5 Freaky Fetishes of Golden-Age Hollywood - And The Enduring Question They Still Raise

(Page 2 of 6)

Indiana native and Mussolini enthusiast Cole Porter is still remembered as one of the main composers of the Great American Songbook. Yet Bowers recalls that the openly gay and ultra-promiscuous Anything Goes creator had a huge appetite - and narrow tastes - when it came to the boudoir:

"I soon learned that Cole’s passion was oral sex. He could easily suck off twenty guys, one after the other. And he always swallowed. There are many people, both male and female, who really enjoy the taste of semen. Porter was one of them. On one later occasion I took about nine of my best-looking young guys over to his place and he sucked off every single one of them in no time. Boom, boom, boom and it was all over."

Next: Spencer Tracy: Know Your Lines, Hit Your Mark, And Learn to Cuddle...

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    FIST?

  • fish||

    FIST?

    Yes! pages...37,38, 54-70, 92, 104, and 231!

  • ||

    How appropriate.

  • Hugh Akston||

    First!ing a thread is never appropriate. And anyone who does it is a fucking idiot.

  • Randian||

    He did say "Fist", though, which is entirely appropriate for this thread. Context, Hugh! It's all about context.

  • ||

    Shrinkage, Jerry! Shrinkage!

  • Chris Mallory||

    Bowers is scum and not fit for decent society. He attacks those who are dead and unable to defend themselves. Who cares what the sex habits of stars are or were? This book does nothing to help advance freedom.

  • Randian||

    He didn't attack anyone, so your criticism is entirely irrelevant.

  • Chris Mallory||

    So, you don't mind a wag telling people you like to eat feces? That is a freaking attack.

  • Randian||

    Not if you actually like to eat feces, dipshit.

  • Formerly Almanian||

    This book does nothing to help advance freedom.

    But, no homo, right?

  • Chris Mallory||

    I could care less what people do in the bedroom.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Riiiight. That's why you posted here after reading enough to know what it was about.

  • juris imprudent||

    This book does nothing to help advance freedom.

    So which page described your mother?

  • Chris Mallory||

    The page right before the one that described yours.

  • anon||

    Wait, I thought attacking individuals had nothing to do with advancing freedom. I r confused.

  • juris imprudent||

    Now you see how easily the advance of freedom is checked.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Concerning the book and the issues it raises, I agree with Peter Griffen.

  • ||

    This is all fascinating, but it smells exactly like Albert Goldman's book about John Lennon (which I thoroughly enjoyed, and also didn't believe for a second): a projection of personal fantasies onto famous people. It's all a little too good to be true, and has absolutely zero backing evidence. I couldn't care less if all these people were exactly what Bowers says, I just don't believe it from a statistical perspective. Approximately 3% of Hollywood should be gay, not 100%. The fact that it's 100% with Bowers says this is his fantasy.

  • Ted S.||

    Approximately 3% of Hollywood should be gay, not 100%.

    If Hollywood is/was a more friendly place than the rest of America, it would make sense that gays might congregate there, making the percentage of gays in Hollywood higher than 3%.

    Then again, I find more interesting stories like that of the allegedly devout Catholic Loretta Young, who got knocked up out of wedlock courtesy of Clark Gable, and went off elsewhere to have the kid and "adopt" her daughter.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Approximately 3% of Hollywood should be gay, not 100%

    That would be true if Hollywood were a cross-section of the general population. But since they are a self-selecting community, it is likely to be somewhat higher.

    You wouldn't say that an enclave like Broadway or the Republican National Committee is only 3% gay would you?

  • ||

    That would be true if Hollywood were a cross-section of the general population. But since they are a self-selecting community, it is likely to be somewhat higher.

    OMG Hugh! Are you seriously suggesting that a slice of the population actually and willingly consolidates and clusters, even self-segregating? Get outta town!

    You wouldn't say that an enclave like Broadway or the Republican National Committee is only 3% gay would you?

    Depends on how many are prone to breaking out in showtunes. Apparently, Glee is a documentary.

  • Hugh Akston||

    OMG Hugh! Are you seriously suggesting that a slice of the population actually and willingly consolidates and clusters, even self-segregating? Get outta town!

    I know what you're thinking Doc, and I'm way ahead of you. I have already contacted the office of the Equalizer General, and I'm sure that SWAT teams are being dispatched to ensure that Hollywood doesn't have more than their allotted proportion of homos.

  • ||

    It's the fair and equitable thing to do. Hollywood has had its monopoly on interior decorators, entertainers, hospitality industry employees, and hairdressers for far, far too long.

    Our lefty prog commenters couldn't find fault with this scheme: there must be a fair, equitable, and homogenous distribution of gay labour and their economic spoils.

  • Formerly Almanian||

    More gay janitors! And assembly line workers! More neo-Nazi ballet dancers and bakers! And we clearly need to have more right-wing evangelicals on MSNBC. CLEARLY.

    Liberté, égalité, fraternité!

  • Randian||

    Bowers specifically said that they weren't necessarily gay. If you are part of the elite, relatively idle wealthy, you may be inclined to engage in more indulgences, either because you can, because you're bored, or both, than your average American.

  • John||

    Exactly. Some of this stuff may be true. But there is no way to know. And this guy has every reason to lie and make up tails. So there is really no reason to believe a word of it.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    "And this guy has every reason to lie and make up tails."

    Heh heh, I see what you did there, even if unintended.

  • Mensan||

    From the Hollywood actresses that I know personally, 100% of them are bisexual.

    n = 2. You've probably never heard of one of them, and the other one you might have heard of, but she's not a huge celebrity or anything.

  • ||

    Approximately 3% of Hollywood should be gay, not 100%

    3% sounds waaaay low for the general populace, if you count bi and heavily closeted single and married people who aren't going to admit to any homo behavior in a survey.

    And a creative mileau like Hollywood is gonna attract more gays than the general populace.

  • anon||

    Approximately 3% of Hollywood should be gay, not 100%. The fact that it's 100% with Bowers says this is his fantasy.

    No way, you have to accommodate for teh gayz friendly environment. I give it about 10%.

  • Killazontherun||

    Five freaky fetishes? I counted exactly two. Blow job fixators and scatophiles. BORING! Where is Fatty Arbuckle having Kaiser helmeted midgets shot out of cannons into his ass while he strangles hookers?

  • Killazontherun||

    Or Orson Welles drunk on Gallo messing up a standard stage show magic act by accidentally cutting Black Dahlia in half at one of John Houston's sex parties hosted at a day care center?

    If you are going to make shit up, roll you some bones!

  • Ice Nine||

    Shit sex, shit sex, shit sex! Doesn't anyone Chinese Basket Fuck anymore?!

  • ||

    Okay, I remember the punchline, but not the original joke. Gotta be 40 years ago.

  • Ice Nine||

    Red Riding Hood and the wolf. Remember now?

  • ||

    Eat, eat, eat, doesn't anyone fuck anymore.

    Thanks for the trip down amnesia lane.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Is consensual sex, no matter how odd and off-beat, nobody's business but the folks involved?

    No. Apparently it's also the business of anyone willing to slap down hard-earned scratch for Bowers' highly suspect book.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    +69

  • Killazontherun||

    Interestingly, every quote from this guy in the story has this type of disclaimer.

    And, quite frankly, I saw absolutely nothing wrong with that.

    and

    As I’ve said before, I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. I never thought so and I still don’t.

    Who are you trying to convince, yourself?

    If there is nothing wrong with it, well, obviously you are not doing it right!

  • Randian||

    No offense, but have you ever made a completely factual statement and then been attacked as if that factual statement carried a normative prescription as well? Because I have - all the time.

  • Killazontherun||

    Of course, intent doesn't always translate well.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    We're assuming the statements were completely factual.

    I would like some fact-checking first.

  • juris imprudent||

    There are no facts in Hollywood.

  • Gladstone||

    Um how could Tracy's romance with Hepburn be a PR driven sham when those same PR people were busy covering it up because Tracy had a wife and kids?

  • Randian||

    There's no such thing as bad publicity.

  • Gladstone||

    Um Tracy leaving his wife and disabled son for Hepburn would have been bad publicity back then which is why it was covered up until Tracy's death.

  • John||

    Of course he already left her. And she wouldn't give him a divorce. So maybe he was running around with men and the Studio figured an affair with Hepburn, who had her only problems, was the best damage control.

  • Gladstone||

    Tracy and Hepburn's relationship was not acknowledged until after he died. Not sure why the studio would orchestrate a sham relationship that couldn't be publicly acknowledged which is the point of a sham relationship.

  • Ted S.||

    Case in point: Tab Hunter had PR-driven sham relationships with Debbie Reynolds and Natalie Wood (not at the same time). The inside joke in Hollywood was "Natalie Wood and Tab Wouldn't".

  • Gladstone||

    What Bowers is saying is more like if the PR people hooked up Tab Hunter with a married mother only to cover it up since they don't want Tab to look a homewrecker. Isn't a secret beard pretty much a contradiction in terms?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Like Episiarch and John above, this reads like the line, "and then we invited the unicorn to join in" would be right at home in this completely and 100% historical (and not at all embellished) account.

    And honestly? Sugarfree does these sort of things way better.

  • Killazontherun||

    Sugarfree is the best. I once asked him if he could write up a short piece with Sarah and James Brady visiting John Hinckley jr for a conjugal visit on Thanksgiving. He wrote back, it was my idea I have to do it. Tried, but any content involving weiners, I mean, once there are fingers feeling around under foreskin in a description, my toes start clinching the ground, and a queasy feeling goes up my shaft veins. Happened just then.

  • ||

    May I get your opinion on this little, SugarFree inspired, ditty?

    Saccharin Man is truly the master of slash fic. A veritable DaVinci, I daresay.

  • Hell's Librarian||

    I laughed, but the mental image of Joe Biden sucking off Barry O is not one that will soon fade (and not in a good way. THANKS. >_>).

    My favorite line: He thought fondly of Rahm and his elegant technique, his forceful approach, and his limber frame honed from his years as a ballerina.

  • Formerly Almanian||

    I vaguely remember another one early on in my H&R voyage, in which SF referred to someone groping Nancy Pelosi "where her nipples should have been".

    That line spoke to me in a disturbing way that I'll always treasure.

    SugarFree is, indeed, the best.

  • Killazontherun||

    Some nice touches in there. The White Sox pitch. I would bet it really is a nice shiner on his ego. Joe's hair plugs. I recall joe bragging about owning a convertible with a red head attached to the passenger seat. Perfect characterization. Puking up Kobe beef, that is how I would handle visceral detail too, given full on SugarFree description is out of my range. A nod to the transcendent evil that is Rahm. Good stuff.

  • Killazontherun||

    Oh, Biden. Forgot for the day that he exists.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I threw up in my own bile.

    Well done.

  • James Anderson Merritt||

    "And honestly? Sugarfree does these sort of things way better." Indeed. The more I read the legitimate "article," the more it began to sound like these comment threads, only with less imagination.

  • Apple||

    Posthumously outing your friends. Seems like a real classy guy and not at all like someone who would make shit up to sell a book. I'll just go ahead and take him at his word on everything.

  • Randian||

    "Outing" is, as they say, outdated. It's the wrong terminology here. By saying that one cannot discuss the sex lives of others if one is going to "out" someone, you are implicitly conceding that there is something to be ashamed of in having homosexual sex.

    Hanging on to the old "outing" terminology just gives the shame power.

  • Randian||

    It also occurs to me that we have, now, a version of the "one drop" rule when it comes to homosexuality, especially with men. If a man has sex with another man one time, he is gay for life, even if he never does it again. It's considered "scandalous" or shameful unless he commits to being a "pure" homosexual, i.e. he's a hypocrite and a sellout to the gay community for "leaving" and a pariah to the straight community for trying to become something he's "not".

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    In my experience, many Gay men and women tend to be extremely bi-phobic.

  • ||

    Bisexual erasure... reminds me of ausradieren.

  • ||

    Catching a trout doesn't make me a fisherman, BUT suck one cock...

  • Randian||

    Francisco, I thought of that joke too.

  • ||

    Great minds...

  • John||

    I think it because there is just a stigma on men doing things with other men. Women can play around with another girl and not really have much of a stigma. So as a result, women will do it because their friends at college tried it or to make their b/f happy or any number of other pretty shallow reasons. They can do it for shallow reasons because there isn't much social downside if there is any at all.

    Men in contrast since there is such a social stigma, really can't do it for shallow reasons. A guy has to really want to do it. No guy ever got with another man just to make his g/f happy. For this reason, a single homosexual act on the part of a man is a stronger indication of full blown homosexuality than it is when done by a woman.

  • fearsomepirate||

    That's because lots of men will masturbate to videos of girls playing with each other or pay money to watch them rub all over each other. Women, by contrast, don't often say "Aw, sweet!" when someone says "So my boyfriend also likes manly buttsex."

  • ||

    No guy ever got with another man just to make his g/f happy.

    I can assure you that this is not true.

  • ||

    For this reason, a single homosexual act on the part of a man is a stronger indication of full blown homosexuality than it is when done by a woman.

    No, if a man has only had a single homosexual experience in his life, and the remaining 99.9% of his sexual experiences have been with women, that is a pretty strong indicator that he is NOT a "full blown" homosexual.

  • John||

    It is very interesting that men were more willing to admit to doing such things in boarding schools and as adolescents during the Victorian Age, when it would literally get you thrown in jail, than they are now. Victorian and Edwardian memoirs are full of that kind of stuff. And it is unthinkable that anyone now who wasn't guy would ever admit to such in a memoir.

  • PapayaSF||

    I think one paradoxical result of the "sexual revolution" has been to make the culture less tolerant of deviant "heteronormative" behavior in certain ways. 100 years ago "full-blown" homosexuality was so far out of bounds that a little of it either didn't get noticed (a "confirmed bachelor" with a roommate, a "Boston marriage" of two women) or was no big deal (boarding school stuff). Also, back when single men did not generally hang out with single women alone or in groups, I think that someone like Walt Whitman could be seen hanging out with men exclusively and only arouse suspicion among the "dirty-minded." But once homosexuality became a "lifestyle" and a political issue, more people became more concerned about any sign of it.

    The Walter Pidgeon story is the worst for me. Totally disrupts my sense of who he was.

    I've read that the original source for the Hoover-in-drag story is one woman with a grudge. Add in all his enemies and there's a meme that will never die. He may have been black, though.

  • ||

    It also occurs to me that we have, now, a version of the "one drop" rule when it comes to homosexuality, especially with men. If a man has sex with another man one time, he is gay for life, even if he never does it again.

    Depends on the social context, TAO.

    Exhibit A: Prisons.

    They are full of straight, heterosexual men, who by proxy of locale, engage in homosexual behavior willingly for a number of reasons (such as emotional fulfillment, protection, loneliness, release of sexual energy, etc.), but do not consider themselves "bi-sexual" or "gay", and by their definition, are not.

    Most of these men resume sexual pursuits consistent with their default sexuality upon release from incarceration and refrain from pursuing homosexual encounters.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    That's pretty much just the mermaid rule taken to the logical extreme.

  • ||

    By saying that one cannot discuss the sex lives of others if one is going to "out" someone, you are implicitly conceding that there is something to be ashamed of in having homosexual sex.

    Well, no. Just because you have open-minded views about sexuality doesn't mean everyone else does. And so "outing" someone -- knowingly revealing sexual information about someone who you know wants to keep it a secret, whether they are ashamed of it or just of the consequences of it being public knowledge -- is still a relevant phrase.

  • Randian||

    I can see that you're really not following. First of all, you are not obligated to keep other people's secrets unless they ask you to do so. Assuming that someone has been keeping their homosexual activities a secret is condescending and should not be the default - if you assume "I shouldn't tell So-and-So because s/he might not know s/he is gay", you are presuming there is something wrong with being gay.

  • mr simple||

    No, we all follow. You're just wrong. No one is really obligated to do anything but eat and sleep, in that sense. But good, honest people don't go around sharing other's secrets just to make a buck. I'm sure the author's discretion was one of the reasons he was looked to to set up these trysts. If you are revealing information about someone that they do not want known, you are outing them, regardless of wether or not you think people need to hide the information. That is the correct terminology, you don't get to change it.

  • ||

    Way OT, but I'll just leave this here:

    A Seattle man accused of planting his face in joggers’ rears at a West Seattle park was sentenced Friday to nearly 10 years in prison.

    http://blog.seattlepi.com/seat.....-buttocks/

  • Ted S.||

    Am I evil for wondering whether this was Dunphy?

  • ||

    Dunphy carries his manhood on his hip.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Is consensual sex, no matter how odd and off-beat, nobody's business but the folks involved?

    It's like people have four basic needs.

    *Food and water
    *Shelter
    *Sex
    *Voyeurism and gossip

    I wonder when some of the women who...um...cooperated with the Secret Service will come forward.

    I wonder what they look like.

    ...No I don't! I meant you all do--and you should be ashamed of yourselves!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I wonder what they look like.

    They're Colombian.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I know.

    It must be something in the water.

  • Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow||

    I came

  • ||

    holy fuck. Thanks dude.

  • Any of N||

    It's fun to follow along as Larry Harnish of The Daily Mirror blog fact checks the book. Twenty-four posts so far and he's all the way up to page 7.

    http://ladailymirror.com/tag/scotty-bowers/

    Things aren't looking very good regarding truthiness.

  • Killazontherun||

    Now, that is how you do reporting.

    This is interesting. The city of Beverly Hills has compiled a list of architects and builders, arranged by street address. And although the list is from 1986, it doesn’t matter for a historic house like the one at 1110 Benedict Canyon Drive, where Scotty Bowers purportedly had his first Hollywood tryst with Walter Pidgeon and Jacob/Jack/Jacques Potts.

    In examining the document, we find that the permit for the home is dated Oct. 11, 1923, the architect is L.G. Scherer Co. and the contractor is G.A. Kiffe.

    So much for the “John Woolf Regency.” Just real estate hype.

    At this point, all of our online resources have been exhausted. Pursuing this question further will require a field trip to the Beverly Hills planning department to examine the permits on the house. That may take some time to arrange. I always miss the great UCLA interns I used to have when the Daily Mirror was at latimes.com but especially now!

    Meanwhile, I’ll be pressing forward. On to Page 7!

  • PapayaSF||

    Thanks for the great link. He seems to be well on the way to debunking the Walter Pidgeon story, which strikes me as unlikely anyway. Back then every star had a studio contract with a morals clause, so would top stars really pick up random gas station attendants?

  • Sean Mack||

    What I want to know about - and I think this would offer a richer source of libertarian discussion - is the drug lives of the classic Hollywood elite.

    Intuitively, I know those pre-DEA era medicine cabinets must have held treasures beyond what we can dream...and yet there are so few anecdotes.

  • Chloe||

    I have a feeling that it was not all that different from today, just classier.

  • PapayaSF||

    There are more than a few. Check out the Hollywood Babylon books.

  • SugarFree||

    Given the will it must have taken to get where they were, you can assume they weren't normal people. No one who claws their way into celebrity is. If they are by definition abnormal, why would you expect their sexual tastes to be baseline?

    You are rich, have plenty of available sex partners, a proven ability to suppress dignity, shame and to slip into and out of roles involving non-internally-generated modes of thought. Top that off with the cloistered studio system, the more obvious corruption of the press at the time and the fact that everyone involved had a vested interest in not killing the golden goose. It seems like a ripe time for perversion to grow in the fertile soil of boredom and power.

    What wouldn't you do in a completely consequence-free environment?

  • ||

    Saccharin Man, you do realize you have described, to a tee, the profile of the perfect serial killer?

    And Baron Vladimir Harkonnen.

    And Congress.

  • Formerly Almanian||

    And The Jacket.

  • SugarFree||

    El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

    It is only when you are free to do anything that your morality emerges, crawling, mewling, blinking back tears from the fierce light of a sun it has never known.

  • Xenocles||

    Stop me if you've heard this one:

    A guy complains to the bartender that his girlfriend dumped him because he was too kinky for her. The woman next to him offers her sympathy and reveals that she had had the same problem. She suggests that they go back to her place. Once there, he sits on the couch while she gets changed. She comes back dressed in leather holding a whip only to see the guy putting his coat on. She says, "What's wrong? I thought you wanted to get kinky." He says, "Lady, I fucked your dog and I shat in your purse. How kinky do you want to get?

  • ||

    I laughed, I cried... I was entertained. :)

  • Zombie Jimbo||

    Article does remind me of my all time favorite blog post:

    http://chasemeladies.blogspot......chive.html

    Snip> Every adult must at some point have paused during some slapstick piece of debauchery and thought, "Christ, this is ridiculous". Having testicles is like being chained to the village idiot. Sad, but there it is. And when we have solved every racial, political and economic problem, we will still be stuck with that one. < UnSnip

  • Killazontherun||

    Yep. Can relate. I recall looking up in an intense moment of passion and seeing in the mirror in front of me the mirror behind me reflecting my own ass bumping its fool tail along. I cracked up laughing and had to pull out. It was too funny to keep going.

  • ||

    If it isn't a beautiful and sexy moment of sharing you see, you're doing it wrong. Or doing the wrong person.

  • Randian||

    O_o, I thought you were older and knew better. Some things are just funny, and sex is the funniest of all sometimes.

  • Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow||

    Roger Gary 2012

    http://rvgary2012.com/

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I don't like the casual attitude in the article to what I would think is the central question concerning the book: Is it true?

    "Regardless of Bowers' accuracy, that's a question [about sex] that each of us will answer for ourselves"

    That's not quite as bad as the publication which said that the genuineness of the [Godwin edit] diaries almost didn't matter (they were fake), but it goes down that same road.

    If it's true, then we we can have a National Conversation about whether it matters that famous Hollywood stars got off on eating shit, or whether there's anything wrong with it.

    But without verification (which this book sorely needs), then it's premature (no salacious pun intended) to debate the cosmic significance of incidents which might not have occurred.

    It would be like saying, "is it anyone's business if Senator Biden enjoys putting on a maid suit and swinging upside-down from the ceiling at the Kennedy Center?" First show it happened, and only then consider What it All Means.

  • Jerryskids||

    But without verification (which this book sorely needs), then it's premature (no salacious pun intended) to debate the cosmic significance of incidents which might not have occurred.

    But you do believe the book exists, right?

    I mean, if you are going to use a book full of made-up crap as a jumping-off point for a discussion, why not just make up the book?

    P.S. - Nick, you seriously need to come back home.

  • ||

    Somebody was having fun?
    Before even I was born?
    Damn.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm sure that's a verifiable statement, but don't use this book as a source.

  • Shirley Temple of Doom||

    As Bowers told The New York Times, "As long as sex is consensual, he says, let it rip. So they like sex how they liked it. Who cares?"

    Maybe a tad disingenuous, coming from the author of a gossipy book detailing the sex lives of consenting adults.

  • Randian||

    Some people like to woolgather. Some people think their stories are worth telling.

    Ironic that you are judging those who you think are too judgmental, OR caring about those who you think "care" too much.

  • Shirley Temple of Doom||

    I'm not judging the book's author "for being too judgmental", I'm judging him for being hypocritical.

  • Reverendcaptain||

    Excuse me, I thought I was going to the Reason website but evidently stumbled into Star Magazine's dead celeb section.

    What the hell point is there to this book or article that makes you think it belongs in Reason Magazine?

    Trying to appeal to a more valuable demo?

    Jeez.

  • juris imprudent||

    Welcome to weekends without trolls. It is a new feature, so give it some time to settle in.

  • ||

    Eh. so when does Warty get an article about is festishes? Or do we have to wait until he dies?

  • juris imprudent||

    If you are lucky, you will die never knowing the extent of Warty's fetishes.

  • Kuwanki||

    This is exactly the kind of writing we have come to expect (and welcome) from this mighty edifice of freedom, to whit Reason.com. BTW; while i found some of the article hard to swallow, most of it was truly uplifting.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    What elevates Full Service from a simple... catalogue of the ultra-decadent lifestyles of the rich and famous to something far more interesting is Bowers' bracingly non-judgmental view of human sexuality.

    Highly promiscuous bisexual has "bracingly non-judgmental view of human sexuality." Get outta town, Gillespe!

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    I mean, seriously, what do you expect from the memoirs of a man who spent his life fellating Hollywood stars? Did you expect this book to read "I rounded up nine dudes for Cole Porter to blow, and I immediately got grossed out because he's such a filthy fag"? What is "bracing" about Bowers' entirely predictable take on the things he did?

  • E.H. Munro||

    I can tell you for a fact that Edward VIII was a raging queen, so that much of Bower's account at least is true.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement