well, I guess everybody can play that game...the homosexuals are heterophobes. Yea...Perez Hilton, you're a heterophobe!

That cretin, Sacha Cohen,

July 10, 2009 - 13:43 ET by Ten7s

That cretin, Sacha Cohen, makes a living by taking advantage of civilized America's hospitality and forbearance. I'd like to see him try his shtick in Detroit or Camden, NJ; THAT I'd pay to see.

Another liberal religion

July 10, 2009 - 11:12 ET by mbuel

This is just another liberal religion that shows how paganism hasn't changed over the millenia.

Today's pagans (non-jewish/christian) worship sex, the earth, mankind, "reason", just like the pagans of the past.

The Babylonians gathered around the Asher's Pole, (which was a phallic statue) to worship fertility gods and goddesses.

The only difference between them and today's pagans, is today's pagans have called fertility an evil, and want to stop having kids.

The free market works, Government controls always fail.

"The movie didn't teach

July 10, 2009 - 12:47 ET by SickofLibs

"The movie didn't teach anything "other than [gay] sex is basically a total gross out."

Hello, Earth to Stuever: sorry to burst your rainbow-colored bubble, but gay sex IS a total gross out to most heterosexuals.

go angry white dude :)

July 10, 2009 - 12:53 ET by rowdygirl

I don't think that Americans are hung up on sex... but why do we need to hear, read and see it 24\7?

I don't care who or what anyone does in the privacy of their home.. but don't try to force me to like it or say it's ok. We get it, ok? Most straight people don't walk around shoving their "straightness" into everyone's face, so why do gays feel the need to do it? If your lifestyle is about more than who you're having sex with, then stop talking about sex so much. Stop trying to make people like it, love it, accept it and endorse it.

Homophobia does not

July 10, 2009 - 13:07 ET by mattm

Homophobia does not exist. The word is used as a rhetorical tool to point fingers of blame at those who hold the correct view that homosexuality is an abnormality at best. It's simply saying "hey, I'm not the one with the problem, you are."

It's a clever deception, and sadly, it works.

The Special Love

July 10, 2009 - 13:55 ET by BeanMan

Isn't homosexuality the "Love that won't shut-up!"?

Since government is coercion, politics is largely the exercise of deception regarding the intended use of coercion - George Orwell

The only thing it exposes

July 10, 2009 - 13:56 ET by Ankharan

is bad taste in movie making, bad acting, and a stupid audiance. I couldn't believe how many people were taken in by his last crap movie, etc.

It exposes poorly edited and poorly written comedy.

just 'cause it's on film doesn't mean it's true

July 10, 2009 - 17:08 ET by kono

Americans reject homosexuality because we find all sex dirty and disgusting?

Absolute batcrap. Sex is usually a real treat. But the very thought of sex with another man is too revolting for words. And watching some Hollywood star practically gush flamboyantly across a big stage is not my idea of entertainment.

Yuck.

There are tons of kinks out

July 10, 2009 - 21:38 ET by RR GOP

There are tons of kinks out there I find revolting or possibly even just plain boring (I don't get the foot fetish thing for instance). But as long as it doesn't involve children or abductees I don't really care what others do, but I don't want to see/hear about a lot of stuff even if it's legal.

What they want to do is guilt the rest of us into accepting what many of us find revolting and inane, namely homosexuality. It's like what they do to those who don't like Michael Jackson or Obama...label you a racist. If you think people of the same gender having sex with each other is disgusting, or even merely disapprove then you're a homophobe and an intolerant hater.

One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).