Photo: AP

Are you sitting down? You should sit down. There is some earth-shattering commentary about current events you must read from Jeffrey Wells, a film critic.

In a post this week boldly titled “How I’d Play it,” above a stolen paparazzi photo of Kristen Stewart and her girlfriend, he writes (emphasis his):

I need to express this carefully but honestly, so here goes. If I was a young, rich, highly fetching actress who had decided a year or two ago that for the time being (or maybe forever) that I was into girls, I would naturally go for the hotties. Which is to say the same kind of foxy, dishy women whom most guys find highly desirable, with or without a same-sex orientation.

We are lucky that the man who once advised that The Revenant is too manly for women to watch is here, on the internet, to tell us how he’d “play it” were he a girl that “decided” to be “into girls” one day, why not. Shockingly, he admits that he would “go” for women he currently finds attractive—women that men of his age could have, back in the day, freely described with a variety of old-timey adjectives relating to the food and animals they would like to fuck without anyone even batting an eye or even rage-vomiting at their computer screen. But that’s not all. (Here comes the trouble.)

But no way would I be into (here comes the trouble) dykey-looking women, which is to say women who have what many of us might describe as butchy, male-ish, non-petite features. You know what I’m talking about. I just can’t figure why a beautiful, famous, highly rated bi actress wouldn’t want to hook up with super-hotties. I recognize that butch is a lesbian aesthetic in the same way that bears are a gay male thing, and that I can’t hope to understand or relate to it, but it seems curious. No criticism — I just don’t get it.

After he reaffirms his most preciously heteronormative, burning opinions on various “gay” “things” and “aesthetics,” he senses that some may take issue with certain things he’s saying. He clarifies how brave he is being in the comment section: “If I feel like saying or writing that this or that woman seems exceptionally fetching or tasty I’m going to damn well say that if I feel like it, and if that doesn’t meet with your approval then that’s really too bad.”

But he also has very brave things to say about politics, what with politics being so talked about recently. In today’s post titled “No Braying,” he writes:

If Hillary Clinton is smart, she won’t bray her acceptance speech tonight. This is what an older industry friend shared last night. She needs to be cool, calm, precise, confident. Allow her experience to speak for itself. “Spirited” and “exuberant” are fine, but no braying. Braying is bothersome — pretty much everyone agrees on that. The transportational Democratic National Convention highs peaked last night with Barack Obama (pretty close to magnificent), Joe Biden (a free man in Paris), Michael Bloomberg (brilliant). Now we have to listen to Hillary. Just don’t bray — that’s all I’m saying.

That’s all he is saying. Don’t “bray,” whatever that means on his personal scale of what is appropriate for the presidential nominee to sound like, which is somewhere along the lines of “confident” but not above “spirited” and just, you know, don’t spill your womanly excitement too much out of your upper woman hole in a bothersome manner. (I’m not sure who he’s even talking to, but here’s a Criterion thread dedicated to his greatest moments.)

In this crazy world of ours, we are just so blessed to have at least one man tell it like it is in his head.