Marilyn manson homosexual relationship

Marilyn Manson’s sexuality | Marvelous Things

marilyn manson homosexual relationship

As a teenager Marilyn Manson had a fraught relationship with her, but in . How he was beaten up by other children who thought he was gay. Marilyn Manson is so shy about nudity that he rarely removes his .. 90s comedy for its jokes on the 'Soup Nazi' and same-sex relationships. Marilyn Manson: This record spits in the face of nihilism. This album is meant to be about relationships, some of which are personal . Duran Duran, because they confused a lot of young boys into thinking they were gay.

The personal is political and his ideologies are irreconcilable with left theory. The entertainer must live inside an apolitical bubble. In truth, he supports global free market capitalism.

Marvelous Things

And lambasts state welfare. Being right-wing economically does not make one a Republican. Although there is little doubt in those assertions of his political beliefs, other beliefs particularly social ones that he has previously espoused put him at odds with the Republican party, and likewise, that does not make him a Democrat.

I'd say it would be fair to believe him that he has no political affiliation, since neither major US party seems to "suit him" and he has not been noted to have links with any other party. Saying that he has right-wing economic views is fine sources support thataligning him with a political party will need more substantial sourcing. Whether or not the man supports or represents Republican or Democrat views is beside the point. All human behaviour is political in its social, historical or cultural context and the views of Brian Warner are indubitably-ironically-rightwing.

He antagonises religious conservatives to make capital from angry children and this somehow nullifies his politics irreconcilable with left thought? You seem to be making the very common error of equating liberal with leftist.

Warner might exhibit a liberalism which doesn't sit well with most religious conservative, but that doesn't make his views left. In fact, the left criticise liberalism for its accommodation of hate speech, and exploitation and dehumanisation.

Neither does upsetting or parodying religious people make Warner left.

  • Marilyn Manson: a nose for trouble
  • Talk:Marilyn Manson/Archive 1

Many grassroots Catholics, in Latin countries, in particular, couple faith with socialism. Theologians argue that rightwing politics are irreconcilable with the faith.

The religious conservative vs secular left dichotomy is a ridiculous and fallacious bit of nonsense pushed by people who haven't even engaged with left theory or theology-it's probably just easier for adolescents to fathom to validate their hatred for god, and mommy and daddy, and the church. At the end of the day, a dynamic critique of hegemony is central to leftist theory and Warner's inhumane dog-eat-dog darwinism and glorification of global free market capitalism speak volumes-volumes you're clearly not reading because it makes you uncomfortable to accept the jackass is rightwing.

I'm not sure what you mean here. He is clearly economically right-wing, but "right wing" in the context of social political views usually refers to the view which is at odds with liberalism, regardless of what socially "left wing" means. It's a terrible muddying of terms, so I don't think that calling him "right-" or "left-" wing is useful in any descriptive sense, since the terms do not fully apply. You assert liberalism is at odds with the right, however, liberalism accomodates hate speech.

In contrast to left thought, liberalism does not operate on a critique of hegemony, because it instead accords white middle class men the "right" to vilify people of colour, dehumanise women and exploit the working poor. Also, it speaks volumes that you neglected to address the point made earlier about Warner saying he trusts the republicans more than the democrats.

Zootm, if you attempted to argue your point that liberalism is at odds with the right in a sociology lecture hall, you would be kicked in the pants. My only real point is that the terms "right-wing" and "left-wing", in common usage, is extremely difficult to reconcile with the terms "conservative" and "liberal", because they're quite ambiguous the way they're typically used "far-right" means a very different thing to "right-wing", as an extreme example, as much as left-wing people would like to make it seem otherwise.

I just don't like the use of the terms, rather than anything else. Also, please sign your posts. Zootm, your last post just contradicted your earlier argument.

One second liberal is at odds with the right, and the next it is difficult to reconcile with the left. I have been arguing the latter from the very beginning.

Whether Warner demonstrates liberalism, or libertarianism, neither voids nor reveals his conservatism. However, he is a misogynist, he is apathetic to both class and race injustice, and he is, by his own admission, pro global free market capitalism. Right-wing, right-wing and right-wing. You don't get it, do you? Contrary to your assertions, conservatism and liberalism are not antonymous. Neoliberalism, a conservative ideology, germinated in libertarianism, and Warner embodies its cold, harsh indifference to the suffering of people of colour, women and the working poor.

He is a hegemon. That is, he is ironically a champion of the status quo, particularly in regard to gender. You still neglect to address the fact the entertainer stated he trusts the republicans over the democrats. I also note you neglect to address my point about his objectification of women, but I neither expect you to care about nor understand this issue. I didn't argue some of your points because I didn't disagree with them.

I do understand your arguments though, and your constant insults are doing little but undermining your credibility. Your arguments here are interesting though, so if you can find a good source to cite to include them on the page I think that they'd make a good addition. For what it's worth, though, the main reason I argued at first was that I thought you were disagreeing with "Manson has no political affiliation.

Also, my "contradiction" was due to clumsy wording due to being very tired when I posted the original post rather than any shifting opinion, I think.

And I'm not trying to assert that conservatism and especially classical liberalism are antonymous, I'm just saying that the common use of the words, especially in the states, is as opposing political forces and without at least some clarification not much should be required the article could be made confusing for some readers. Perhaps I'm not giving the average reader enough credit?

He's obviously right wing on economic issues, but clearly not on social ones. Just calling him "right-wing" is too simplistic a description of his views. Someone who is right-wing on social issues opposes homosexuality, abortion, and other kinds of "immorality. Someone who is right-wing socially also supports "tradition" and deference to authority.

Manson supports neither of these things. Manson's views are closer to anarchism, and while you're right to point out that liberalism is not the same thing as leftism, and has a lot in common with the right, I don't think it is at all accurate to characterize someone with mostly anarchist beliefs as "right-wing.

Larry Flynt supports reproductive rights as well, but he is still a racist, misogyist and capitalist pimp. Warner likewise harbours certain social views in regard to gender that are regressive and objectify women. These views are neither "anarchist" nor "liberal"-they're conservative, just like his views on state welfare.

If women consent to participate in pornography or Manson's hijinks, that is a matter of private personal freedom, and is therefore entirely compatible with anarchism. I highly doubt Manson would ever support women being forced to do anything to which they did not consent. Nor do I think that the women that Manson "dehumanizes" are being exploited because of capitalism. Nobody will starve or be unable to feed their kids if they don't take money from Marilyn Manson.

If these women didn't want to have anything to do with Manson, they would suffer no consequences for that choice. While his views of women may not be compatible with leftist, feminist thought, that does not necessarily make those views incompatible with anarchism, since they are based on personal, uncoerced, independant consent. I really don't see why you have to agree with all leftist thought in order to avoid being classified as right-wing. The socio-economic coercion of women, or working poor citizens or people of colour, costumed as consent isn't consent.

Gender, class and race are each constructs which inform "choice". A racist, capitalist and misogynist culture not only accords privileges to its white middle class citizens but to those who at least "attempt and fit in".

Uncle Tom's Cabin demonstrates the desperation in which people of colour live to "fit in" and the same applies for women who "choose a career" in self-exploitation, which only reinforces and normalises the sexism of the status quo.

Perhaps if someone placed a metaphorical gun like poverty in your mouth to force you to "choose" to do something completly against your will, you wouldn't be so apathetic and ill informed.

marilyn manson homosexual relationship

Yes, I'm sure the women in Manson's videos and entourage just have no choice but to be there. Your cynicism and apathy only demonstrate your ignorance in regard to gender, and class and race. As with Zootm, any sociology lecturer would march your inane comments out of the lecture theatre, with laughter in tow.

The rhetorical and adolescent-level stupidity you present as debate is the reason why academics discourage the citation of wikipedia entries. Was there an argument somewhere in that attack? I couldn't seem to find one. So do you believe that the women in Manson's videos and entourage are exploited or not?

Talk:Marilyn Manson/Archive 1 - Wikipedia

I doubt any of them are poor and just hanging around because they have bills to pay. Take his current girlfriend, Evan Rachel Wood; she's making a fine living as an actress and has been since before she met Manson. If she didn't want to hang out with him or be in his videos of her own volition, she wouldn't be.

The same goes for Dita Von Teese. She has an education. She could quit and become a costume designer and be no less accepted by society. You talk as if the only reason she could have for being involved in burlesque is the fear of some dire consequence if she quits.

Given the money, education and career options she has, I can't imagine what that consequence would be. Is it really that far fetched to think that woman may actually, sincerely want to be half naked in a Manson video? Is that really so impossible? Is female participation in any display of sexuality aimed at men so objectionable to you that you see it as inescapably humiliating? You don't seem to be able to accept it as being anything but that. If you have a source that states Manson's political affilliation please provide it, otherwise please take it elsewhere.

Also, pelase indent your comments using the ": A Tribute To The Ramones? The book he claims to have written never surfaced and at the time I recall there were a number of questionable facts. Firstly, the chapter he released online was not only very brief, but needed to be copyedited desperately as it was full of errors.

Also, he claims that the book was put on stall over some publisher war. Well, maybe these things just get kept under wraps but I don't recall anything more specific than that. While I've always been intrigued by Manson, the book thing always seemed a bit shady to me.

It was a nice idea to accompany an album with a novel, but its been 6 years. What could hold a book up that long? Even if it does exist in entirety, could it still even be published given the fact themes like Columbine are, well, dated? I ask these questions not just to sink this category on this article, but I'm really quite curious if anyone else had any thoughts like this or some relevant information about the book's status.

He has an autobiography he released a few years ago, with help from a ghost writer. Ergo, he's still an american writer. I suppose you're technically right.

It wasn't a book, however, it was a press package. I'm not interested in YAIS yet another internet spar. The abortion, the meat dressed def girl, the grandfather.

marilyn manson homosexual relationship

She was interviewed in a video documentary on the band. I don't know why. Showing him as he looks without makeup does not stay faithful to the essence of who Marilyn Manson, as he is seen in the eye of the public, is, and I feel that this is misleading.

In my opinion, showing him without makeup is akin to having the title of this article be "Brian Warner. As for your logic, its a picture Manson saw fit to include in his autobio, so, like, yeah The one we had before, with him praying and the white background, I thought was much more appropriate.

I think its kinda neat.

marilyn manson homosexual relationship

This is the one of the reasons that he appeals to his audience. He encourages people to be themselves, regardless of how others feel. Thinking for you and expressing yourself is an inspiration for Manson. The sexual and religious imagery is a satirical performance and personal life choice that intends to make the audience question their personal beliefs and how those beliefs are formed.

He is a criticized for encouraging kids to engage in drugs, sex, self-harm and suicide.

Marilyn Manson: a nose for trouble | Dazed

He started cutting himself in high school and often cuts during in his performances to show people his pain.

This is then sexualized and fetishized by his audience. Marilyn Manson challenges gender binary by dressing in drag or androgynous clothing and wearing make up. Marilyn Manson wears his androgynous clothing and make up for photo-shoots for music magazines, such as Rolling Stone Magazine. Being on the cover the most popular music magazine help Manson create an image of androgynous sex deviant.

This publicity gave him new fans and critics to celebrate and demonize his nonheteronormative sexuality. A controversial music video only increased his deviant sexual image. InManson produced his music video for his song S aint. The video has been label art, obscene, erotic, pornographic, and disturbing because of the sexuality, drug use and self-harm. In the video, he uses cocaine and heroin, and cuts himself.

Marilyn Manson Not Looking Like Himself After Father's Death

The bloody nose and agitated movements after the effects of the drugs are gone is a comment on the after effect of extreme drug use that comes with being a wealthy sex symbol. He cuts himself in an aggressive sexual way and plays with his blood to show that he is fetishizing the pain, which is part of BDSM.

There are a few BDSM uses of imagery, along with other deviant sexual acts. Women are bound and gag waiting for him to come have sex with them, which celebrates BDSM acts. There is group sex with men and women, which rejects dominant Christian values about sex being between one man and one woman.

The group sex includes homosexual acts that are usually not depicted in music videos.