That’s going to get some fantasies racing

But it seems X-Files star Gillian Anderson is rather more well-versed in trendy buzzwords.

In an interview where she opened up about her relationships, the bisexual actress, 49, said that she believes all humans are ‘intersectional, complicated beings’.

Rocco, maybe get Steve of the Squirrels to write a script or two for you?

14 thoughts on “That’s going to get some fantasies racing”

  1. It’s a puff piece (behind Times paywall) for a new series of The X Files. First episode to be titled: “Where did I leave my glasses?”

  2. The photos of Gillian’s first husband, second husband, and present boyfriend read like a Greek alphabet: alpha, beta, and gamma males, in that order.

  3. Christ! The idea of Ruth Davidson sitting around the house in anything other than complete NCBW rig chills the blood.

  4. Miss Anderson–a “My Darling Clementine” 49–rose to fame and stardom in men’s fantasies playing the character of Dana Scully . About as straight a young woman as could exist–even tho’ she didn’t. It was that –combined of course with her undoubted young beauty– that made Miss Anderson a success in her career.

    That she has acting skills is also true. She would need them in order that such an …”unusual” shall we say.. real life personality could be a huge success portraying an extremely normal woman.

    Miss Anderson’s marriages and “romantic” history point out that actresses and the characters they play are most often two very different things. The trail of emotional wreckage in this case clearly illustrates that point yet again.

    Accepting advice on relationships from the actress would be…. ill-advised, to say the least.

  5. Actress in spouting nonsense shocker!

    I seem to remember she ‘came out’ in a similarly self-promotional fashion. Don’t think there’s much evidence of keen lezzing, just enough to get the more desperate of her aging fans reaching for the tissues.

    You still would though…

  6. OT but worth drawing attention to this post on Samizdata:
    Refers to this:
    Tuesday, January 30, 2018
    An unexpected encounter with a monster

    I went to a series of talks on Sunday at Birkbeck College. They are part of the Weekend University programme established by Niall McKeever — an excellent initiative that I commend to you. They were about the psychology of behaviour change and I thought they might help me in my quest to establish healthier habits as I seek to address my long standing weight problem.

    I did glean some useful ideas but one price I paid was to sit, horrified, through the presentation of Dr Paul Chadwick of the UCL Centre for Behaviour Change. I don’t doubt the quality or value of Dr Chadwick’s research. He seemed very intelligent and competent. I am sure as a clinical psychologist he can be very effective in helping people who want to change their behaviours. But from his anecdotes it seemed that CBC’s main focus is on assisting government agencies such as Public Health England and the NHS in changing behaviours non-consensually.

    I listened aghast as he spoke at length about what “we” need to do to change the behaviour of the stubborn “people” who are so stupidly resistant to doing “the right thing”. Who, I wanted to ask, is included in this “we” of whom you speak? All I could tell from his smug, arrogant, flippant demeanour is that it was emphatically *not* the addition of me or anyone I care about that makes it the first person plural. As for this mysterious “we’s” right to determine “the right thing”, that was a given; something his fine mind never apparently questioned — not even when a programme of behaviour change (for example the government’s “Sure Start” policy) turned out to have unintended results.

    The truly scary thing to a classical liberal like me is just what a nice chap he seemed to be. I don’t doubt his good intentions or his good humour. If he were my son, I would be proud of him. Which raises the terrifying question; just how far has our society slipped that a clever young man like him, full of scientific rigour and desire to make a better world, only addresses moral questions accidentally? He did address the question of volition but only in terms of avoiding a “backlash” (his word) if measures had not been the subject of “consultations” (in the formal public sector sense) with “stakeholders”.

    He doesn’t mean to be a monster and I don’t want to see him as one, but in his presence my blood ran cold. I was afraid of him. I was even more afraid of the way the earnest folk in the room laughed as he joked about the unintended consequences of various programmes to clean up the act of the idiotic, self-destructive great unwashed, I realised that I might be the only one there who included himself in the category of “the people” to be shaped as opposed to the smug elite doing the shaping.

    No one seemed remotely concerned for the freedoms of those on the receiving end of Dr Chadwick’s mind bending, “nudging” and manipulation — the benighted mugs who ultimately pay to have such well-shod professionals sneer about them behind their backs.

  7. BiS – I’d love to know what the unintended consequence were. Increased self reliance and the underclass weaning themselves off the public tit perhaps leading to them ignoring the good professor?

  8. I don’t blame Gillian for the Lezzie stuff, she is getting near 50.

    Its not going to do her any harm is it….she is probably surrounded by lots of lovely young things on the road to fame….she is just letting the world know she has a trick up her sleeve so she don’t get forgotten

  9. I can’t possibly imagine why those slightly-past-it ladies would want to pull up the ladder and prevent comely younger things benefit the same way they did.

    No idea at all. It’s a complete mystery. [/sarc]

  10. The (se)x-files? Sex sells. These people are hangers for the ideas of others so it makes sense to use models exactly the same as for clothes, except because we hear actors and actresses talk they tend to think they have a right for their opinions to be heard.

    Scully though. .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *