George Clooney's NEXT girlfriend...

At the moment here at my lunch break
again, I still think he is already seeing someone.

Many number of things could be going on. Here are some "options". She is one of his ex. There is already foundation to build on. He knows her. She has ability to (after all those years apart) walk back into his life. More importantly he knows she has ability to walk out.

Now, on her second time around she is holding her ground. Stuff happens, and sometimes it’s not the stuff you thought would happen. It could very well be that he is standing there reins in his hands unable to decide what to do next because it is a crazy roller-coaster ride that just has to take its course. How to set the pace and the tone to that?

Maybe he concluded that the simplest way to go about it is with the denial he doesn´t only buy time but beat out all the competition. So she knows. None of this means it´s serious or anything. And it can fall apart. My bet is that even in that case the breakout point (the denial) is the new base he pulls back to, and doesn´t break below that. Meaning that he is adjusting the idea of sacrificing some of the old toys for something that really is starting the matter.

She could be someone new, but raises a question why he would need to do anything. He can do marathon dates with different women and she has nothing to say about it, really. Only decide if she wants to participate the competition.

Or I´m wrong and he hasn´t found anyone, maybe she isn´t even born yet. Give it time... 

maybe she isn´t even born yet


well....  
so we need to wait for another .... 20 years or so

then we will see a more than 70 yrs old with his nephew


great  

Me thinks some people think too much about things that are not happening. And I ask again, in the scheme of things if George were dating what's the big deal?

I used to care who he dated in relation to his humanitarian work - I no longer care because in the scheme of things I can't control what he does or how effective he is in that regard. So I've taken the "fuck it" route and stopped making it an issue.

George dates women who can be described as sleazy due to the life choices they have made.

Joanna posted a definition of sleazy. Prostitute being one. See for me, prostitute is anyone who sells her services/time/sexual favors etc. in exchange for monetary compensation. Now we all know not all prostitutes have sex with their clients. Some guys pay for the companionship.

So yes, sleazy does apply in my opinion to at the very least, the last three gals he's dated. Couple that with their crotch shots on the internet - cause baby in my eyes if you're showing your wares like that in public then the only conclusion is that you're telling the world that crotch is for hire - then that also for me connotates sleazy.

Sarah, Eli and Stacy all made money from their association with George. All three have images out there on the internet that leave little to nothing to the imagination.

But I really do not believe he is dating anyone at the moment. He may be sleeping with someone but not dating because if he were dating a women she would be seen with him in public.

I find it amusing
who knows....

Ocean wrote: I believe most photo-ops were staged, including the Wholefood Markets shopping trip, with full paparazzi appendage conveniently in tow.

Yup.  But not everything was staged, far from it.

Ocean wrote:I think for a variety of reasons he chose to have publicity-oriented relationships with Stacy Keibler & the previous two.

Here you and I will have to agree to differ.  I don't see how he possibly could have a relationship without it making the media.  Although he does fly under the radar - remarkably so for an A-lister - at some point he'll get caught.  

He didn't have to bring any of this girlfriends of the past 12 years on the red carpet with him, sure, but there's also no reason at all why he shouldn't.  

Also, why limit that statement to just the last three?  Don't you realise that the exact same comments were made about Lisa Snowdon too?  This takes up back 13 years now.  God, that makes me feel old.

It's always the same routine: he shows up with a new girlfriend and the fans say how they don't look happy together, they never see each other (Lisa was the original beck and call girl), he never makes any effort to be with her and he often looks miserable with her on his arm.  Then, when he starts dating a new woman, new fans come up claiming how horrible the new girlfriend is, they don't look happy together, they never see each other, he never makes any effort to be with her and he often looks miserable with her on his arm and look how different this is from the last girlfriend which looked like a good relationship.  Then, the new fans bring out all the old pictures of the previous girlfriend which had been used by old fans to show how bad the relationship was in order to now show how good that relationship was!  Um, sorry for such a convoluted sentence.

Until you understand that this is an old story, and one that will be repeated whenever George unveils his next girlfriend, I think you're stuck reading new information into an old picture and coming up with a wrong theory.

The whole 'fake relationship' theory came about in Sarah Larson's time driven in part by a psychotic fan of his, obsessed that he was going to marry her (the psycho fan, not Sarah Larson) coupled with older fans getting tired of seeing the same routine.  There's only so many times you can say 'they don't look like a couple' about George and a woman before people start questioning it.

Ocean wrote: I'm not debating how "real" these "relationships" were

Sure.  That's something of a pointless debate anyway IMO because no one other than the two of them could ever know anyway.

Ocean wrote: You did mention in your previous post he wanted publicity as a showbiz man so he can keep himself in the public eye for his films.  
So, I agree that what he projects on the public's conscience as his private life, is in fact more fictional for publicity purposes. He's controlling an image he & possibly his publicist & respective advisors wish to project.

 His image is carefully crafted by his manager/agent and his PR team in consultation with George.  That's perfectly normal for every Hollywood star.  That doesn't mean it's 100% fake.  In fact, the best images are the ones that are close to the reality, just polished a bit.

Ocean wrote: I don't know what goes on in his REAL private life any more than you do or anyone else not privy to it. I suspect he's very secretive.

.  Yep, my thoughts too.

Ocean wrote:However, my point is that he was deliberately promoting a private life regarding his relationships, despite stating it's private. Paradox in itself. Or deliberate misguidance to conceal his real privacy through staged photo-ops, controversial themes & stories chosen as speculation about his choice of partners.

 Sorry, I still don't get how it's a paradox.  You seem to agree that he hasn't shown anything of his private life so how does that contradict him saying he keeps his private life private?

He's never said a word about his private life and never done anything to show what's going on behind the scenes: this is entirely in keeping with his philosophy.

Again, I emphasize that taking George at his word so literally is something of a risk for your theory.  He sometimes says things that make him look good in the media, are convenient for him or are politically expedient but aren't necessarily entirely true.  He can repeat those things as often as he wants if it suits him, but it doesn't make it any more true.  

He says he supports freedom of speech for journalists, except when they piss him off asking awkward questions.  He says he's against intrusive paparazzi, except when his publicist phones them up to take 'candid' shots of him out and about.  He says he hates campaigning for awards and then shows up on every major media outlet talking to every conceivable voter demographic in the voting run up (blacks - show up on the front cover of EW with Viola Davis and say how terribly African American actors are treated.  Women - go on record saying how awful Hollywood is for women but do nothing about it.  Gays - take a couple of hours to record 8.  Need I go on?).   Just a few examples for you.  

He says he wants to keep his private life private, and that conveniently gets him off the hook having to address the less than stellar choices he's made this past decade. That's not a paradox, just an example of George not being entirely honest.

Ocean wrote: Perhaps this was an image he wanted for a while that ultimately rendered him as having bad taste & a penchant for "sleaze" instead of a (failed) My Fair Lady theme.
Image advisors may have suggested this all along. Clooney ultimately agreed.

 Again, you're not reading or not understanding me.  There's no way in a million years that his 'advisors' would have suggested that image.  Never in a million years.

Would George go against all advice and choose to follow that image?  I've no way of knowing, but I doubt it.  

He hasn't changed his management, agent or PR team in almost 20 years and they set him up with an incredibly good public image which has been eroded somewhat by his choice of girlfriends.  There's no logical reason why they'd do that and there's no benefit to them.

Also, this 'my fair lady' thing is in your mind only.  That's not how the public generally sees him.  Whether anyone even notices that his girlfriends get a bit of a whitewash is debatable, but that also comes with the territory of becoming famous and it's a natural progress of going from nobody to somebody.  George doesn't get credit for 'doing up' his girlfriends; at most he gets credit for footing the bill for the makeover.

Ocean wrote:*The selected women were suggested by "friends" (the last three were)
*Clooney felt he was doing them a mutually beneficial favor: publicity for both; lifting her z-list profile & income opportunities.

Firstly, let's be clear: the only people who gain from dating George are the girlfriends.  Not George, not George's team (his 'advisors' as you like to call them) and not his friends.  That's not 'mutually beneficial'.  So, again, why would he do that?

Ocean wrote:Advertising revenue & appearance fees the girlfriends earn during the period of the "George Clooney relationship" are very lucrative.

 Again, it's the GIRLFRIEND (and her team) who makes the money from promotional activities and appearance fees, not George, not his team, not his friends.  George gets nothing out of this, neither does anyone working for him or advising him.  As he doesn't benefit, and therefore none of his team benefit, there's absolutely no reason for them to persuade (let alone force or coerce) him to date these women.  

Ocean wrote: Moreover,  a percentage of her income may be extended to the mediators behind the "relationship" who earn fees from the work she generates associated to Brand Clooney.
This is not a conspiracy theory. It's plausible fact and makes sense.

 Sure, but it's HER team who make money which has got absolutely nothing to do with George or anyone around him therefore there's no benefit and no motivation for them to set up an arrangement like this.  

Ocean wrote: Very profitable for potential mediators who arrange this and keep a percentage fee of the "girlfriends" earnings.  This can also continue to a lesser amount post-"relationship."

 Again, nothing to do with George, his advisors or his friends.  So again, no motivation for them to push him into this.  

Ocean wrote:That's my whole point. I don't buy it. He even seemed surprised to see photo frames of Stacy Keibler like stage props in his home doing the "tour" on that Charlie Rose program.
I'm being cynical. He chooses to do "private life" publicity which is fake, yet ostensibly candid. That is what I'm emphasizing.

 The fact that what we see is sometimes staged doesn't make everything fake.  He just shows you the bits he wants to show.  Just because, for example, he may not really have pictures of Stacy on his wall doesn't mean that he's not dating her.  All it means is he may not have pictures of her in his house, that's all.  Although for the record, he didn't seem surprised to me; just rather more resigned that he was going to get asked about his relationship; an area he famously doesn't talk about.  Ahem.

Ocean wrote:It's my opinion & I don't think it's skewed. I see a lot of dubious publicity with the sole purpose of promoting himself in an inauthentic way about his ostensible private life, which as you say generates interest.
Themes promoted by PR networks for media sites:
"Will she be the one to settle down with the ageing bachelor?"
"Will she scrub up well after the plethora of sordid images now that she's been swept off her feet my the movie matinee idol? Watch this space."    
"Will she make him change his ways?"
"Does this plain-looking woman with a sleazy image enable the average woman to fantasise that she too could have been Clooney's choice."

All kinds of themes promoted in the media for publicity stories.  Based on deception?

 But again you're mixing up what message George puts out with what the media come up with on their own.  He doesn't control every story about himself, much as he may wish to.  A lot of what you read hasn't come from his side (or from her side either, much as a lot of posters here don't understand that) but are generated by the gossip writers themselves, trying to sell their magazines, or increase hits on their website.  He isn't responsible for that and a lot of those headlines would still come up if he dated a, for want of a better word, nice woman.

Ocean wrote:It's like the old adage, "all publicity is good publicity." Just to keep his name in the media no matter what. But soon that becomes a boring cliche.

 Pretty much nobody goes by that.  And I come back to my original point that he'll get publicity no matter who he dates, so there's no reason to scrape the bottom of the barrel for publicity.  A 'nice' woman who the fans like and who makes him look good would get him just as much publicity.  And better publicity.

Ocean wrote:I don't buy it. Which is my whole argument that his private dating life as promoted for the purpose of being perceived by the public as such is either a ruse or simply far from reality.

 Again, this still doesn't make any sense to me, sorry.  Just because his dating life hits the headlines - something that's close to inevitable for an A-list star living in Hollywood - and that some of it staged, doesn't make the entire thing fake.  I think that's just wishful thinking on your part.  I think you need so desperately for him not to be really dating these women that you'll clutch at any straw to hold on to that belief.

Just because what we see of him with [insert name of girlfriend here] is sometimes a staged photo op, doesn't mean he isn't really dating [insert name of girlfriend here].  It doesn't make it a ruse and it doesn't make it far from reality.  

Be honest: if he wanted to have a fake relationship for the publicity, don't you think he'd have done a bloody better job at looking like he's really dating [insert name of girlfriend here]??[/quote][/quote]

LornaDoone wrote:So yes, sleazy does apply in my opinion to at the very least, the last three gals he's dated.  Couple that with their crotch shots on the internet - cause baby in my eyes if you're showing your wares like that in public then the only conclusion is that you're telling the world that crotch is for hire - then that also for me connotates sleazy.

"that crotch is for hire".....CRACKED ME UP! And I couldn't agree more with your opinion, which I only partially quoted here. Fuck it, let George date whomever. I don't give a hoot anymore. They sure make great fodder to talk about though when one is in a snarky or catty mood. So don't be surprised if you see me commenting away on the next Crotch for Hire's thread! LOLOL

Thanks, Lorna. I'll be chuckling all day whenever I remember that line. Struck my funnybone for some reason.

You know Lakin sometimes I write things that even crack me up. Now that you noted it that term is pretty funny. At least looking at it from our side, I'm sure not from their side.

Yes, most likely his next girlfriend will be another "crotch for hire" but just once I would like George to surprise us and date someone who's private parts can't be found by Goggle.

LornaDoone wrote:You know Lakin sometimes I write things that even crack me up.  Now that you noted it that term is pretty funny.  At least looking at it from our side, I'm sure not from their side.

Yes, most likely his next girlfriend will be another "crotch for hire" but just once I would like George to surprise us and date someone who's private parts can't be found by Goggle.

You keep taking them pain meds, gal! You're on a roll! I'm laughing out loud over here at work!

Lakin460 wrote:

LornaDoone wrote:You know Lakin sometimes I write things that even crack me up.  Now that you noted it that term is pretty funny.  At least looking at it from our side, I'm sure not from their side.

Yes, most likely his next girlfriend will be another "crotch for hire" but just once I would like George to surprise us and date someone who's private parts can't be found by Goggle.

You keep taking them pain meds, gal!  You're on a roll!   I'm laughing out loud over here at work!

GOOGLE I meant GOOGLE!!! I'm on drugs! You cannot hold me responsible.

Fuck it. Going to go take another muscle relaxant! HA!

@ Ocean V ( Oops, & ) Katiedot

In the words of the late Margaret Thatcher  in her final speech in UK parliament, after being shafted/ stabbed in the back and front, by her male cabinet. She left fighting.....and with a chillingly accurate assessment of what was to befall Europe 20 odd years later.  

"I'm enjoying this, I'm enjoying this".

I just thought I'd copy speech for those that have not seen it ... by coincidence it happened on 22 November 1990 ... Strange where the Girl friend thread takes you
.... After watching this, America have no fear, a women can do it blindfolded... Go Hillary ! It's less that 2 mins....

Oops the above doesn't make sense, I'm enjoying Katie and Oceans Banter !!!!

I got side tracked

Thanks wwhs. Great! I think we need to change the record here (including me)

So aside from what I have been "betting" one thing to beware; speculating and betting may sound reasonable but have in fact most times crucial differences to reality. So ultimately it´s not about words.

what would he say wrote:

Oops the above doesn't make sense, I'm enjoying Katie and Oceans Banter !!!!

I got side tracked

Just a civil, respectful exchange of opinions, wwhs.
No real debate.
Thanks. Hope I didn't rant too much.
When the mood strikes me to do so....

LornaDoone wrote:Sarah, Eli and Stacy all made money from their association with George. All three have images out there on the internet that leave little to nothing to the imagination.

Like desperation for attention. Trashy. Bad taste.

it's me wrote:I find it amusing
who knows....

So would most pubescent boys or adult males with a puerile sense of humor.
Or perhaps a self-deprecating man who sees his staged dating life in the public eye as a commedia dell'arte.

Too bad  the novelty wore off well over half a decade ago & it's boring the public's conscience as a worn-out cliché.

Okay so if anyone is not clear, then blimey you just haven't been paying attention -

Love waking up on a Saturday to a good banter and drug addled posts (Hi Lorna, how are you doing babe?).

theminis wrote:Okay so if anyone is not clear, then blimey you just haven't been paying attention -

Love waking up on a Saturday to a good banter and drug addled posts (Hi Lorna, how are you doing babe?).  

If "my guy" only knew the entertainment that was here, because of him. We all have our own idea of what George is all about, I'm sure no two are a like. Also I bet not one of us have a clue who the real George is like. Except maybe me - not. xx

Margaret Thatcher had to be a tough woman. Look what she had to deal with! Half being clowns instead of grown men. Many blasted her for being so tough and b-i-t-chy, but how else do you deal with half grown males(Regardless of their ages) who like to make others look stupid and incapable. She did her job and they tried to paint her wagon in the media for it.

theminis wrote:Okay so if anyone is not clear, then blimey you just haven't been paying attention -

Love waking up on a Saturday to a good banter and drug addled posts (Hi Lorna, how are you doing babe?).  

Doing just great the drugs are really good. :-)

Vocabulary of the day: "crotch for hire".

Not sure if the meaning is funny or rather sad?

Crotch for hire, quote of the week me thinks

Glad to hear you feel good Lorna, keep taking them and rest x

Funny or sad? Hmmm. I guess whatever serves you... who am I to judge. Not my thing that´s for sure.

But hey, there are also ones that like to be thrown on the floor, blindfolded or choked to get excited. How do I know? Source: 50 shades  

Staged? You think GEORGE CLOONEY is able to go out with someone without being busted? I always think he is like Doug Ross, the character that made him famous.. it's Hollywood, you have to be nice to ppl, do interviews, make appearances or you will be ignored and your work won't reach as many audiences.. Didn't he say that trying to get an ex back to his life was painful? I recall reading such a thing.

Carla97 wrote:Funny or sad? Hmmm. I guess whatever serves you... who am I to judge. Not my thing that´s for sure.

But hey, there are also ones that like to be thrown on the floor, blindfolded or choked to get excited. How do I know? Source: 50 shades  

Oh, thank you so much for sharing your knowledge
I refused to read that book, thought it was crap.

Boshkash wrote: Didn't he say that trying to get an ex back to his life was painful? I recall reading such a thing.

Sort of. In the Rolling Stone magazine interview Nov, 2011. Confessions of Dirty Mind.
Which also mentioned he had his first orgasm at 6 and losing his virginity at 16.
 

Doesn't talk much about his private life?!  

The article stated that there was one lady in his past he tried to reconcile with but it was painful... and futile.
With his recent dating choices,  I wouldn't blame her.  


But you really wonder how much is true... And who actually provided the answers to the interview.
Was it tête-à-tête? Over the phone? Or a questionnaire answered by a PR rep / contributor.... and approved by George without editing?

Katiedot wrote:
He didn't have to bring any of this girlfriends of the past 12 years on the red carpet with him, sure, but there's also no reason at all why he shouldn't.  
....  This takes up back 13 years now....

It's always the same routine: he shows up with a new girlfriend and the fans say how they don't look happy together....he never makes any effort to be with her and he often looks miserable with her on his arm.

Until you understand that this is an old story, and one that will be repeated whenever George unveils his next girlfriend....

I think there has been increasing change in his demeanor.
Clearly to me he looked happy with Celine Balitran.  Lukewarm with LS, KA, & SL.  But the last two, there were obvious changes.
Irritable, directing them to smile & pose for the cameras....Body language was often so distant, that he looked uncomfortable, no PDAs...
Just seemed rather....staged.

Katiedot wrote: His image is carefully crafted by his manager/agent and his PR team in consultation with George.  That's perfectly normal for every Hollywood star.

So his public persona?  Acting again.

Katiedot wrote: I still don't get how it's a paradox.  You seem to agree that he hasn't shown anything of his private life so how does that contradict him saying he keeps his private life private?

He's never said a word about his private life and never done anything to show what's going on behind the scenes: this is entirely in keeping with his philosophy.

Divulging facts about his private leisure time, lifestyle, tours of his homes, photos of himself with his accoutrement of dispensable girlfriends on holidays...that's a definition of what he alludes to the public as "private life."

Katiedot wrote: Again, I emphasize that taking George at his word so literally is something of a risk for your theory.  He sometimes says things that make him look good in the media, are convenient for him or are politically expedient but aren't necessarily entirely true.

He says he supports freedom of speech for journalists, except when they piss him off asking awkward questions.  He says he's against intrusive paparazzi, except when his publicist phones them up to take 'candid' shots of him out and about.  He says he hates campaigning for awards and then shows up on every major media outlet talking to every conceivable voter demographic in the voting run up (blacks - show up on the front cover of EW with Viola Davis and say how terribly African American actors are treated.  Women - go on record saying how awful Hollywood is for women but do nothing about it.  Gays - take a couple of hours to record 8.  Need I go on?).   Just a few examples for you.  
He says he wants to keep his private life private, and that conveniently gets him off the hook having to address the less than stellar choices he's made this past decade.  That's not a paradox, just an example of George not being entirely honest.

Then...Slightly duplicitous? Insincere? Fickle??  

Katiedot wrote:
He hasn't changed his management, agent or PR team in almost 20 years and they set him up with an incredibly good public image which has been eroded somewhat by his choice of girlfriends.  There's no logical reason why they'd do that and there's no benefit to them.

Also, this 'my fair lady' thing is in your mind only.  That's not how the public generally sees him.  Whether anyone even notices that his girlfriends get a bit of a whitewash is debatable, but that also comes with the territory of becoming famous and it's a natural progress of going from nobody to somebody.  George doesn't get credit for 'doing up' his girlfriends; at most he gets credit for footing the bill for the makeover.

Pygmalion theme but it's more of a Vivien in Pretty Woman (albeit not as attractive or sweet female counterpart) script. George chose a "sleazy image girlfriend" to escort him at events in designer make-over theme. It's the same old broken record since LS.

Katiedot wrote:Firstly, let's be clear: the only people who gain from dating George are the girlfriends.  Not George, not George's team (his 'advisors' as you like to call them) and not his friends.  That's not 'mutually beneficial'.  So, again, why would he do that?

I respectfully disagree here. It's mutually beneficial because he's getting extra publicity. Even shock value. Bad choice, I agree. He'd get it no matter who he dated. Except he deliberately chose types to put on a show, IMO.
The girlfriend gains substantially. $10 million was reported as what Stacy Kiebler earned in 2 years of dating George in incentives, editorial, ads, appearance fees.
Call me a cynic, but I most certainly believe that a substantial percentage of money earned after her profile was lifted associated to brand Clooney, was retained by the mediators who secured the work.
As I wrote previously, in Oct 2011, her appearance fee skyrocketed from $3-5k (with virtually zero demand) to $25K. Fat chance others didn't get their share.  

Katiedot wrote: Again, it's the GIRLFRIEND (and her team) who makes the money from promotional activities and appearance fees, not George, not his team, not his friends.  George gets nothing out of this, neither does anyone working for him or advising him.  As he doesn't benefit, and therefore none of his team benefit, there's absolutely no reason for them to persuade (let alone force or coerce) him to date these women.

Neither of us know for sure, though.  
However,  George probably only gets the publicity he craves, as necessary.
I don't believe he pays a red cent for the image change of the "girlfriends" at all.  
He may asks his assistant to  buy the ubiquitous pair of diamond stud earrings gifted to all & pays drinks/meals.

The girlfriends' stylist, wardrobe, travel expenses, cosmetic procedures,  etc may be covered by the revenue earned as part of their work opportunities & brand incentives extended to them in their role as the girlfriend of George Clooney.  
For all we know a lucrative sum of money is made by them and of course the mediator(s) who secure the deals. It's financially feasible.  

Katiedot wrote:Sure, but it's HER team who make money which has got absolutely nothing to do with George or anyone around him therefore there's no benefit and no motivation for them to set up an arrangement like this.  

Or third parties. Just logical speculation: potential to gross millions in a couple of years as listed above. Opportunity arises. Mediators/ advisors make short term business profit through affiliate percentage fees.
Now, if Clooney was in a serious longterm relationship, the incentives paid might increase as the partner is seen in a more stable role.

Katiedot wrote:Again, nothing to do with George, his advisors or his friends.  So again, no motivation for them to push him into this.  

Probably nothing to do with George or friends, but perhaps other influential interest groups who facilitate it? Just a speculative thought.

 

Katiedot wrote: And I come back to my original point that he'll get publicity no matter who he dates, so there's no reason to scrape the bottom of the barrel for publicity.  A 'nice' woman who the fans like and who makes him look good would get him just as much publicity.  And better publicity.

 

Granted. Any woman in a relationship with him will be catapulted to be in the public eye. Her life would change significantly. If she was unaccustomed to this, she would take time to be "groomed" to deal with it.  Unless she suffered from severe social phobia,  it would be easy to adapt. So many have succeeded sustained by strength of character, love, confidence.

Katiedot wrote:  I think you need so desperately for him not to be really dating these women that you'll clutch at any straw to hold on to that belief.

Just because what we see of him with [insert name of girlfriend here] is sometimes a staged photo op, doesn't mean he isn't really dating [insert name..]

I don't need so desperately for him not to be really dating at all. It's not my life.  Sure, I don't respect several of his past trashy choices. An assault on the public's senses. But that's a reflection on him like he thought it's a joke to amuse his buddies, most of whom have real longterm relationships?
How embarrassing for him.
Technically speaking, he was dating these women. Nor am I saying anyone forced him. On the contrary, he chose them.  I just believe, IMO, there was more to it than romance. More like deliberate intentional arrangements with the focus on publicity for him & profile lifting, revenue generating opportunities for the girlfriend.

I like his other attributes, film & humanitarian work. Maybe he will change and choose to be in a relationship that's more genuine or loving.

I appreciate your perspective & insight too.

Ocean - don't think there's much more to add to this discussion.  You seem to want to ignore all evidence and choose to believe your illogical theories and sure, that's your choice.

Ocean wrote: But the last two, there were obvious changes.
Irritable, directing them to smile & pose for the cameras....Body language was often so distant, that he looked uncomfortable, no PDAs...
Just seemed rather....staged.

 Yes, that's true but you can't ignore that the same things were said about Lisa Snowdon too at the time.  Now people look at pictures and see that not all were unhappy, just as fans are now looking at pictures with Sarah and Elisabetta and seeing a connection that fans at the time couldn't see.  I promise you that soon fans will be looking at pictures of George and Stacy and say that sometimes they looked happy together.

It does make me wonder why you think he'd be so obvious about showing his supposed unhappiness over all these years.  Maybe the once he'd be dumb enough to look uncomfortable in a staged relationship, but this has been going on for years now.  Why do you think that is?

Ocean wrote:

Katiedot wrote: His image is carefully crafted by his manager/agent and his PR team in consultation with George.  That's perfectly normal for every Hollywood star.

So his public persona?  Acting again.

 In some ways, I think so, yes.  Why's that a surprise to you?

Ocean wrote: Divulging facts about his private leisure time, lifestyle, tours of his homes, photos of himself with his accoutrement of dispensable girlfriends on holidays...that's a definition of what he alludes to the public as "private life."

No, that's YOUR definition of his private life.  As I've said before, all you've seen are carefully edited, chosen highlights which have given none of us a real view of what he's like in private.  If you want to believe otherwise, you're welcome to fool yourself.

Ocean wrote: Then...Slightly duplicitous? Insincere? Fickle??  

 How about human?  

Ocean wrote:Pygmalion theme but it's more of a Vivien in Pretty Woman (albeit not as attractive or sweet female counterpart) script. George chose a "sleazy image girlfriend" to escort him at events in designer make-over theme. It's the same old broken record since LS.

Whatever you want to call it, Pygmalion, My Fair Lady, Pretty Woman, it's still a theme in your mind and not in the general public's.

Ocean wrote: he deliberately chose types to put on a show, IMO.

 And as that makes him look bad, why would that be do you think?

Ocean wrote:  I most certainly believe that a substantial percentage of money earned after her profile was lifted associated to brand Clooney, was retained by the mediators who secured the work.

 I know that you most certainly believe it and that's standard business practice, but do you understand that the money goes to Stacy and her team, not to George?  Unless you seriously think George takes money off his girlfriends because that's what you're implying here.

Ocean wrote:As I wrote previously, in Oct 2011, her appearance fee skyrocketed from $3-5k (with virtually zero demand) to $25K. Fat chance others didn't get their share.  

 Yep and nobody disagrees with that.  Where you're wrong is in thinking that George and his team are taking a cut when it's STACY'S team who get paid from her money.

Ocean wrote:

Katiedot wrote: Again, it's the GIRLFRIEND (and her team) who makes the money from promotional activities and appearance fees, not George, not his team, not his friends.  George gets nothing out of this, neither does anyone working for him or advising him.  As he doesn't benefit, and therefore none of his team benefit, there's absolutely no reason for them to persuade (let alone force or coerce) him to date these women.

Neither of us know for sure, though.  

 Eh?  Everyone knows for sure because that's how the business works.  The people working for a celebrity are the ones who get paid by the celebrity.  

Ocean wrote:

Katiedot wrote:Sure, but it's HER team who make money which has got absolutely nothing to do with George or anyone around him therefore there's no benefit and no motivation for them to set up an arrangement like this.  

Or third parties. Just logical speculation: potential to gross millions in a couple of years as listed above. Opportunity arises. Mediators/ advisors make short term business profit through affiliate percentage fees.
Now, if Clooney was in a serious longterm relationship, the incentives paid might increase as the partner is seen in a more stable role.

 Yes, it's the GIRLFRIEND'S 'third parties' who benefit.  Again, not news to anyone and not speculation.

Unless you're back on your imaginary, unnamed, unexplained third parties who don't work for George or for Stacy?

I can tell you for sure that the people are the ones who benefit from [insert name of girlfriend here] dating George Clooney  are: the girlfriend and the people who make money off the girlfriend, eg, her agent, manager, publicist etc.  These aren't some vague and undefined secretive 'third party' cabal but actual real people that every celebrity, from z-list and up have working for them.  But again, you need to understand that it's the girlfriend's team who benefit, not George's team, because it's only the people working for her who get paid.  

If you weren't aware that celebrities have people working for them, then I can understand that it may come as a surprise to you but this isn't news to the rest of us.  

Ocean wrote:Probably nothing to do with George or friends, but perhaps other influential interest groups who facilitate it? Just a speculative thought.

 Yes, these 'other influential interest groups' are the ones who get paid by the girlfriend as listed above. How many times do I have to write this?  

Ocean wrote:Technically speaking, he was dating these women. Nor am I saying anyone forced him. On the contrary, he chose them.  I just believe, IMO,  there was more to it than romance. More like deliberate intentional arrangements with the focus on publicity for him & profile lifting, revenue generating opportunities for the girlfriend.

 I'm sorry that you choose to ignore all logic and cling to this opinion, but that's up to you.

George not only doesn't benefit from these relationships, they bring him down, so it's unlikely he's choosing to do this to himself.  You've yet to come up with any good reason why he would.

Everybody's opinion of logic is dofferent Katie. Let's play nice here

No Playful, logic is logic. It's not something you can choose a definition of.

I disagree. Everybody has their own opinion, and their logical aspects are based on life's experiences. For example, it would be lofical to me that someone is getting off of a motorway, interstate if they have their turn signal on while in the exit lane. My friend thinks it should be logical to everyone that she is getting off merely because she is in an exit lane. Two opinions of what should be logical.

You misunderstand, Playful. Logic is based on facts, not opinion. It's perfectly possible to hold illogical opinions - you gave two good examples there - but it's not possible to have an opinion of what logic is.

What really got me was the tonal part of your reply to Ocean. After this, I'll let this rest now, but here is how I based my logical sense of opinion. You can reply any way you want

From Wikipedia :
Logic (from the Greek λογική, logos)[1] has two meanings: first, it describes the use of valid reasoning in some activity; second, it names the normative study of reasoning, most prominently in the subjects of philosophy, mathematics, and computer science.
The concept of logical form is central to logic, it being held that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form, not by its content. Traditional Aristotelian syllogistic logic and modern symbolic logic are examples of formal logics.
Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments. The study of fallacies is an especially important branch of informal logic. The dialogues of Plato[6] are good examples of informal logic.
Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal content. An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule, that is, a rule that is not about any particular thing or property. The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of logic. Modern formal logic follows and expands on Aristotle.[7] In many definitions of logic, logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same. This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous, because no formal logic captures all of the nuance of natural language.
Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference.[8][9] Symbolic logic is often divided into two branches: propositional logic and predicate logic.
Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas, in particular to the study of model theory, proof theory, set theory, and recursion theory.

Yes, I understand what logic is and am already aware of its history.  

If you don't like my tone, then that's an entirely different matter.  I'm frustrated in answering Ocean's comments because she ignores any facts that contradict her opinion and I'm sorry if that comes across.  

I'm not someone who believes that every opinion is a precious treasure to be respected even if it's completely wrong.  Ocean is entitled to her opinion - and I've said that several times - but it would be helpful for all of us who don't share her opinion to be able to understand how she reached her conclusions.  At the moment she hasn't done that and just keeps going in circles repeating the same things.  

As I've understood her, her opinion is that George chooses to date these girlfriends who make him look bad because someone benefits from it.  But she isn't able to explain who or why.  All she can come up with is third parties. That third parties are benefiting from George's relationships isn't in doubt in my mind, but that doesn't explain what George gets out of this because she isn't able to show how those third parties are related to George when they're clearly not.  She also isn't able to explain why he does this time and time again.

Never mind logic I feel like we are doing conspiracy theory here. Then Deb you lost me at Wiki... and I consider myself as being fairly intelligent. haha

maybe always will be clear
sooner or later

Er, just one teeny-weeny little point.

Wikipedia is NOT the go-to ultimate tome of knowledge from learned scholars of definitions, facts or anything else for that matter.

Anyone can put an entry in Wikipedia. And I'm not sure if professors of philosophy or psychology have contributed..............

@KatieDot -
You're entitled to your version of why George Clooney chooses to date these types of women and these assumptions are merely derived by your logic with no concrete backing either. Your facts are based on hypotheses derived from your opinions. I assume you're guessing too.

Similarly I am entitled to my opinion which I have explained, even if you don't agree with it. It's not a conspiracy theory. Faux romances are & were common in Hollywood.

I have repeatedly provided possible motive &  reasoning for each speculative assumption but you dismiss them.

So in summary, my theory stands as such:

GEORGE CLOONEY chose to date specific types of women like a template primarily for publicity.
He possibly  selected this typecast of women because he's been advised by his publicist & team, who as you say "have so carefully crafted his public image."  There's contradiction in your own statement if you claim his public image is showbiz yet you allege his girlfriends are selected purely on the basis of genuine relationships because that's what George likes.

I'm saying that I believe there's more to it.
So do several others here, including phys major who have stated similar opinions based on Hollywood publicity relationships.

These typecasts: (LS, KA, SL, ST, EC, MJ, SK) are peripheral entertainment or sex industry personalities with a very low profile compared to George but exposed to the limelight  and also ravenous for fame & fortune no matter what.

* the women have an abundance of sordid pornographic to semi-pornographic imagery online or similar backgrounds. I won't deny Clooney liked the seedy side of their image. Maybe to also promote his own as a "ladies' man." The trashy factor  only makes them even more dispensable "bad girls." But renders him as sleazy. Something he may not have considered or foreseen.

* the nature of their relationship during the brief George Clooney liaison encompasses constant appearances attending media events with him, posing for photos, getting press. All like a role they're selected to play.  While George often stands beside them, grinding his teeth and instructing them to pose.

* In that period of time, there is an over saturation of stories in the media about his private life with these "girlfriends." Sure, you say that it's no reflection on George or his team if gossip sites choose to write corny stories of bloated-gas bellies being interpreted as "pregnancy"  moving in together or marriage assertions.
His publicist could put an end to those gossip media stories by demanding them to stop or face libel. But they ALLOW them as extra publicity like it keeps his name in the media. Yes, they provide stories about his private life whereas other A-list actors choose to keep it discreet or seriously limited.

Perhaps up until Sarah Larson, George enjoyed all this type of publicity and felt it worked, but what I clearly have seen is less enthusiasm on his part. No doubt.
There are so many photos & videos of him with these last two girlfriends where he INCREASINGLY seems intolerant, bored and distant.

This is an opinion & shared by many others on blogs  & sites I have read.
I'm not saying at all that they're just publicity arrangements but that there seems to be MORE to it than just George being in yet another soon-to-be-doomed "relationship."
His repetitive dating life has become  a boring & rather sleazy cliché.

Now the financial revenue of the girlfriends' lucrative potential gains which are garnered to the association of Brand Clooney,  is another aspect. And as I wrote repeatedly in previous post,  mediators like independent, influential interest groups unaffiliated directly to George Clooney would  secure a percentage.
I stated unaffiliated to George Clooney.

So why would he do it?

Reasons I repeated above. He'd get publicity regardless you say, but this is a theme that has been chosen repeatedly for over a decade.  It could be ANY woman, but a specific type has been selected (all are of the same calibre) so they can be intentionally promoted for showbiz purposes. Someone with a respectable high profile may not be so hungry for the fame & fortune; therefore not as malleable.

Other interest groups profit form the association or mutually beneficial favors are gained.
Like a domino effect:
Example:
Marchessa label - gowns  worn by the "girlfriend" gain editorial coverage. "Clooney's choice selects Marchessa"; Weinstein funded company - Clooney receives funding for his next projects by Weinstein & Co.

You don't agree with the My Fair Lady or Pretty Woman theme promoted, but it's so apparent  that the style change of image is covered by many gossip sites, including here. Like a similar script. Whitewashing a sleazy image with designer labels, style changes, deportment, interest changes, for the duration of being a "Clooney girlfriend."

Well, then, party animal not!, consult official dictionaries and you'll get the same albiet concise definition of "logic" provided by Wikipedia.  Academics contribute to those.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

He once said in an interview. If he wanted a part, he would play a role as if he would be the only one who could play it. He understands Hollywood, so he's playing the part of a Hollywood STAR: a casanova !  

Katiedot wrote:Ocean - don't think there's much more to add to this discussion.  You seem to want to ignore all evidence and choose to believe your illogical theories and sure, that's your choice.

Ok, concluding this: My theories are illogical to you maybe. There's no need to patronize me, though. Others may agree. You don't work for George Clooney. So, how can you be an authority as an independent fan?
Answering your questions further:

Katiedot wrote: Maybe the once he'd be dumb enough to look uncomfortable in a staged relationship, but this has been going on for years now.  Why do you think that is?

Boredom.. Years of repeat pattern publicity is enough to render anyone numb.
Disinterest. Need for change. Reinvention of stagnated image => longevity of status?
Secondly,  I never wrote strictly "staged relationships." I wrote staged photos-ops. Relationships devised with publicity in mind. My opinion.

Katiedot wrote: As I've said before, all you've seen are carefully edited, chosen highlights which have given none of us a real view of what he's like in private.  If you want to believe otherwise, you're welcome to fool yourself.

Again, you misunderstood my point. To the average reader, this carefully edited highlight glimpse purported to be his "private leisure time in his homes, at dinner, etc" in gossip sites/ press is alluding that is George Clooney's "private life." Not a film role. "George in his private time." That's what's being fed to the public in gossip sites. I did not state it's gospel & I believe it. Not what I believe at all. That's why I debated it.

Katiedot wrote:Whatever you want to call it, Pygmalion, My Fair Lady, Pretty Woman, it's still a theme in your mind and not in the general public's.

I answered above. Neither of us are authorities on what the general public believes. Nor vox populi spokespeople.
But it's obvious that a transformation of before-and-after comparisons & fashion editorials is being promoted. The Clooney factor. Even the weight loss.

Katiedot wrote:I know that you most certainly believe it and that's standard business practice, but do you understand that the money goes to Stacy and her team, not to George?  Unless you seriously think George takes money off his girlfriends because that's what you're implying here.

Yes, I stated repeatedly in my previous posts that it's not George Clooney who profits from the girlfriends' monetary earnings but the girlfriends' small scale rep if any & the third party mediators/ middlemen who liaise to secure the revenue, IMO.
Again: Not GC. He only would get the showbiz publicity.

Katiedot wrote:Where you're wrong is in thinking that George and his team are taking a cut when it's STACY'S team who get paid from her money.

No, where you're wrong is continuously quoting me as thinking that, when I repeatedly have stated "unaffiliated third parties who mediate."  Provide a quote that I stated otherwise, if so.

Katiedot wrote:  Eh?  Everyone knows for sure because that's how the business works.  The people working for a celebrity are the ones who get paid by the celebrity.  

no doubt everyone knows. That wasn't my point, yet again.

Katiedot wrote:
 These aren't some vague and undefined secretive 'third party' cabal but actual real people that every celebrity, from z-list and up have working for them.  But again, you need to understand that it's the girlfriend's team who benefit, not George's team, because it's only the people working for her who get paid.  

If you weren't aware that celebrities have people working for them, then I can understand that it may come as a surprise to you but this isn't news to the rest of us.  

No need to be condescending nor patronizing me, Katiedot, just because I don't agree with your opinion. I'm not ignorant & obviously know celebrities have staff.
You're very defensive about the fact that I suggest there may be third parties/middlemen/agents who are unaffiliated to Brand Clooney, and potentially liaise to secure work for the girlfriends.  There's no conspiracy or secretive society.
Your words again.  
Just logical common practice of mediators securing work. It exists in a cross-sector of industries. Or someone is hired to represent the girlfriends' financial interests from income earned for the period she's associated with Brand Clooney.
Naturally a percentage or fee would be kept by them. It's a profitable negotiation.
This is what I repeatedly stated & you misunderstand:

Ocean wrote:
Clooney chose these typecasts like deliberate intentional arrangements with the focus on showbiz publicity for him & profile lifting, revenue generating opportunities for the girlfriend.

And you reply:

Katiedot wrote:I'm sorry that you choose to ignore all logic and cling to this opinion, but that's up to you.

You completely write off my opinion as lacking logic. Yet it's within the parameters of what you state about his showbiz persona & profit/career opportunities for the PR girlfriend.
In addition I state there's more reason like mutually beneficial favors for promotional purposes within the industry & possibly other independent mediators earning substantial monetary gain.

Katiedot wrote:George not only doesn't benefit from these relationships, they bring him down, so it's unlikely he's choosing to do this to himself.  You've yet to come up with any good reason why he would.

Agree. But now your're stating that it's unlikely he's doing this to himself?  Anyway, I've covered the reasons above in simple point form.

We agree on some points; disagree on others.
I leave it as respecting each other's point of view & differences of opinion.

Ocean wrote:

Boshkash wrote: Didn't he say that trying to get an ex back to his life was painful? I recall reading such a thing.

Sort of. In the Rolling Stone magazine interview Nov, 2011. Confessions of Dirty Mind.
Which also mentioned he had his first orgasm at 6 and losing his virginity at 16.
 

Doesn't talk much about his private life?!  

The article stated that there was one lady in his past he tried to reconcile with but it was painful... and futile.
With his recent dating choices,  I wouldn't blame her.  


But you really wonder how much is true... And who actually provided the answers to the interview.
Was it tête-à-tête? Over the phone? Or a questionnaire answered by a PR rep / contributor.... and approved by George without editing?

My understanding of Rolling Stone interviews is that they are an actual interview and that the journalist spends an extended amount of time with the interviewee--even several days. They are not the type of publication who would accept answers from a survey or a surrogate. The in-depth interviews are a point of pride with them and one of the things they are known for. If it's in a RS interview, I believe George said it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Here it is. Rolling Stone interview seems to have been in person. Like Esquire. Talking about intimate person details.
Refusing to call Stacy Keibler his girlfriend.

Want to know if he has a girlfriend right now? Um, actually, no, he will not answer that question. "I might have a girlfriend, but I'm never going to talk about it. I get one thing to keep to myself."

Given that that they were ever so publicly dating, he refused to discuss it. Changed the subject. Never referred to her to what was alluded.

"I'm never going to talk about it"

interesting

Fast forward 3 months later to Feb 12... still campaigning...award season.
The Hollywood Reporter article
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

He won't go into his relationship with Keibler because "there is so little in my life that is private,"

Not a single acknowledgement like referring to her as "girlfriend?" Avoided the topic. Relied on allusions or illusions.

@Boshkash - And your original reference:

He also has been cheated on and even ditched "and left for someone; all those things. And it was sometimes a surprise, and sometimes you saw it coming. The most painful was when I kept trying to get [one woman] back. But we all make dumb mistakes."

Jeez, Is there still some uncertainty about this? Ocean please one more time. Synopsis will do - bec I do not have much time. Merci encore, je l'apprécie...

Ocean you seem well informed to me..  the only thing I can say is that George's Pr team does not select his PR girlfriends He does. Therefore his choice, has given him a rather sleazy reputation. Not to say he doesn't date (screw) that type of woman in private..
Everyone involved benefit from the publicity that these PR arrangements generate.
Having George date someone like SK and the others, brings much needed attention to George's causes! all of them..Regardless of how anyone feels THAT'S HOLLYWOOD!! and not everyone chooses to play the game.
Could George get the same attention from a nice girl? sure, but his conscience wouldn't let her get hurt that way. He would spend most of his time defending her..

Carla97 wrote:Jeez, Is there still some uncertainty about this? Ocean please one more time. Synopsis will do - bec I do not have much time. Merci encore, je l'apprécie...

uncertainty about what, Carla97?
It's addressed to Boshkash about a point she made earlier on.

(Oh, btw, Carla97, if I don't have time to read exceedingly long, personal accounts about a poster's daily activities and anecdotes on an unrelated website, I simply don't. Oh, j'espère que tu as compris cette fois.  )

@phys major

*I know that George's PR team doesn't select the girlfriends. Never did I say otherwise.

*You seem to know from your sources that he didn't "screw" Stacy Keibler, and you've stated so in your posts here on this forum. "Strictly business & platonic"  you wrote.

*George gets much needed attention from dating "trashy women" ??? 
He'd get attention regardless.

Defending the nice woman for what, phys major???  A "nice woman" wouldn't need the defending.
Also, with the "nice woman", George would get more financial gain for his causes, respect and public admiration. And may feel more content than what he's been indicating in these last 4 years, next to these trashy types.

A nice woman can be attractive, strong in character and intelligent.
He doesn't even defend the trashy ones who need defending.
Those whose names are dragged publicly in court cases, mid-relationship with illicit-substance abuse allegations by prostitutes.

"THAT'S HOLLYWOOD!! and not everyone chooses to play the game."  - maybe Clooney won't play it forever and benefit more.  After all, he's linked to sleaze which undermines him, because of this mega fail game.

Ocean: There has been a lot of talk about past, the landscape with ex GFs with hard hearts and soft heads. Like blowing bubbles. A breath, puff and shiny sphere floats off. Connections drawn here may be less clear-cut.

But that is the past. And this thread is about next... so what is your prediction, that is to say, your take on trying to determine what lies ahead? Do you think history will repeat itself
or
do you believe more in random walk hypothesis, which would mean the complete lack of correlation of past and present?

@Ocean I'm not ready to get in a long debate on George's lady friends, just have a few things to add.

1. I am the one that called this jokingly the "Conspiracy Theory'" just my reaction.
   
   As far as the gossips you can only sue if they state somehing as a  fact. "Is that a "baby bump?" Not fact.
   
   I could be wrong, but I thing Katie is in the PR business. Even if not, I usually find that she seems to be more versed and reliable on George Clooney data. I respect her dedication to him and unlike me she will state facts that might be a little negative toward him. Where I know that he is not a perfect saint, I would never post anything that is not positive toward George. Just my way taught if you cannot say something nice don't say anything, not always practical
   

Have a good one.

Ocean isn't the only one who has this type of opinion about the public life of George's romantic visibility. There are a whole horde of fans out there that share it but with varying degrees of it.

I also see some of this too. But I keep my opinions to me, mostly. Sometimes I might speak up if a conversation is kind of interesting and lots are adding theirs.

We do all have a right to an opinion but maybe need to share with keeping in mind that sometimes others are more in a protective mode for George. And may not care for some opinions. But we all express what we feel usually.

Its true that we cna be pperhaps very opinated sometimes toward particular ideas. But I think we all know one thing. What we know is spotty and only to what is available to know. Which may or may not be factual.

But using logical thinking on what is visible, can help reduce the more illusional/allusional kind of thinking. I think sometimes, its more of a matter of not knowing all the dif things out there and or maybe not remembering it.

But if one really wants to know more of what is out there, let a good debater do their research in finding a lot of it and making it available to everyone in their dialogue. As briefly as possible. I have enjoyed seeing some of the info, from both Ocean and Katie. They are both pretty good at debates.