Talk:Rudolph Valentino

From Conservapedia

Wow, mentions of his failed marriages but no mention of the fact that he was probably gay. Of course there were other stories but the fact remains that he probably was a man's man. Nyao 19:56, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

Respectfully, to say in the same breath that the man was "probably gay" and that it is a "fact" shows a bit of wishful thinking. Certainly his marriages to women who were alleged to have been in lesbian relationships raise issues about what was going on behind closed doors, but my own view is that unless it impacts on the person's public career, it's not our business. Nazimova actually made what would be my candidate for the gayest film of all time (Salome), and so like Oscar Wilde, her sexuality is a legitimate part of her public career and cannot be honestly avoided. However, there are reports of Valentino being deeply offended by aspersions cast upon his manhood, or butchness, or whatever you choose to call it, and I know of no credible evidence establishing that he was gay. The only reason to believe that he was gay, even according to the article you link to, is that his one or both of his wives appear to have had lesbian relationships, which is mentioned in the article, and people are free to consider that "evidence" as they please. The man is dead and cannot defend himself. Let's not assert that we know what we don't know so that some group can claim him for their own in some culture war. "The rest is silence." Leffingwell 18:54, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to note that my response to Nyao's comment above now makes slightly less sense as an argument, because another user intervened to remove some smuttiness from Nyao's comment, and in the process accidentally improved Nyao's logic as well. Initially, Nyao contended both that Valentino "was probably" and as a proven fact gay. For those who would like further refutation of Nyao's contention, I would suggest (in addition to the references in the article) Wallace, David (2001) Lost Hollywood, St. Martin's Press, pp. 45-51, and particularly 49-50. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leffingwell (talk)

Not wanting to start an argument here, but the bit I removed did not claim his homosexuality as a fact. The only occurrences of the word "fact" are still there. Philip J. Rayment 01:10, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

You are right, I stand corrected. Leffingwell 16:53, 8 July 2007 (EDT)