X-MAN AGAINST GAY TELEVISION

[x-man]

I have a running disagreement going with Canada's only LGBT channel, OUTtv.  I would like to tell you about the issues, and get your feed back—from everyone, but especially from gay men, who are most affected by the problems I see with the channel's programming.

Canada's population is a little over 36 million.  Take 5% of that, and it doesn't leave a very large pool of people who would be interested in OUTtv, so they are always having money problems.  The CRTC (Canada's communications licencing agency, the equivalent of the American FCC) makes it difficult for  OUTtv by demanding the same percentage of Canadian content as they do for general audience networks.  LGBT-interest programs made in or about Canada just are not enough to fill that requirement, and so they constantly have problems.  Since OUTtv has a small audience in comparison with the major networks, advertisers are not easy to attract, although it does squeak by (and thank God we are spared the endless commercials for feminine hygiene products!).  Their staff, they told me, is made up of gay and straight people because they hire on the basis of who is best for the job, not specifically on orientation.  I wondered about this when I first heard about it, especially about programming, wondering if straight people could be as sensitive to issues specifically facing the LGBT world.   At any rate, I wish them well  and  every day I check their schedule for programs to watch.  In most areas they do a pretty good job—but not in one:

I am bothered, no, angered by their programs about gay men being biased to the,,,,uh....'flamboyant' edge of the gay male world.  Their programming is filled with RuPauls Drag Race, One Girl Five Gays, and the like, with frequent showings of The Bird Cage.  I took the time to go through their weekly schedule and calculate the hours given over to this kind of thing.  I then compared this with programs showing gay men as regular (if I can put it that way) men.  The former far far outweigh the latter.  We have a situation where gay men are being presented as the classic, homophobic stereotype of us from which we have suffered for a very long time.

There are two possible consequence of this.  First, its effect on the straight world.  I doubt that many straight people watch OUTtv.  And, I don't care in the least what straight people think of us.  No matter how we are portrayed to them, it won't change much.  Second is its effect on gay men, particularly on gay men uneasy with their sexual orientation.  To put it very simplistically, it is saying that if you insist on being gay you are inevitably going to end up a candidate for RuPauls.  I don't begrudge flamboyant men anything.  Having had a transgender father, such a stance on my part would be silly.  For the entire LGBT world, our struggle is a common one and we must stand together.  On the other hand,  internalized homophobia exists and is drawn from very inaccurate orientation stereotyping which is largely responsible for the suicide rate, the rate of drug dependency and other such destructive behaviour being so much higher amongst gay men than it is in the male population at large.  Should a Canadian media source mandated to serve the LGBT community add its voice to to this?

OUTtv's response to me about this was, basically, that they are more popular than ever, that they are there to make money, and that they are not 'an arbitrator of all LGBT issues.”  That doesn't quite handle it for me.  They got their licence expressly to serve the LGBT community and, as they told me, to act as a “bridge” to the world at large.  Regarding this issue they are not doing that; they are doing a great disservice.

So, what do you think, guys?  Please PLEASE let us not reopen the androphile debate, but do you see my point?


 

[CellarDweller]

Hello X-man.

I understand what you're saying, you want diversity in the programing, and the network you watch is lacking in this matter.

It seems to be the same here in the states with the network LOGO, which is the gay/lesbian network I watch.   They also run shows like RuPaul and  1G5Gs, consider yourself lucky if you havne't seen "The A List", a 'reality' show that was the gay equivilent to the Real Housewives shows.  There were two series (A-List NY & A-List Dallas) and neither was really good.   On top of that, they show reruns of shows that are "gay favorites" like Designing Women or Golden Girls.

For lack of another description, you want to see shows with gay men like Jack & Ennis.  Not necessarily cowboys, but gay men who are not as flamboyant.

How many gay movies have you seen?  You could always make a list of the ones that have impressed you with their portrayals, and then send it to the station.

I can't think of many TV shows that have what you're looking for.  I know The Walking Dead introduced a gay couple like this, but we had to wait until season 5 for them to appear.

[Jeff Wrangler]

May I ask for a little more information? Could you give an example of a TV show portraying gay men as "regular men"?

I don't seek out gay-oriented programming per se, except for the occasional documentary. I've never received LOGO as part of my TV service. And I have to say that I know several men who are prominent and active in leather and bear circles who absolutely love RuPaul's Drag Race--which I've never seen, not because I object to the emphasis on the flamboyant, just because it doesn't interest me. I'd rather watch a whodunit or a police procedural.

About the last gay-themed show I deliberately sought out was Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and how many years ago was that now?

Interestingly enough, this week's episode of N.C.I.S.: New Orleans might qualify as the sort of thing you're looking for. The plot centered on the kidnapping of the infant daughter of two gay men, one of whom served in the U.S. Navy and the other of whom worked for a defense contractor. No issue was made of them being a gay couple. You could just as easily have substituted a straight couple, and it would have made no--or little--difference in the plot--and that's what made it all the more remarkable for me as I watched. In fact, if anything annoyed me about the show it actually was the use of a gay male couple in the plot. First thing I thought was, Oh, God, now that we've got gay marriage in so many states, we're going to have show after show making hay out of marriage equality just to prove how up to date they are.

This paragraph raises a couple of issues for me:

There are two possible consequence of this.  First, its effect on the straight world.  I doubt that many straight people watch OUTtv.  And, I don't care in the least what straight people think of us.  No matter how we are portrayed to them, it won't change much.  Second is its effect on gay men, particularly on gay men uneasy with their sexual orientation.  To put it very simplistically, it is saying that if you insist on being gay you are inevitably going to end up a candidate for RuPauls.  I don't begrudge flamboyant men anything.  Having had a transgender father, such a stance on my part would be silly.  For the entire LGBT world, our struggle is a common one and we must stand together.  On the other hand,  internalized homophobia exists and is drawn from very inaccurate orientation stereotyping which is largely responsible for the suicide rate, the rate of drug dependency and other such destructive behaviour being so much higher amongst gay men than it is in the male population at large.  Should a Canadian media source mandated to serve the LGBT community add its voice to to this?

I risk going off topic, but I'm going to say my piece anyway.

First, you seem to me to be expressing a concern for the effect on straight people of portrayals of gay men as flamboyant RuPaul drag queen types--but then you turn around and say you don't care what straight people think of us. Sorry, but that confuses me.

Second, I've kind of come to the personal conclusion that the influence of stereotyped portrayals of gay men in the media on internalized homophobia in gay men is exaggerated. I suspect that the influence of the attitudes of parents and other individuals in a person's life is far greater than the influence of the media. Anyway, the stories I hear of young gay men killing themselves seem to have a lot more to do with the people around them--bullying in school, and so forth--than with what they see on TV.

I'll conclude with this: If OUTtv got it's license partially on pledging to be a "bridge" to the world, and all they are showing is RuPaul stuff, then I agree with you that they are doing a disservice in not showing the diversity of gay people to the world.

[x-man]

It seems to be the same here in the states with the network LOGO, which is the gay/lesbian network I watch.   They also run shows like RuPaul and  1G5Gs, consider yourself lucky if you havne't seen "The A List", a 'reality' show that was the gay equivilent to the Real Housewives shows.  There were two series (A-List NY & A-List Dallas) and neither was really good.   On top of that, they show reruns of shows that are "gay favorites" like Designing Women or Golden Girls.


How many gay movies have you seen?  You could always make a list of the ones that have impressed you with their portrayals, and then send it to the station.

Good to hear from you, my favourite bear. 

I CAN'T consider myself lucky--they DID have  the various A-Lists.  I couldn't remember its name when I wrote.  I watched 5 minutes of 1 show, and couldn't stand any more.  I missed the Designing Women episode from GG.  Was it about lesbians or gay men?  I totally left lesbian portrayal out of my posting because I know nothing about it.  OUTtv is pretty fair in its time devoted to the female part of LGBT, but I have no idea of how faiir their portrayal of lesbian is.  I actually am more familiar with its coverage of transgender issues because of my father.

Regarding gay movies.  I have seen many, and have many in my collection.  (Like everyone, I watch Shelter when I am depressed.)  Some time ago I raised the issue of movies to the Programming director at OUTtv.  I sent them names and even some short reviews.  It didn't do much good.  They tried to tell me people liked seeing the same ones over and over.  I did notice when I got back from Asia that they had gotten hold of BBM--like that's a new movie for us.  I mean of course I am glad they added it, but I bet virtually every gay man who watches OUTtv has the DVD.  And I bet they had to pay an arm and a leg to buy BBM.  For the same money they probably could have bought several very good but not famous gay movies.  I asked them how much they had to pay for movies, but they said that was not public information.  I wonder why.

Is LOGO the only gay TV network in the States?  I thought Here! was one too.

[milomorris]

Staying firmly away from any discussion of androphilia, I have to say that I agree with much of what you say here.

This is not a problem that is faced by sexual minorities alone, but rather by any minority. It happens to blacks, latinos, asians, women in non-traditional careers, you name it. The media (TV/movie in this case) portrayals of most minorities is fraught with stereotypical characters. There are many reasons why this is the case. One of them is that writers often find it challenging to effectively sketch out characters in minority groups without tripping over stereotypes. Another is that writers don't think they are being accurate unless they include stereotypes. So what we end up with is imbalance.

African-Americans still complain about this, but many of us admit that it has gotten better...slowly...over time. For every thug or drug dealer on TV, there is a black cop or fireman. For every black homeless man, welfare recipient, or deadbeat dad, there is a black doctor, lawyer, or businessman. So its a matter of balance. Portrayals of sexual minorities in the media will balance out over time too.   

[x-man]

May I ask for a little more information? Could you give an example of a TV show portraying gay men as "regular men"?


About the last gay-themed show I deliberately sought out was Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and how many years ago was that now?


This paragraph raises a couple of issues for me:

I risk going off topic, but I'm going to say my piece anyway.

First, you seem to me to be expressing a concern for the effect on straight people of portrayals of gay men as flamboyant RuPaul drag queen types--but then you turn around and say you don't care what straight people think of us. Sorry, but that confuses me.

Second, I've kind of come to the personal conclusion that the influence of stereotyped portrayals of gay men in the media on internalized homophobia in gay men is exaggerated. I suspect that the influence of the attitudes of parents and other individuals in a person's life is far greater than the influence of the media. Anyway, the stories I hear of young gay men killing themselves seem to have a lot more to do with the people around them--bullying in school, and so forth--than with what they see on TV.

Hi Jeff,
I KNEW I could count on you for some opposition. 

TV programs showing gay men as non-flamboyant?  I suggest Queer as Folk (which you refuse to watch because it might be too happy and remind you that your earlier days were not like that,  News Flash:  It wasn't like anybody's earlier days,  Shelter wasn't like anybody's coming out, but for a brief time we can imagine.  And how about Looking on HBO?  Another series that may not be available in the States is a reality show Colin and Justin.  It traces the doings of a Scottish gay  couple who go around Canada doing makeovers of houses and cabins.  They are very knowledgeable about it, they are funny,  obviously like each other very much, are in their late 30's or early 40's, AND they are muscle bears.  I don't like reality shows, I wonder why I watch it?

You caught me.  I did say I didn't care what straight people think, but at the same time seem indeed to care.  Saying that I didn't care in the least what muggles think is me beating up on myself.  How COULD I not care?  I just don't want to care.  They are 95% of the population, and they have the power.  At the same time I have been through enough homophobia that I am disgusted with myself for still playing the victim to them.  My words are braver than my heart.  A lot of my anxiety in this area is a product of my age--I went through more of it than you younger guys; the changes hadn't started.  Prime Minister Trudeau did not make his famous "The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" statement ushering in gay legalization in Canada until 1967.  By that time I was 29; my attitudes of and secret fears about being gay were already in place.  I doubt that most younger gay men see it all as darkly as I do.  I try to lighten up, but I am pretty well stuck with it--hence my hypersensitivity which must be obvious to everyone in spite of my attempts to disguise it.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I suggest Queer as Folk (which you refuse to watch because it might be too happy and remind you that your earlier days were not like that,  News Flash:  It wasn't like anybody's earlier days,

No, I don't refuse to watch it "because it might be too happy." I simply have no interest in a soap opera about pretty gay boys who are young enough to be my kids. Soap operas have never interested me. Even in the heyday of Dallas and Dynasty, I never watched either of them.

And how about Looking on HBO?

Well, you kinda got me there. I didn't used to have HBO because I refused to pay extra for a service I felt I didn't need. Now they've added it to my condo building's cable contract, and I keep forgetting that I have it without paying extra for it!   

Another series that may not be available in the States is a reality show Colin and Justin.

That name sounds familiar, but I can't place where I might have heard of it.

You caught me.  I did say I didn't care what straight people think, but at the same time seem indeed to care.  Saying that I didn't care in the least what muggles think is me beating up on myself.  How COULD I not care?  I just don't want to care.  They are 95% of the population, and they have the power.  At the same time I have been through enough homophobia that I am disgusted with myself for still playing the victim to them.  My words are braver than my heart.  A lot of my anxiety in this area is a product of my age--I went through more of it than you younger guys; the changes hadn't started.  Prime Minister Trudeau did not make his famous "The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" statement ushering in gay legalization in Canada until 1967.  By that time I was 29; my attitudes of and secret fears about being gay were already in place.  I doubt that most younger gay men see it all as darkly as I do.  I try to lighten up, but I am pretty well stuck with it--hence my hypersensitivity which must be obvious to everyone in spite of my attempts to disguise it.

I'm sure they don't, because they have no idea what it was like to live through it. They also have no idea what it was like to watch a whole generation die of AIDS.

[Jeff Wrangler]

(TV/movie in this case) portrayals of most minorities is fraught with stereotypical characters. There are many reasons why this is the case. One of them is that writers often find it challenging to effectively sketch out characters in minority groups without tripping over stereotypes.

I think you're certainly on to something here. If you're a writer on a "one-hour" scripted drama, where realistically you may have only 40 minutes to tell a story, I'm sure it's a lot easier to fall back on stereotypes than to develop a realistic portrayal of a minority character.

I'm not saying that's right, I'm just saying.

[x-man]

[quote author=Jeff Wrangler link=topic=52986.msg667544#msg667544 date=142930028

Second, I've kind of come to the personal conclusion that the influence of stereotyped portrayals of gay men in the media on internalized homophobia in gay men is exaggerated. I suspect that the influence of the attitudes of parents and other individuals in a person's life is far greater than the influence of the media. Anyway, the stories I hear of young gay men killing themselves seem to have a lot more to do with the people around them--bullying in school, and so forth--than with what they see on TV.

[/quote]


I'd like to say a bit more about this previous posting of yours.  I wonder if you might be seeing the issue with too tight a focus.  This is probably my fault; I should have been clearer,  I stand by my belief that the stereotypical way gay men are portrayed on television affects internalized homophobia.  I did not mean that ONLY a gay man's watching this directly would affect his internalized homophobia--although I do believe it exacerbates it--but that the same programs intensify the homophobia of others (family, friends, bashers) which is then picked up by the gay man,, and by others as well so the cycle is heightened, intensified.  Now the gay man we are talking about here may be the only one to see it on OUTtv, but programs like 1G5G, movies like Bird Cage and Cruising are carried by TV stations aimed at straight general audiences as well, and that is where non-gays will see and be influenced by it.  Serious crayons and I had an intense debate about this issue on a movie site in BetterMost.  She was taking me to task for seeing all of the TV and movie industry's stereotypical portrayals of gays as a giant conspiracy to frighten gays into the belief that if they were going to be gay they would inevitably live a life of misery and despair.  She convinced me to back off a bit on the conspiracy business, but I am still uneasy about it.  As to my overall belief that gender orientation stereotyping contributes directly to gay oppression and self-loathing, as Shakespeare wrote, "I am constant as the northern star, of whose true fixed and resting quality there is no fellow in the firmament."

[morrobay]

I say thank god for gay TV.  

How else would we lowly, unthinking, uninitiated straight white people know how to react, if a movie put out by a high-dollar Hollywood production company wasn't there to show us just exactly how we should feel and think and behave toward all the minorities...

We all just love The Bird Cage, just like all us white folk love The Help...

I especially liked the male maid in Bird Cage, what was his name again...oh yes, Agador...LOVE him...or her...whatever...

What show was that you gays were talking about?  RuPaul something?  Maybe I should watch...so I know what to say if someone should ask..........
 

[Jeff Wrangler]

I'd like to say a bit more about this previous posting of yours.  I wonder if you might be seeing the issue with too tight a focus.

I don't think so, because I didn't say I thought it had no influence, only that I thought the influence on gay men has been exaggerated.

This is probably my fault; I should have been clearer.

Well. ...

I stand by my belief that the stereotypical way gay men are portrayed on television affects internalized homophobia.  I did not mean that ONLY a gay man's watching this directly would affect his internalized homophobia--although I do believe it exacerbates it--but that the same programs intensify the homophobia of others (family, friends, bashers) which is then picked up by the gay man,, and by others as well so the cycle is heightened, intensified.  Now the gay man we are talking about here may be the only one to see it on OUTtv, but programs like 1G5G, movies like Bird Cage and Cruising are carried by TV stations aimed at straight general audiences as well, and that is where non-gays will see and be influenced by it.

OK, I see sense here in what you have to say about the influence of stereotypical portrayals on non-gay audiences, but that wasn't what you said earlier, and I'm also standing by my belief that the influence on younger gay males who may just be finding their way is exaggerated.

[milomorris]

and I'm also standing by my belief that the influence on younger gay males who may just be finding their way is exaggerated.

I think the influences are rather moderate overall, but they go in several directions. Sure, media portrayals can add to fear, despair, and self-loathing. But I also think that these stereotypical media portrayals can also influence how emerging sexual minorities set their expectations of themselves, and be interpreted as a blueprint for how they think and behave. For example, "because I'm a homosexual, I should be more fashion-conscious," or "since I'm a homosexual, I should learn the gay lingo," or "maybe I should spend less time watching sports and more time watching Project Runway and Drag Race."

[x-man]

I say thank god for gay TV.  

How else would we lowly, unthinking, uninitiated straight white people know how to react, if a movie put out by a high-dollar Hollywood production company wasn't there to show us just exactly how we should feel and think and behave toward all the minorities...

We all just love The Bird Cage, just like all us white folk love The Help...

I especially liked the male maid in Bird Cage, what was his name again...oh yes, Agador...LOVE him...or her...whatever...

What show was that you gays were talking about?  RuPaul something?  Maybe I should watch...so I know what to say if someone should ask..........
 

Hey Butlers, Enjoyed the sarcasm very much.   

RuPauls refers to RuPauls Drag Race and  a spin-off RuPauls Untucked.  They are supposedly a reality series about drag queens competing for a title, some being "thrown off the island," bitching about each other and vowing to claw each other's eyes out.  You'll love it!  I, however.....

[x-man]

I'm also standing by my belief that the influence on younger gay males who may just be finding their way is exaggerated.

I hope you are right, Jeff, I really do.  I would give anything to discover that younger gay men are being spared,  I told you on your blog site that I was too grim--I hope that is the case here.  I may have told you that when I decided to get a "gay liberation" tattoo, I had the choice of a Pride flag--pointing to the the successes that have been made, or a Pink Triangle, to remind myself of not only what I went through but also the horrors of the Nazi death camps where so many of our brothers and sisters ended up in the ovens.  Glass half-full, glass half-empty?  That would seem to me to trivialize the issue.  You don't have to guess which tattoo I chose.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I hope you are right, Jeff, I really do.  I would give anything to discover that younger gay men are being spared,  I told you on your blog site that I was too grim--I hope that is the case here.  I may have told you that when I decided to get a "gay liberation" tattoo, I had the choice of a Pride flag--pointing to the the successes that have been made, or a Pink Triangle, to remind myself of not only what I went through but also the horrors of the Nazi death camps where so many of our brothers and sisters ended up in the ovens.  Glass half-full, glass half-empty?  That would seem to me to trivialize the issue.  You don't have to guess which tattoo I chose.

Well, that pink triangle is an important part of our collective history. When I was coming out, you saw them everywhere; now I can't remember the last time I saw one--and it's not just my poor memory. Perhaps it has something to do with the loss of a generation that's not around to tell the young kids about it and what it means.  

[serious crayons]

In fact, if anything annoyed me about the show it actually was the use of a gay male couple in the plot. First thing I thought was, Oh, God, now that we've got gay marriage in so many states, we're going to have show after show making hay out of marriage equality just to prove how up to date they are.

And that would be terrible because ...? If you ask me, there's a pretty fine line between a show featuring a gay couple "to make hay" or "just to prove" something -- as if they're only doing it as some cynical marketing move -- versus just happening to have writers, directors and producers who want to reflect modern culture and perhaps express their own ideas about inclusiveness. Neither case seems bad to me -- even the cynical marketing scenario supposes that they'd be responding to an actual public desire to see more gay couples, which is great.

First, you seem to me to be expressing a concern for the effect on straight people of portrayals of gay men as flamboyant RuPaul drag queen types--but then you turn around and say you don't care what straight people think of us. Sorry, but that confuses me.

I think I get it. You can be unconcerned about how straight people feel about you as an individual or a group -- in other words, you don't internalize or feel personally hurt by their homophobia -- but still know that for political reasons it's important to have straight allies.

Anyway, the stories I hear of young gay men killing themselves seem to have a lot more to do with the people around them--bullying in school, and so forth--than with what they see on TV.

OK, but who's doing the bullying? Here we come back to the idea that "normalizing" gay characters in the media is as important for adjusting straight people's attitudes as it is for gay kids'. The more the rest of the culture accepts gayness and condemns homophobia, the more that will be the case in high schools.

[Jeff Wrangler]

And that would be terrible because ...? If you ask me, there's a pretty fine line between a show featuring a gay couple "to make hay" or "just to prove" something -- as if they're only doing it as some cynical marketing move -- versus just happening to have writers, directors and producers who want to reflect modern culture and perhaps express their own ideas about inclusiveness. Neither case seems bad to me -- even the cynical marketing scenario supposes that they'd be responding to an actual public desire to see more gay couples, which is great.

You have more faith in TV writers than I do. "Cynical move" is exactly what I think is going on (don't know about the "marketing" part). And I doubt they're "responding to an actual public desire to see more gay couples." It's just being done now because it's timely. I expect that once gay marriage is an established fact throughout the nation and is no longer timely or newsworthy, those gay couples will disappear from scripted drama. That's the cynic in me. 

OK, but who's doing the bullying? Here we come back to the idea that "normalizing" gay characters in the media is as important for adjusting straight people's attitudes as it is for gay kids'. The more the rest of the culture accepts gayness and condemns homophobia, the more that will be the case in high schools.

X-man more or less said that in his follow-up elaboration, and I agree, but I still think the effect directly on young gay individuals is exaggerated.

[x-man]

Said by serious crayon's in response to Jeff's pointing out that I was saying I didn't care what straight people thought, but at the same time did appear to care:

I think I get it. You can be unconcerned about how straight people feel about you as an individual or a group -- in other words, you don't internalize or feel personally hurt by their homophobia -- but still know that for political reasons it's important to have straight allies.

OK, but who's doing the bullying? Here we come back to the idea that "normalizing" gay characters in the media is as important for adjusting straight people's attitudes as it is for gay kids'. The more the rest of the culture accepts gayness and condemns homophobia, the more that will be the case in high schools.

I want to comment on your 2 paragraphs quoted here separately.  

1) You summed up and clarified my feelings about this very well.  Thank you.  But I must add that as a gay man who has been in one door of homophobia --including internalized homophobia and out the other, and suffered at the hands of other people--I can tell you that I no longer wince and internalize it--I speak out LOUDLY, and subject the person I heard it from to a rant (and I am fairly articulate about it) and use the pink triangle tattooed on my left inner wrist as a "visual aid."  I always back them down.  However the homophobic words or the homophobic crap you see on television still are like a knife in the heart.  It is just now that the wound heals very quickly.  About "straight allies"  I am still uneasy.  I hope what I am going to say doesn't have the same effect as my "two kinds of straight people" did, but the grimmer part of me tentatively believes that if a straight person, even the most gay-friendly, had the chance to get rid of the LGBT problem for good, by simply pushing a button and we would all disappear--no one would get hurt, we would just disappear--that they would push the button without hesitation, believing they were doing the world a favour.

2)Your comments suggesting that by showing LGBT characters in a more favourable light in media will help change the beliefs of straight people watching them I have to agree with, but I do wonder how effective they would be in this case, AND more importantly, how long do you want us to wait?

In your defence, your words remind me of the work of the American sociologist Kurt Lewin of the middle of the last century, whose work provided a lot of help to those fighting for black civil rights.  His work demonstrated rather conclusively that legislation COULD change morality.  He showed, rather counter-intuitively, that if you change a person's behaviour in a certain area their beliefs about the area will change to fit the behaviour--not the other way around.  I GUESS it works, but oh so slowly.  And I have castigated you guys before for only looking at North American and western European culture  for your evidence of progress.  If you look beyond that, the situation is still pretty bleak, and shows no sign of brightening up soon.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Networks such as OUT and LOGO don't exist to provide services or resources for the GLBT+ community, they are in business to target the GLBT+ dollar.

Amen, Brother!

LOGO isn't a success and viewer numbers prove it. Recently it shifted its programming strategy. Citing research that indicated that LGBT people were becoming increasingly less likely to prioritize highlighting their sexual orientation or identity, the channel entered into partnerships to produce programs that focused less on LGBT-specific interests and more on general cultural and lifestyle subjects.

Lefty Huffington Post sums it up, R.I.P., Gay TV: A Not-So-Sad Reality.

That's very interesting. I wonder if that indicates--and flows from--gays and lesbians becoming more "mainstream" in general?

Incidentally, the Wheel of Fortune reference reminded me that not too long ago a contestant on Jeopardy! very matter-of-factly mentioned his "husband," and as far as I know, nobody blinked an eye.

[milomorris]

And that would be terrible because ...?

Because it is disingenuous. There is no sincere caring about the issues affecting sexual minorities, only a profit motive to exploit the demographic . "Gay" is nothing more than a market segment to the corporate world.

[milomorris]

I spent an hour this morning researching gay television and posted in this thread only to have it deleted. XMan, you really don't want input you just wanna talk. And NO ONE cares about your misogynistic drivel and sexual exploits, most of which are sickening.

Yeah. I thought it was kinda weird that your post just disappeared.

[x-man]

Yeah. I thought it was kinda weird that your post just disappeared.

Dear Milo,
I had hoped I could get through this problem in silence, but that does not appear to be possible.  I then thought of sending you a PM, finally I decided that it should be out in the open for everyone to see.

You are welcome to post to my blog site as long as you are speaking for yourself.  We have both put Joshua Tree behind us and moved on.  I think of the two of us as disagreeing about just about everything, and you thinking of me as a left-wing pinko commie.  ( Actually I used to be, but after visiting communist Poland and Cuba I reevaluated and am now just a left-wing socialist.)  But I never found your comments to be snide, cruel, personal attacks on me or my rather unenviable childhood, unlike those of your friend.  I see no reason why I should have to face postings to this blog site with apprehension and anxiety.   I left BetterMost twice because of him; I will not be driven off again. That is the reason for the blocking.

If my postings are so offensive and disgusting, why come to this blog site?  Why post to it?  And just because I suggest that a certain situation exists does not mean I am endorsing it.  This refers to several things, but here especially to his charge of misogyny.  I carefully distinguished between misogyny and gynephobia.  Because I am apprehensive around women in no way means I hate them or even that fear is a good idea,  In fact my interactions with women on BetterMost have helped me more than anything else in my life to allay that fear.  Charges like his are exactly the kind of thing that causes me to believe I am right to block him.  I do not apologize for anything I have posted on this blog site—nor for much else I have posted to other BM topic sites, except for those I have already apologized for,

Serious crayons and I have had knockdown drag out battles over media issues.  They were exciting, and  at no time did our disagreements end up in personal attack.  I know very well that Jeff radically disagrees with me about younger men hooking up with older men.  But Jeff is far too astute and kind ever to descend into personal smears, but your friend did.  It's not going to happen on this blog site—neither from him nor anybody else.

One last thing:  Your quote of his post—your response to which I quoted above-- leads me to ask that you not act as a mouthpiece or go-between for him.  He is blocked entirely, and I will not allow a new act in the Brad and Milo Show to take place here.  There is no need  to bring your party to my house.  Take it somewhere else.  Aside from that you are  welcome here as is everyone else, except one.

I cannot argue about this, and will not be drawn into a debate about it.  I ask that we put it to bed right now.

[morrobay]

 I hope what I am going to say doesn't have the same effect as my "two kinds of straight people" did, but the grimmer part of me tentatively believes that if a straight person, even the most gay-friendly, had the chance to get rid of the LGBT problem for good, by simply pushing a button and we would all disappear--no one would get hurt, we would just disappear--that they would push the button without hesitation, believing they were doing the world a favour.

Wow.  That could be taken as quite the insult.  And would you do the same to those "straight person, even the most gay-friendly"?  Push the button and make us disappear, thinking you would be doing the gay world a favor?

[CellarDweller]

Perhaps it has something to do with the loss of a generation that's not around to tell the young kids about it and what it means.  

That could very well be, but with the number of memorials to the holocaust that now include pink triangles, I hope some of them get the  symbol.

[milomorris]

I left BetterMost twice because of him; I will not be driven off again. That is the reason for the blocking.

I didn't realize you had left the site. I just figured your real life had gotten busy or something.

I know very well that Jeff radically disagrees with me about younger men hooking up with older men. 

I'm in opposition to that idea myself. I addressed it differently by posting a couple of articles.

One last thing:  Your quote of his post—your response to which I quoted above-- leads me to ask that you not act as a mouthpiece or go-between for him. 

Brad is a big boy. He doesn't need me.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Because it is disingenuous. There is no sincere caring about the issues affecting sexual minorities, only a profit motive to exploit the demographic . "Gay" is nothing more than a market segment to the corporate world.

And again, Amen, Brother!

[Jeff Wrangler]

I know very well that Jeff radically disagrees with me about younger men hooking up with older men.  But Jeff is far too astute and kind ever to descend into personal smears, but your friend did.

Well, thank you for the compliment. Something really nice to read on a truly ugly (weather-wise) Monday morning. Lord knows, I try.

But I'm not so sure about the first part. I probably wasn't clear enough, because sometimes I do tend to parse things awfully fine. My stomach gets queasy over, er, "gentlemen of a certain age," shall we say, propositioning guys who are young enough to be their sons--or maybe even grandsons--and if the "gentlemen" offer to pay for it--ain't even gonna go there. But I suppose if the young guy makes the advance, and they're both being clear-headed about what's going on, I don't see anything categorically wrong about it.

The last time it happened to me--and it really, really did (at least, I think it did   )--a couple of years ago, I didn't allow myself to go there because the "kid" (I use the term loosely--he was in his 20s) was so sweet and cute that I knew I could get myself into real emotional trouble, and it wouldn't last.

Oh, yeah. His father and I work for the same organization. ...

[milomorris]

But I suppose if the young guy makes the advance, and they're both being clear-headed about what's going on, I don't see anything categorically wrong about it.

And neither do I as long as the age of consent boundary is respected. The validity of age of consent is being argued right now over in the Men's Health thread.

[serious crayons]

You have more faith in TV writers than I do. "Cynical move" is exactly what I think is going on (don't know about the "marketing" part). And I doubt they're "responding to an actual public desire to see more gay couples." It's just being done now because it's timely. I expect that once gay marriage is an established fact throughout the nation and is no longer timely or newsworthy, those gay couples will disappear from scripted drama. That's the cynic in me. 

Because it is disingenuous. There is no sincere caring about the issues affecting sexual minorities, only a profit motive to exploit the demographic . "Gay" is nothing more than a market segment to the corporate world.

I hate to break it to you guys, but yes, giant corporations do tend to be "disingenuous" if by that you mean they sell what they think people want to buy. So General Mills sells gluten-free foods because so many people are on a gluten-free kick right now.

To see this as something negative seems, to me, sort of beside the point. Our lives are awash in corporations doing things they think will help their bottom line, so if that's disturbing to you you've got your work cut out for you.

But the prospect of "more gay couples in the media because people are suddenly much more accepting of gay couples" is hardly cause for complaint. For one thing, it means the public would be much more accepting of gay couples. Yes, Jeff, if the sight of gay couples outraged, offended, or in any way turned off the viewing audience, it would not become a trend. TV shows aren't aiming to drive away viewers. Meanwhile, it also means that writers and showrunners and producers, etc. who themselves are members of the public, would be more comfortable having those couples in their scripts.

Why you think this development would disappear at some later point is mystifying to me.

There are already shows with gay couples and they seem well-received. The more it happens, the more it will be no big deal so yes, I suppose at that point, writers will be less likely to include gay couples to be trendy; they'll do it to reflect real life.

[Jeff Wrangler]

And neither do I as long as the age of consent boundary is respected.

Yes. I was assuming that. Perhaps I should have been specific about that.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Why you think this development would disappear at some later point is mystifying to me.

There are already shows with gay couples and they seem well-received. The more it happens, the more it will be no big deal so yes, I suppose at that point, writers will be less likely to include gay couples to be trendy; they'll do it to reflect real life.

Once gay marriage is no longer newsworthy, the couples will disappear from scripted TV shows--unless an important point of the show is that the couple is gay, like the one about the blended family headed by two lesbians.

[CellarDweller]

But I'm not so sure about the first part. I probably wasn't clear enough, because sometimes I do tend to parse things awfully fine. My stomach gets queasy over, er, "gentlemen of a certain age," shall we say, propositioning guys who are young enough to be their sons--or maybe even grandsons--and if the "gentlemen" offer to pay for it--ain't even gonna go there. But I suppose if the young guy makes the advance, and they're both being clear-headed about what's going on, I don't see anything categorically wrong about it.

And neither do I as long as the age of consent boundary is respected. The validity of age of consent is being argued right now over in the Men's Health thread.

I agree with Milo and Jeff.

In fact, I bowl on a team of four (three regulars, one alternate) and one of our regulars is in a monogamous relationship with our alternate, there is a 30 year difference between them, if not more.

[milomorris]

To see this as something negative seems, to me, sort of beside the point. Our lives are awash in corporations doing things they think will help their bottom line, so if that's disturbing to you you've got your work cut out for you.

Its not the fact that companies are making money off the gay market segment, its the sentiment that such companies are perceived as being gay-friendly. They're not being friendly at all, they're just out to make a buck.

[x-man]

Wow.  That could be taken as quite the insult.  And would you do the same to those "straight person, even the most gay-friendly"?  Push the button and make us disappear, thinking you would be doing the gay world a favor?

2 points here:

1) I did not mean to insult.  This is a situation where I was just saying that a situation exists, not that I think it is a good idea.  All through my postings here and elsewhere is the subtext that a man carries with him a lot of baggage from earlier days in spite of all attempts to rid himself of it--not unlike the baggage that Innis carried around that was so devastating to his relationship with Jack.  This is one of the consequences of homophobia and internalized homophobia that older gay men are heir to.  As I keep saying, you younger guys are so very lucky.  But you shouldn't forget what did happen.  No one asks Jews to forget about the Holocaust--instead they have institutions to keep the memory alive so that it won't happen again.  We should too.

2)  Well, again, as you did when you caught on to the fact that I had not apologized much as I was trying to claim about the "2 kinds of straight people' comment, you caught me out again.  I actually had not considered or entertained pushing a button and making the whole straight world disappear leaving only a gay one.  But this time I will not try to wiggle out of it.  I'm going to take the Fifth Amendment on this one--at least for the present.  My remarks about consciously having tried to live out my life in an as all-male environment as possible might give you a clue--but I'm still working on it   Anyway, good for you for pointing that out

[x-man]

That could very well be, but with the number of memorials to the holocaust that now include pink triangles, I hope some of them get the  symbol.

I hope you are right, CD.  But the number of younger gay men I have talked to who have no idea what a pink triangle is all about is extremely depressing.  Serious crayons once pointed out to me that I seemed trapped in the past regarding these issues.  She's right.  But it isn't JUST that I am not seeing the advances made in LGBT issues, it is that I do want to keep the memory alive--even if I do it awkwardly.  Am I flogging a dead horse?  Pissing against the wind?  Or a voice crying in the wilderness?  I am trying to be the last.  I urge other older gay men who know what it was like will also pass it on to the kids.

[milomorris]

I urge other older gay men who know what it was like will also pass it on to the kids.

This is an area of challenge. Unlike an ethnic group, sexual minorities cannot rely on family structure to impart the knowledge of previous generation on present ones. For example, when I was a little boy I had my parents, grand-parents, and great-grandparents around to tell me about what it was like to be black in America in their younger days. From what I can tell, the most effective method for sexual minorities to tell these stories is through art, literature, film, etc. because few older homosexuals have the kind of access and rapport with younger ones that I had with, say, my grandfather. And even if using the various arts & humanities as a channel for communicating, there are still challenges because young person has to take the initiative to go and consume the content. The desire to do so is a very individual thing, so you don't have a body of young people with much of a collective knowledge of how things used to be as we do in the African-American population.

[x-man]

Well, thank you for the compliment. Something really nice to read on a truly ugly (weather-wise) Monday morning. Lord knows, I try.

But I'm not so sure about the first part. I probably wasn't clear enough, because sometimes I do tend to parse things awfully fine. My stomach gets queasy over, er, "gentlemen of a certain age," shall we say, propositioning guys who are young enough to be their sons--or maybe even grandsons--and if the "gentlemen" offer to pay for it--ain't even gonna go there. But I suppose if the young guy makes the advance, and they're both being clear-headed about what's going on, I don't see anything categorically wrong about it.

The last time it happened to me--and it really, really did (at least, I think it did   )--a couple of years ago, I didn't allow myself to go there because the "kid" (I use the term loosely--he was in his 20s) was so sweet and cute that I knew I could get myself into real emotional trouble, and it wouldn't last.

Oh, yeah. His father and I work for the same organization. ...

Come on, Jeff!  I compliment you all the time!  

Regarding "the first part" as you put it, my young men/older men topic:  I wrote it because I wanted an alternative viewpoint out there.  I told it by using my own experience szpecifically because of the demand you once made of me not to speak for all gay men or gay men in general but for myself.  You were quite right, and since you said that I try to say I am speaking for myself and I use a personal example to show why I have the opinion I do.  Don't you realize I am very aware of how lucky I was in my behaviour especially in my younger teens>?  I was stupid, but driven by forces I could not control.  When I warned people away from any criticism of me about it, I had a certain unnamed person specifically in mind.

Where I think we DO disagree are in cases where the difference in ages is not that extreme, and both parties are best described as men, not as boy and man.  I believe you were even critical of a relationship I had beginning at age 18 with a man 22.  That love affair was the most fantastic event of my entire life, I was transformed, my life given meaning, he literally saved my life, and gave it whatever meaning it has.  

I am with you on the very young man with much much older men.  I am sure some of such relationships are OK, but I find them kind of creepy too  My own hesitations about hooking up with a very young man are that I am not drawn to men that young, and, more importantly, young men will act completely unaware of the consequences of their actions.  (God knows, I did.).  Like Jennifer Warnes sings, "I know a heartache when I see one."

[x-man]

This is an area of challenge. Unlike an ethnic group, sexual minorities cannot rely on family structure to impart the knowledge of previous generation on present ones. For example, when I was a little boy I had my parents, grand-parents, and great-grandparents around to tell me about what it was like to be black in America in their younger days. From what I can tell, the most effective method for sexual minorities to tell these stories is through art, literature, film, etc. because few older homosexuals have the kind of access and rapport with younger ones that I had with, say, my grandfather. And even if using the various arts & humanities as a channel for communicating, there are still challenges because young person has to take the initiative to go and consume the content. The desire to do so is a very individual thing, so you don't have a body of young people with much of a collective knowledge of how things used to be as we do in the African-American population.

For once we agree about something!  You are probably right that most people in the black community have an extended family with lots of older members to keep the memory alive for you.  The LGBT community does not--and suffers from the gap in passing down history because of the death of practically an entire generation thrugh AIDS as Jeff remarked about.  You are right, Milo, the only real way we have to keep memory alive is through literature, media, etc.  Let's hope it works.  With the media in unfriendly hands, I wonder.

[Jeff Wrangler]

The LGBT community ...  suffers from the gap in passing down history because of the death of practically an entire generation thrugh AIDS.

Not only that. "The young" don't necessarily want to hear about it, either.

Just to stick with the AIDS example, to many of them, HIV/AIDS is a manageable chronic condition, like diabetes, not a death sentence like some of us older guys remember it being.

Come on, Jeff!  I compliment you all the time! 

Hey, all I said was it was something nice to read on an ugly Monday morning.

Where I think we DO disagree are in cases where the difference in ages is not that extreme, and both parties are best described as men, not as boy and man.  I believe you were even critical of a relationship I had beginning at age 18 with a man 22.  That love affair was the most fantastic event of my entire life, I was transformed, my life given meaning, he literally saved my life, and gave it whatever meaning it has.

I don't remember this. I'm not denying it, I really don't remember this.  That's not a very big age gap. It doesn't sound to me like me to be critical of a relationship because of the age gap when the age gap is so small. I'm sure I remember the relationship you are referring to--or maybe I have that confused with another relationship, too?    Or maybe there was another issue?

[x-man]

This is a apropos of nothing—just a chance for me to write yet another offensive, disgusting posting.  From an episode of Looking, in a conversation that required some reply like “Is the pope Catholic?”   instead, “Does a bottom howl at the moon?”  You either get it or you don't.

[Jeff Wrangler]

This is a apropos of nothing—just a chance for me to write yet another offensive, disgusting posting.  From an episode of Looking, in a conversation that required some reply like “Is the pope Catholic?”   instead, “Does a bottom howl at the moon?”  You either get it or you don't.

 

[serious crayons]

Once gay marriage is no longer newsworthy, the couples will disappear from scripted TV shows--unless an important point of the show is that the couple is gay, like the one about the blended family headed by two lesbians.

Well, since gay couples are getting pretty common on TV right now, they're going to have to fire a lot of actors.

I think by the time gay marriage is on longer "newsworthy," it will become an ingrained enough part of everyday life that gay couples will be included on TV shows just like other people are. Perhaps they will share the complaint of many minorities that they're not well enough represented in the media, but they're pretty unlikely to disappear altogether given how many TV professionals are either gay or gay friendly and will be interested in telling those stories.

Its not the fact that companies are making money off the gay market segment, its the sentiment that such companies are perceived as being gay-friendly. They're not being friendly at all, they're just out to make a buck.

That's most likely right, since making a buck is the whole purpose of companies. Sometimes, of course, companies' reputations become linked with gay friendliness or unfriendliness -- look at the Chick Fil A (sp?) episode -- for some partiular reason.

If you want to measure the gay friendliness of a company, some obvious ways include seeing whether they employ representative numbers of gay people, whether they offer benefits to partners in states where gay people can't marry, and if so how long they've done it, etc. One easy way to measure the gay friendliness of a media company is to see how they portray gay people. Some news and entertainment outlets do better than others, obviously. The ones whose news stories, editorials, scripted shows, movies or whatever -- if they portray gay people in appealing ways, then I would consider whoever is in charge of controling content for that company to be gay friendly.

But yes, ulitimately their objective is to make money, so if nobody watches their gay-friendly show it will probably get canceled.

[milomorris]

If you want to measure the gay friendliness of a company, some obvious ways include seeing whether they employ representative numbers of gay people, whether they offer benefits to partners in states where gay people can't marry, and if so how long they've done it, etc. One easy way to measure the gay friendliness of a media company is to see how they portray gay people. Some news and entertainment outlets do better than others, obviously. The ones whose news stories, editorials, scripted shows, movies or whatever -- if they portray gay people in appealing ways, then I would consider whoever is in charge of controling content for that company to be gay friendly.

Having been down this road already with regards to race, I can tell you that none of the things you listed is any indication of how a company's Board, shareholders, management, or rank & file employees actually feel about sexual minorities. What those metrics represent is how well (or not) a company is able to do with regards to diversity policies that they might have in place, or how the company's behavior matches up with the expectations of those people who make a living measuring such things and bestowing "Good Housekeeping" seals. Naturally, most companies want that seal because its good for the bottom line, so they behave accordingly.

Portraying sexual minorities in appealing ways--which itself is all a matter of opinion, and which sexual minorities will debate among themselves--does not show how friendly a news and entertainment outlet is. It simply shows how savvy they are at capturing gay viewers, and people who are likely to appreciate those portrayals. If a network is not testing well with gay viewers, the fix is easy: have a detective on one of your hardboiled crime dramas come out of the closet, give a gay person a talk show, or give a gay comedian a sitcom. Problem solved. None of this has anything to do with friendliness.

[x-man]

And neither do I as long as the age of consent boundary is respected. The validity of age of consent is being argued right now over in the Men's Health thread.

Milo, I don't understand your preoccupation with age of consent.  Are you urging it on us because you believe the state has the right to decide even our most private behaviour, or do you think that magically your government has hit on exactly the best time to begin sexual activity?  Others here seem to think that people arrive at the appropriate time at different ages.  That would seem to be more likely than the government hitting on it by accident.  I say this because, at least in Canada, the age of consent has changed.  You might think it has gone down.  Not so.  It has gradually gone up.  In earlier days, the 1800's, it was 12, then raised to 14, and finally as now to 16.  That is the general age and like most sex laws in Canada is dependent on whether the sexual activity is consensual or is the result of coercion or exploitation.   Mental competency is always a factor that is taken into consideration.  It is not so much dependent on whether money is involved because prostitution is legal here, although subject to a lot of strictures that are always being challenged in court and gradually being eased.

While 16 is the general age, Canada has a more realistic approach to this than I thinkyou do in the States—correct me if I am wrong here about the US,  We have so-called “windows” which allow more latitude for the people involved.  14 and 15 year-olds have a 5-year window.  If the kids involved are 5 years or less different in age, they cannot be charged.  12 and 13-year olds have a 2-year window.  All of this assumes consent and  no coercion or exploitation is involved.  I think this approach makes a lot more sense than an arbitrary single age.  Do you have this in the States?  Is it determined federally, or state by state?

Gay sex was not legal until 1969, although criminal charges in the matter were dropped in 1967 when the federal government announced the change in policy; it took something over a year to make it through Parliament.  The police took a little longer to catch on.  I recall in 1972, a kid in the correctional camp I worked in coming to me to ask about this.  He knew I was gay, and would talk rationally about it.  Before he had been put in the system (for reasons that had nothing to do with sex) he was having sex with his boyfriend when the police broke in looking for drugs, and caught them at a bad time.  The guys were 15.  The cops told them they were too young to have sex and they faced being charged.  I explained to him that the cops were just messing with his head because of the window—they were the same age, within 5 years of each other and there was nothing the cops could do, so relax.  He was very happy to hear that he wouldn't be facing any outstanding charges when he left the camp in a few weeks.  Glad to help.

 

[milomorris]

Milo, I don't understand your preoccupation with age of consent. Are you urging it on us because you believe the state has the right to decide even our most private behaviour, or do you think that magically your government has hit on exactly the best time to begin sexual activity?

The state does indeed have the right to decide certain specifics when it comes to private behavior, and yes, some of those specifics has to do with sex. The state does not allow for sex with animals. The state does not allow for sex in public places. The state does not allow for married men or women to have sex outside their marriages. We, as a society have decided that these things need prohibition. Sex with children falls into the same category

Pedophilia is harmful primarily because children—as a group--have not reached a level of cognitive or emotional development that will allow them to make informed, reasonable decisions about sex. In other words, they are functionally incapable of giving consent because they cannot extrapolate the consequences of their behavior. Legally, there is no such thing as a consenting minor. Their lack of maturity leaves them vulnerable to the sexual advances of adults. Moreover, there is a power imbalance between an adult and a child. That power imbalance is often physical: adults are generally larger, stronger, and more skilled at physical confrontation than children, and even when an adult is not, children perceive them to be so. There is also a power imbalance due to the fact that the adult is “grown,” and the child is still growing: in other words, the adult has more experience, and is therefore perceived by the child to be wiser…regardless of whether that is actually true or not. So overall, the adult is operating from a position of power, and the child is operating from a position of weakness. Again, I’m generalizing here.

While is true that laws governing the age of consent have changed over time, like any other set of laws, those changes are reflective of the society and culture which write them. So to say that “back in the day, the age of consent was 13…” is irrelevant. Now is not then, and many dynamics have changed socially, technologically, and medically. I am also well aware that age of consent laws differ from one state to another here in the US, but one thing remains constant: there is no state that lacks an age of consent. As seriouscrayons pointed out in the Men’s Health thread, the state cannot test every adolescent under the age of consent to decide if they are emotionally and cognitively capable of handling themselves in sexual situations with an adult. Therefore the state must draw a line somewhere, and that line has to apply to everyone, otherwise it is impossible for the state to protect those that are vulnerable. Does that suck for the 17-year-old who is a freshman at Harvard, lost his virginity 2 years ago, and is really hot for the 24-year-old graduate student? You bet. But both of them will get over it. If they feel that strongly about it, they will wait a year until the freshman is 18, then they can go at each other all day every day if that’s what they want to do.

As I said over in Men’s Health, I have personally witnessed a “wink-wink, nudge-nudge” permissiveness in the gay community when it comes to having sex with minors. Both the pedophilia and the permissiveness do harm to the population of sexual minorities as a whole because they reinforce age-old social fears that link male homosexuality with pedophilia. The sex scandal with the Catholic church has fanned the flames under that link, and dusted off stale, old prejudices. So I think it is important for the population of sexual minorities to do what it can to spread the message internally that this behavior is unacceptable.

[CellarDweller]

This is a apropos of nothing—just a chance for me to write yet another offensive, disgusting posting.  From an episode of Looking, in a conversation that required some reply like “Is the pope Catholic?”   instead, “Does a bottom howl at the moon?”  You either get it or you don't.

I haven't heard that one before.

[serious crayons]

Having been down this road already with regards to race, I can tell you that none of the things you listed is any indication of how a company's Board, shareholders, management, or rank & file employees actually feel about sexual minorities. What those metrics represent is how well (or not) a company is able to do with regards to diversity policies that they might have in place, or how the company's behavior matches up with the expectations of those people who make a living measuring such things and bestowing "Good Housekeeping" seals. Naturally, most companies want that seal because its good for the bottom line, so they behave accordingly.

Yes, individual personal "friendliness" is basically out of the equation in corporate policies, as I have tried to say all along. Corporations don't necessarily like or dislike any kind of person -- they like money. And sure, a company could offer benefits to unmarried same-sex partners while still having homophobes on its Board or on its janitor staff -- and obviously among its shareholders. When I said a company with those kinds of policies is "gay friendly" I didn't mean every single individual connected to that company is whatever the opposite of homophobic is.

So sure, if a company initiates some gay-friendly policy, it's hard to determine to what extent those decisions come from genuine altruistic emotions versus business motivations. For all we know, Ben & Jerry don't really like doing whatever good deeds it is they do, but they just hold their noses and keep reminding themselves that "these people buy our ice cream."

But having talked to a fair number of business leaders -- in stories I've worked on, among family members, etc. -- I know that they actually do tend to have opinions about social issues, and sometimes they act on those opinions in setting business policies. Obviously the Chick-fil-A guy did it, in a gay-unfriendly way, and there are people who are the opposite, and do it in a gay-friendly way.

Does anyone really care, as they're collecting their partner benefits, whether some random shareholder or janitor or Board member thinks they're a good idea? That shouldn't even have to be the point.

Portraying sexual minorities in appealing ways--which itself is all a matter of opinion, and which sexual minorities will debate among thcemselves--

Yes. I didn't mean to imply that sexual-minority opinion is homogenous. I was just trying to shorthand a more complex concept so I could get to my point. Let's just say, portray them in ways that few if any gay people find offensive. Or whatever.

does not show how friendly a news and entertainment outlet is. It simply shows how savvy they are at capturing gay viewers, and people who are likely to appreciate those portrayals. If a network is not testing well with gay viewers, the fix is easy: have a detective on one of your hardboiled crime dramas come out of the closet, give a gay person a talk show, or give a gay comedian a sitcom. Problem solved. None of this has anything to do with friendliness.

This argument is circular because you're not really disagreeing with what I keep saying. Yes, again, networks make decisions based on viewers = advertising = money. Decisions are generally based on the extent to which they enhance or detract from those components.

And yet! Networks are run by actual people, and those people have opinions. And scripts are written by actual people, and if those people are raging homophobes, they're probably not going to be skilled at writing good scripts about a gay detective. So yes, to a certain extent, the talent and decision-makers have to be on board with the philosophy.

Here's a good example. You might not be able to follow it if you don't watch "The Walking Dead," but Chuck will, so I'll see what he thinks. As background, TWD is about zombies, and it's the highest-rated show on TV not including sports and awards shows -- even though it's on cable.

By far the most popular cast member -- the show's breakout star, like Fonzie was on "Happy Days" -- is the character Daryl, who is a tough, brawny, badass who comes from the backwoods of Georgia and carries a crossbow. Not long ago, a rumor floated around that Daryl might be revealed to be gay. That hasn't happened yet on the show -- although when the latest season ended he was hanging around with a gay couple, so it still might. Anyway, at the time, the showrunner said he couldn't reveal anything but that, sure, that was a definite possibility.

Now think about who watches a zombie show. This isn't some highfalutin' prestige cable drama like "Mad Men." It's a zombie show, plain and simple, lots of blood and guts and action. In other words, I'm guessing that a large chunk of those 17 million viewers are young, straight men who admire Daryl as a tough badass.

What I'm saying is in that particular case, a showrunner made comments that, if anything, risked being a turnoff to the show's core audience. But he did it anyway, presumably influenced at least in part by his own personal attitudes.

[milomorris]

So to summarize, K, we both understand that sometimes companies do things that gay people like because its good for the bottom line, and sometimes they do things gay people like because someone with authority has an altruistic mind set. Sometimes its one or the other, sometimes its both.

Again, what I find annoying is that there are those in the public who squee every time a commercial for laundry detergent features a same-sex couple. And I find it equally annoying that there are those that accuse companies of "promoting" homosexuality every time a commercial for laundry detergent features a same-sex couple. Both groups are projecting emotional values onto the company that probably don't exist.

[serious crayons]

Again, what I find annoying is that there are those in the public who squee every time a commercial for laundry detergent features a same-sex couple. And I find it equally annoying that there are those that accuse companies of "promoting" homosexuality every time a commercial for laundry detergent features a same-sex couple. Both groups are projecting emotional values onto the company that probably don't exist.

I don't think the people who squee (or, for that matter, those who squee when a commercial features a biracial couple) are thinking "Yay! The chairman of the board of Proctor & Gamble has finally seen the light!" I think they're happy that gay couples are being presented to the general public as "normal," which until now they have not been (outside of home-decorating magazines and articles -- for years, the big exception to the rule). The chairman of the board may or may not be gay friendly, but presumably s/he thinks the general public is gay friendly enough that they'll still buy the laundry detergent or Cheerios, which is a sign of huge progress.

The people who say companies are "promoting" homosexuality are actually kind of right. For whatever deep-down emotional/business reason, those companies are choosing to promote their product with imagery that they know a segment of consumers will not like. The company for whatever reason does not worry about those people, has decided that the culture has progressed to the point that that segment no longer calls the shots, that the potential loss of that segment's business is not threatening enough to prevent the company from running the commercial.

Good news, however it came about.

[Jeff Wrangler]

The state does not allow for married men or women to have sex outside their marriages.

As usual in the U.S., laws vary from state to state. Adultery and fornication ceased to be a crime in Pennsylvania in 1973.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery

[milomorris]

As usual in the U.S., laws vary from state to state. Adultery and fornication ceased to be a crime in Pennsylvania in 1973.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery

I didn't know that.

[x-man]

Guys, I am going to be silent for some days or even a couple of weeks or so (“Oh thank God!” I hear you cry.)  Something is wrong with my eyes, and it will have to be taken care of.  I see an ophthalmologist on Thursday.  My GP says it looks like something that can easily be fixed, although it may require laser surgery.  It's not cattaracks, I already had that.  It started in Penang when I noticed that everything was getting misty, and it has gotten worse.  I can't read books, and now I am having trouble with the screen, although I can read it slowly.  The keyboard is pretty difficult to deal with.  So, I will continue to read your postings, but I won't be responding for a bit.  Please keep things going while I am invisible, like MacArthur said, “I shall return.”

One thing before I go, I like the direction this thread has taken in discussing the effects of corporation concerns in the portrayal of the LGBT world.  I would ask you Americans to add some examples and  explanation to your comments for those of us who are not living in the States.  This is important especially when you are talking about advertising because, at least in Canada, American commercials are blocked out here and are replaced by Canadian ones.  More examples and spelling things out in ore detail would be very helpful to us who are not fortunate enough to live in America. 

[Jeff Wrangler]

Good luck, Friend!

[Front-Ranger]

Sorry to hear about your eye problems and hope it gets cleared up soon!

[serious crayons]

One thing before I go, I like the direction this thread has taken in discussing the effects of corporation concerns in the portrayal of the LGBT world.  I would ask you Americans to add some examples and  explanation to your comments for those of us who are not living in the States.  This is important especially when you are talking about advertising because, at least in Canada, American commercials are blocked out here and are replaced by Canadian ones.  More examples and spelling things out in ore detail would be very helpful to us who are not fortunate enough to live in America. 

I haven't seen a commercial featuring a same-sex couple but I think there might have been one online. The Cheerios commercial I saw with a biracial couple I first saw online, though it might have been on regular TV, too.

The only other example of gay people in commercials is when J.C. Penney invited Ellen Degeneres to be its spokesperson. There was an organized homophobic protest, as I recall, but J.C. Penney basically said "screw you" to the protesters and kept Ellen. J.C. Penney, for those not familiar with it, is sort of a downscale department store. Or was? I know the store was struggling, and I'm not sure Ellen saved it.

[x-man]

I haven't seen a commercial featuring a same-sex couple but I think there might have been one online. The Cheerios commercial I saw with a biracial couple I first saw online, though it might have been on regular TV, too.

The only other example of gay people in commercials is when J.C. Penney invited Ellen Degeneres to be its spokesperson. There was an organized homophobic protest, as I recall, but J.C. Penney basically said "screw you" to the protesters and kept Ellen. J.C. Penney, for those not familiar with it, is sort of a downscale department store. Or was? I know the store was struggling, and I'm not sure Ellen saved it.

I guess I can write one more post before I bow out temporarily.  Serious crayons,  gay references sometimes appear here on Canadian government and NGO television ads.  For example, on a recent ad for the Canadian Labour Congress commercial celebrating the Congress' inclusivity, it shows several categories of people they help—women, children, First Nations, etc.  In one, we see two policemen leaving the station after work.  They talk as they walk down the steps.  Then one cop walks one way while the other walks over to a man standing nearby and puts his arms around him,  They embrace and walk away together.  I have seen a few from large companies.  One was from Tide detergent.  It shows two men in their house who have just done their laundry.  They are discussing how bad the no-name detergent they had used before they switched to Tide  was.  One says the first detergent was being consigned to their “pantry of shame" below the kitchen sink.  The other says," Like your shorts?” and holds up a pair of garish flower-print boxer shorts. " No, like your ex” replies the other.  I don't know how many straight people would catch on, but any gay man would get it immediately.  My gaydar went off the moment I first saw them.  I even emailed Tide to congratulate them on the commercial, and they emailed me back to thank me.  That kind of commercial must appear on US television.  Could you be missing them?

[milomorris]

I saw the Tide commercial on the Internet, so I don't know if it aired on TV in the US or not.

This one did air on broadcast and cable TV here in the US:

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuXI8ODjDw&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

There's also a Ford F150 spot that was in rotation for a while this past winter. I'll see if I can find it.

[Jeff Wrangler]

The Cheerios commercial I saw with a biracial couple I first saw online, though it might have been on regular TV, too.

Yes, it was. I saw it on regular TV. And there is a second commercial with the same "family." The little girl is told that she's going to have a baby brother (IIRC), and she uses her acquiescence as a bargaining chip to get a puppy. 

[CellarDweller]

Yup, that's the one.

I can't see the video Milo posted, is it the one of the two guys playing football?

[milomorris]

I can't see the video Milo posted, is it the one of the two guys playing football?

It is. You actually posted it first.

[CellarDweller]

It is. You actually posted it first.

Yeah, that's a great video.  I couldnt' see it becasue I was at work, and the job blocks access to sites like YouTube or DailyMotion.

[x-man]

Guys, I'm back sooner than I expected.  Was at the ophthalmologist today.  It was like stepping back into the 1950' literally.  The equipment was that dated, and so was the  doctor.  The nurse saw the tarot card tattoos on my arms and wanted me to do a reading for her.  The whole scene got a little surreal.  Anyway I learned nothing except that I am probably not going quickly blind, and will be seeing a retinologist soon.  Until then I will struggle on here, just taking a long time to read the screen and to type without too many typos.

I have been thinking about the question that has reappeared on this site about media portrayal of gay men.  Discussing this topic here and on other sites in Bettermost, I began to realize that I seemed to be looking at the whole question differently from the rest of you.  I suspect that the reason for this is that you guys are content to look at TV and movie presentations of gay men in situtions where it is ONE gay character in the midst of  a bunch of straight people, and the reason that one character is gay is so the plot can revolve around the problems he has dealing with a straight world.  Thus comes the preoccupation with how the individual gay man comes across and  how butch or flamboyant he is etc. is important to know because that influences how he is treated by the straight world.  I have 2 contrary examples.  The first is Alicia's brother in The Good Wife.  He is a regular guy and his orientation seldom matters at all—to keep the story moving he could just as easily be straight.  Contrast this with most other situations where a gay person is involved like, say, Degrassi.  It's old I know, but it is Canadian and was progressive in its time.  In Degrassi the straight students' story lines were about their interactions including lots of young love, sex and teenage angst.  For  the one or two LGBT characters the story was all about their problems being gay.  For example the bit with Riley, the captain of the football team, and his boyfriend Zane—all about the problems they had coming out, dealing with homophobia, and the like.  We never saw them in bed together “doing it.” or even getting ready to, or even the slightest indication that they actually DID do it.  And Degrassi was made in Canada where gay love isn't such a big deal. The difference between the way they are dealt with in scenes where they are together alone, and the same kind of situations involving males and females is quite different.  We don't see Riley and Zane reacting to the world as lovers, just how to deal with an ambivalent to hostile straight world outside. 

Now this may be of great novelty to straight people, but to gays it is a fact of life we have to deal with every day.  We know all about it, and I hardly need to have it take up my TV watching  time—much less am I going to be grateful for even being shown a bit of gay life.   Riley and Zane and their like may be telling straights that we are just people like they are, but this is not news to us, and frankly I find it extremely disappointing.  Contrast this to program where virtually everybody is gay—like QAF and Looking, and most gay movies (not gay-theme movies like BBM but real gay movies).  Now QAF and Looking may be soap operas, but they do give me a chance to watch gay men dealing with each other and with situations common to gay men, where love scenes are comprensible to me, and where the humour often has an in-gay quality to it that I find very funny.

 This is a bit off the topic above, but what do you think of Two and a Half Men compared to Looking?  Sleazy is too kind a term to describe the former.  What if we got our understanding of straight men from Sheen?  And then Big Bang Theory—what world does that show describe?  Those guys are so nellie yet so far in the closet they will never come out.  (Yes I know the main character came out in real life.)

News flash to any X-MEN fans out there.  In the latest issue of the comic book, Ice Man is revealed to be gay.

Milo, any chance you could download the video here like you did for the TV commercial? 
 

[x-man]

  And would you do the same to those "straight person, even the most gay-friendly"?  Push the button and make us disappear, thinking you would be doing the gay world a favor?

It just dawned on me:  bf, you are telling us you're STRAIGHT?!!!!  Oh God, I'm sorry.  Are you sure?  You are too young to know who you are.  When did you decide to be straight?  Maybe you are just going through a phase.  Maybe you just haven't met the right boy.  Didn't your mother smother you enough?  Did your parents make you play with trucks and play baseball rather than let you play with dolls and dress up in your mother's clothes?  You know there is always ex-straight conversion therapy.  We all just want to help you.

[serious crayons]

I have been thinking about the question that has reappeared on this site about media portrayal of gay men.  Discussing this topic here and on other sites in Bettermost, I began to realize that I seemed to be looking at the whole question differently from the rest of you.  I suspect that the reason for this is that you guys are content to look at TV and movie presentations of gay men in situtions where it is ONE gay character in the midst of  a bunch of straight people, and the reason that one character is gay is so the plot can revolve around the problems he has dealing with a straight world.  Thus comes the preoccupation with how the individual gay man comes across and  how butch or flamboyant he is etc. is important to know because that influences how he is treated by the straight world.  I have 2 contrary examples.  The first is Alicia's brother in The Good Wife.  He is a regular guy and his orientation seldom matters at all—to keep the story moving he could just as easily be straight.  Contrast this with most other situations where a gay person is involved like, say, Degrassi.  It's old I know, but it is Canadian and was progressive in its time.  In Degrassi the straight students' story lines were about their interactions including lots of young love, sex and teenage angst.  For  the one or two LGBT characters the story was all about their problems being gay.  For example the bit with Riley, the captain of the football team, and his boyfriend Zane—all about the problems they had coming out, dealing with homophobia, and the like.  We never saw them in bed together “doing it.” or even getting ready to, or even the slightest indication that they actually DID do it.  And Degrassi was made in Canada where gay love isn't such a big deal. The difference between the way they are dealt with in scenes where they are together alone, and the same kind of situations involving males and females is quite different.  We don't see Riley and Zane reacting to the world as lovers, just how to deal with an ambivalent to hostile straight world outside. 

Now this may be of great novelty to straight people, but to gays it is a fact of life we have to deal with every day.  We know all about it, and I hardly need to have it take up my TV watching  time—much less am I going to be grateful for even being shown a bit of gay life.   Riley and Zane and their like may be telling straights that we are just people like they are, but this is not news to us, and frankly I find it extremely disappointing.  Contrast this to program where virtually everybody is gay—like QAF and Looking, and most gay movies (not gay-theme movies like BBM but real gay movies).  Now QAF and Looking may be soap operas, but they do give me a chance to watch gay men dealing with each other and with situations common to gay men, where love scenes are comprensible to me, and where the humour often has an in-gay quality to it that I find very funny.

So I guess what you're saying is you prefer shows where all or most of the characters are gay so their gayness doesn't have to be the main point of their character? Or something like that.

Well, I haven't seen any of the shows you mentioned. All I know about Degrassi is that Drake was on it, right? I watched Episode 1 of The Good Life because I was considering binging it -- I've heard it's a good show -- but that was a few months ago and I haven't gotten back to it yet.

But I guess overall it seems like shows where the majority of the audience is straight are either going to make a bigger deal about gay characters' gayness, as in Degrassi ... or they're just going to make gay characters who could just as easily be straight, as in The Good Wife. There are a few shows with mainly straight audiences that have shown same-sex people in bed together, but I agree it's rare -- and when it does happen it's on cable or Netflix or HBO -- because for much of straight America that is still a sort of jarring sight. (I once was on the phone with a friend who had "Six Feet Under" in the background and she paused the conversation to note that two male characters onscreen were "doing it" -- she was kind of shocked, not so much by seeing men have sex, though that may have been the first time she'd seen that, but that a TV show was depicting it. That was years ago, so I assume it's somewhat more common now.)

It's too bad shows rarely show same-sex characters at least acting affectionate. Someday they'll show gay couples in bed together just like they do straight couples (though hopefully not doing it, because I'm usually not fond of those scenes in either orientation).

In shows like QAF and Looking, where the audience is assumed to be largely gay, they can get past all that and do some of the gay in-jokes you like.

This is a bit off the topic above, but what do you think of Two and a Half Men compared to Looking?  Sleazy is too kind a term to describe the former.  What if we got our understanding of straight men from Sheen?  And then Big Bang Theory—what world does that show describe?  Those guys are so nellie yet so far in the closet they will never come out.  (Yes I know the main character came out in real life.)

I'm afraid my eyes and ears have, on a few occasions, been assaulted by scenes from Two and a Half Men. Never by my choice, but because my sons have watched it and I've walked past the TV long enough to make a snide comment. I've never seen BBT because even my sons hate that one. I've never seen Looking because the reviews weren't very compelling.

But I'm not sure I understand your point. We don't get our understanding of straight men from Charlie Sheen. Yet there are straight men who are like Charlie Sheen -- for example, Charlie Sheen. But yes, then there's also a million other portrayals of straight men who are nothing like that, so we can have a well-rounded view of straight men whereas we have less opportunity to do that with gay people. I guess that's what you're saying?

[serious crayons]

It just dawned on me:  bf, you are telling us you're STRAIGHT?!!!!  Oh God, I'm sorry.  Are you sure?  You are too young to know who you are.  When did you decide to be straight?  Maybe you are just going through a phase.  Maybe you just haven't met the right boy.  Didn't your mother smother you enough?  Did your parents make you play with trucks and play baseball rather than let you play with dolls and dress up in your mother's clothes?  You know there is always ex-straight conversion therapy.  We all just want to help you.

Those kinds of switcheroo comments are funny and make a valid point -- in other contexts.

But butlers fantasy made a serious, valid point. The comment to which he was responding was offensive and, with all due respect, ignorant. I kept meaning to say something about it and then thinking, oh, that's so over-the-top offensive it's not even worth responding to. But let's revisit.

I hope what I am going to say doesn't have the same effect as my "two kinds of straight people" did, but the grimmer part of me tentatively believes that if a straight person, even the most gay-friendly, had the chance to get rid of the LGBT problem for good, by simply pushing a button and we would all disappear--no one would get hurt, we would just disappear--that they would push the button without hesitation, believing they were doing the world a favour.

In fact, this isn't just offensive, it's baffling. What exactly is "the LGBT problem" that concerns even gay-friendly straights? How would "getting rid of it for good" be in any way useful to non-homophobic straight people?

In other words, as a straight person, I can't see any way that the existence of gay people negatively affects me. Why would I object if they exist on the earth, or want to do anything about it?

I don't know your ethnicity, but let's say you're white. Would you want to push a button and make all non-white people disappear? I do know you're a man. Do you wish you could eliminate the "woman problem"?

[Jeff Wrangler]

In fact, this isn't just offensive, it's baffling. What exactly is "the LGBT problem" that concerns even gay-friendly straights? How would "getting rid of it for good" be in any way useful to non-homophobic straight people?

In other words, as a straight person, I can't see any way that the existence of gay people negatively affects me. Why would I object if they exist on the earth, or want to do anything about it?

Maybe it's not the existence, per se, but the constant harping of rights activists? Gets tiresome to the point that there are days even I, who theoretically have benefited from rights activism, just wish the activists would go away, at least for a while.

Yes, it's the squeaky wheel that eventually gets the grease, but sometimes that squeaking gets tiresome.

[milomorris]

Milo, any chance you could download the video here like you did for the TV commercial?  

I cannot find the Ford F-150 commercial anywhere.

But as far as other TV in the US goes, there have been quite a few shows over the last decade or so that depict homosexual men. Most of the time, the plot lines are not about being a homo in a hetero world. Shows like All My Children, Greek, Brothers & Sisters, The Wire, Oz, Six Feet Under, Scandal, Nashville, and The Night Shift have all routinely put sexual minorities in plot lines that have nothing to do with sexual orientation. And in many cases, there has been romance, intimacy, and the occasional sex scene.

[serious crayons]

Maybe it's not the existence, per se, but the constant harping of rights activists? Gets tiresome to the point that there are days even I, who theoretically have benefited from rights activism, just wish the activists would go away, at least for a while.

Yes, it's the squeaky wheel that eventually gets the grease, but sometimes that squeaking gets tiresome.

I would guess the harping of rights activists is more of an issue in the lives of the people they're harping on behalf of? I mean, gay-rights activists are so peripheral to my life that their actions don't bother me in the least; I'm barely aware of them. (The most annoying they ever get is when someone from the HRC telephones or comes to my door to hit me up for a donation, but that annoys me whatever the organization's purpose.) And of course, to the extent I'm exposed to the conflict at all, I'm much more bothered by the harping of anti-gay activists.

So to plug your opinion and my opinion into x-man's scenario, it would be gay people (and homophobes) pushing the button.

If I could push a button and make telemarketers and door-to-door solicitors disappear, I would gladly do that! 

[x-man]

Those kinds of switcheroo comments are funny and make a valid point -- in other contexts.

But butlers fantasy made a serious, valid point. The comment to which he was responding was offensive and, with all due respect, ignorant. I kept meaning to say something about it and then thinking, oh, that's so over-the-top offensive it's not even worth responding to. But let's revisit.

In fact, this isn't just offensive, it's baffling. What exactly is "the LGBT problem" that concerns even gay-friendly straights? How would "getting rid of it for good" be in any way useful to non-homophobic straight people?

In other words, as a straight person, I can't see any way that the existence of gay people negatively affects me. Why would I object if they exist on the earth, or want to do anything about it?

I don't know your ethnicity, but let's say you're white. Would you want to push a button and make all non-white people disappear? I do know you're a man. Do you wish you could eliminate the "woman problem"?

I think your not allowing me to try to inject some humour by turning the comments usually heard from parents in coming out scenes around is unnecessarily negative.  It was actually a response to his funny sarcastic posting a page or so back.  Your real ammunition was fixed on the button-pushing business.  I ask that you read ALL of what I say about a subject before jumping to conclusions.

I draw your attention to two points I made in the lead up to this issue:1) Just because I say a situation exists does not mean I endorse it, and 2) a current running through my postings on subjects like this  is that I am saying that these negative attitudes are something that LGBT people who are old enough to have gone through them personally--rather than reading about them in books or having watched a movie or two--can not just dump the personal baggage-- attitudes, beliefs, and fears they induced--just because the scenery seems to have changed in some parts of the world.  I compared it to Ennis being unable to jettison his fears in order to settle down with Jack.  In a posting I did about COURAGE in which I defended Ennis against charges that he was a coward, you seemed to accept my point that human beings could not simply get up in the morning and decide to act completely differently and slay the demons that had been afflicting them.

I introduced the button-pushing remark with words about "a deeper grimmer part of me believes..."  I would have thought that would be a clue that I was NOT suggesting that as me at my most rational, but something that under the right circumstances when the night is dark and the road is long come into my mind unbidden., like last night when I saw The Matthew Shepard Story for the first time.  I suggest you and I watch that movie in a completely different way:  You watch it probably evaluating how effecting it might be in solving a social ill--dispassionately, rationally, objectively, coldlly, as though preparing for a review on line.  Let's just say I am a little more emotionally involved; I relive actual events in my life.  If at your age you have lived a life free of anguish, free of anything you need to flee from but sometimes invades your mind, you are very lucky indeed.

"In fact, this isn't just offensive, it's baffling. What exactly is "the LGBT problem" that concerns even gay-friendly straights? How would "getting rid of it for good" be in any way useful to non-homophobic straight people?" you ask.  I can't take this remark seriously.  The "problem" is that it is a problem.  Look up from the google map of same-sex marriage states and see what the situation really is in the world.  I was presenting, not entirely seriously, a way that the whole problem--the Matthew Shepard murders that continue to happen, the hatred, the bullying, the bashing, the torture, the imprisonment, the murders (both private ones and at the hands of governments), all things I assume you would want to stop--would just go away without anyone getting hurt  But as I said any thoughts of button-pushing are about the emotional baggage many older LGBTs are stuck with, are "heir to" as I put it.  Those words were not written to point accusing fingers at you now, but to speak to some of the consequences of the way it used to be everywhere, and what will not just go away because we wish it would.

JEFF, I might as well take on your posting here as well.  You talk of squeaky wheels turned by gay activists being tiresome to listen to.  As I tried to explain to serious crayons, I am talking really about the past--a past you seemed to agree with me should not be forgotten.  I have not been an "AIDS activist" since the middle 90's when I was with People With AIDS, although I believe every gay person should on some level or another be a gay activist.  I draw a direct parallel between being a victim of homophobia (of those dark days) and being a victim of severe child abuse:  You NEVER get over it, no matter how much therapy you get.  NEVER!  For those who have net  experienced these, they will never understand--for those of us who have experienced them, we will never forget.

[x-man]

I cannot find the Ford F-150 commercial anywhere.

But as far as other TV in the US goes, there have been quite a few shows over the last decade or so that depict homosexual men. Most of the time, the plot lines are not about being a homo in a hetero world. Shows like All My Children, Greek, Brothers & Sisters, The Wire, Oz, Six Feet Under, Scandal, Nashville, and The Night Shift have all routinely put sexual minorities in plot lines that have nothing to do with sexual orientation. And in many cases, there has been romance, intimacy, and the occasional sex scene.

Thanks for the list.  I haven't seen any of them.  I am sure I have just missed some, and perhaps some have just not made it to Canada yet.  If what you say about them is true, it is good news indeed.

[Jeff Wrangler]

If I could push a button and make telemarketers and door-to-door solicitors disappear, I would gladly do that! 

Well, there used to be a "button" for telemarketers. It was called the "Do Not Call List." I don't know whatever happened with that. 

Let be, let be.

[x-man]

Let be, let be.

I agree.  BUT Jeff, I'm not surrendering, just agreeing to a truce.     

[Jeff Wrangler]

I agree.  BUT Jeff, I'm not surrendering, just agreeing to a truce.     

I was referring only to my mention of the "Do Not Call List," which was sort of beside the point.

[x-man]

I was referring only to my mention of the "Do Not Call List," which was sort of beside the point.

You have used "Let be.  Let be," in the past seeming to suggest that we all lighten up and back off.  That is what I thought you meant here, and I thought it was a good idea.  I honestly don't understand what you mean by referring it to the Do Not Call List.  I was worried that the thread was getting perilously close to what you once referred to as a train wreck in slow motion, inevitable in outcome.  But it is NOT inevitable.  We CAN put on the brakes and stop in time to chug off in another direction.  I still believe in keeping the arousal level high, but I am not the "x-man: conflict junkie" of old. 

[Jeff Wrangler]

I meant that I thought my reference to the "Do Not Call" list was sort of beside the point, so let it alone. Don't go there. No need to follow up.

[x-man]

I usually don't like washing gay dirty laundry in public, but this is too good to pass by.  It is a delightful parody of a type of gay man known to us all--the "bitchy queen."  I don't know about you, but I have a hard time dealing with them.  Enjoy.

https://vimeo.com/109852915

[x-man]

I have added the below paragraph to my first, introductory posting to this blog site.  If you haven't seen the interview I urge you to do so.

25 April 2015
I hope you all have had the chance to see the Bruce Jenner interview (link below)  I said in my posting above that I was talking about the way it used to be for transgender people, but probably is not now.  The Jenner interview reinforces my belief that it has indeed changed.  I only wish my father had had a chance to see it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/bruce-jenner-im-woman/story?id=30570350

[serious crayons]

I have added the below paragraph to my first, introductory posting to this blog site.  If you haven't seen the interview I urge you to do so.

25 April 2015
I hope you all have had the chance to see the Bruce Jenner interview (link below)  I said in my posting above that I was talking about the way it used to be for transgender people, but probably is not now.  The Jenner interview reinforces my belief that it has indeed changed.  I only wish my father had had a chance to see it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/bruce-jenner-im-woman/story?id=30570350

I did happen to see it. Bruce was great. However, I was stunned that people are still so ignorant that Diane Sawyer felt the need to explain basic facts like transgender people aren't (necessarily) gay.

I wrote a long profile of a transgender woman fashion model 22 years ago for the New Orleans' daily paper, and that TV segment didn't have anything in it that wasn't in that long-ago story. Except, of course, a famous person coming out on national TV.

I was inspired to write my story after seeing "The Crying Game," so that's how long ago that was.

[milomorris]

However, I was stunned that people are still so ignorant that Diane Sawyer felt the need to explain basic facts like transgender people aren't (necessarily) gay.

You might be even more stunned to learn that there are sexual minorities who don't understand the difference either.

[serious crayons]

Or the issue of surgery and how that's sort of irrelevant to a lot of trans people. I said as much in my article 22 years ago. I guess I'm just huffy because shouldn't my article have swept the nation and educated the entire population a long time ago?

The friend who was visiting works in medical records at a hospital. She said the hospital classifies people as male or female based on their genitalia. So if a post-op trans woman gets prostate cancer, the hospital can't deal with it and maybe insurance doesn't pay for it or something.

My response was, why don't they just make a rule that if a body part is in your body they treat it regardless of your gender? Oh no, they could never pass a rule like that, she said, it would just be too big and overwhelming to deal with. I said, for god's sake, Obamacare is overhauling the entire medical industry in major, major ways. I'm sure they can find some way to change this particular rule when the solution seems so obvious.

[Jeff Wrangler]

OK, I'll show my own ignorance here.

Katherine, was your friend--or were you--speaking hypothetically here, or from actual knowledge?

So if a post-op trans woman gets prostate cancer, the hospital can't deal with it and maybe insurance doesn't pay for it or something.

I would have thought that in male-to-female surgery, the prostate would have been one of the organs to "go," especially if the surgery involved creation of a vagina (I have read somewhere of that being done). But maybe not? 

[x-man]

You might be even more stunned to learn that there are sexual minorities who don't understand the difference either.

I am with you here, Milo.  I was one of them.  When you have the chance, check out my last posting to the TRANSGENDER... blog topic site,  I gave more details about my own situation because I was wondering about a real person who I did know, rather than about the trans community in general.  It is one thing to know that all trans people are unlikely to have the same sexual orientation theoretically, and the case of a specific person.  You guys should know me well enough to know that I refuse to be politically correct to play nicy-nicy.  I can understand logically that trans people must have various sexual orientations without really understanding it.  I did ask my father about this, but he talked around it and never did tell me how he was handling it.

I think that questions about the trans community are important, not only because I have a horse in the race (as we say in Canada), but because here the battle for gay and lesbian rights has been won--at least as far as law is concerned--and the battle has moved to recognition of the trans community.  How are they faring in the States? 

[CellarDweller]

I usually don't like washing gay dirty laundry in public, but this is too good to pass by.  It is a delightful parody of a type of gay man known to us all--the "bitchy queen."  I don't know about you, but I have a hard time dealing with them.  Enjoy.

https://vimeo.com/109852915

Strange video, but I loved the song at the end, it made me laugh.

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVFn51VNRVQ[/youtube]

[x-man]

Those kinds of switcheroo comments are funny and make a valid point -- in other contexts.

But butlers fantasy made a serious, valid point. The comment to which he was responding was offensive and, with all due respect, ignorant. I kept meaning to say something about it and then thinking, oh, that's so over-the-top offensive it's not even worth responding to. But let's revisit.

In fact, this isn't just offensive, it's baffling. What exactly is "the LGBT problem" that concerns even gay-friendly straights? How would "getting rid of it for good" be in any way useful to non-homophobic straight people?

In other words, as a straight person, I can't see any way that the existence of gay people negatively affects me. Why would I object if they exist on the earth, or want to do anything about it?

I don't know your ethnicity, but let's say you're white. Would you want to push a button and make all non-white people disappear? I do know you're a man. Do you wish you could eliminate the "woman problem"?

This kind of posting mystifies and angers me because it is based on a deliberate misreading of my posting which has led to a silly outrage showing amazing chutzpah.  My original posting about the button-pushing was prefaced by my comment that this was what came into my mind when things looked dark and grim, and came unbidden and unwelcome, and tentative.  This part seems to have gotten lost in the minds of the two out straight people in the discussion.  How horrifying that anyone could even THINK of criticizing the straight world for its history of brutality and murder aigainst the gay community!  Good God, don't gay people watch TV and movies and can't they be grateful that from time to time they are being portrayed as other than perverted, dangerous psychopaths or as step-n-fetch-it buffoons?   Sorry serious crayons and butlers fantasy, I DO watch but I'm NOT grateful.  If I were grateful, and saw it as our path "to the broad uplands of a brighter tomorrow," I would be just as deluded as you are.  You remind me of the prisoners in Plato's Allegory of the Cave from the Republic—mistaking shadows on the wall for reality.  Tear yourself away from the TV or movie screen for once, and look at reality.  To put it another way, echo the Chilean poet, Pablo Neruda:

send books back to their shelves,
I'm going down into the streets.

If you ever did go down into the streets, you would find a reality very different from one that would support your indignation.  Save your faux dismay for somebody else.  I'm not buying it.  I never buy intellectual dishonesty.

  
 

[Jeff Wrangler]

As for you, Jeff, your cries of enough gay activism, already, I don't buy that either.  Reading your words I was reminded of the three monkeys—one covering his eyes, another covering his ears, and the last one covering his mouth.  I believe every single member of the LGBT community has a moral obligation to be an activist for LGBT rights at least to the degree their ability and circumstance permit them to be.  The real world—not Plato's cave—does not give you licence merely to be  tired of it.  The futures, indeed lives, of your brothers and sisters are depending on you to do what you can—not to ignore the world and watch a rerun of Bewitched. 

Who died and made you God with the right to dictate what others should and should not do?

In the past 25 years I have buried one boyfriend and more friends than I can any longer count. I see far too many younger "brothers" who have no idea and less appreciation for what men of my generation have been through. If you want to die an old man fighting in the trenches, that's your prerogative, but there is also such a thing as passing on the torch to a new generation--since we're quoting others. I'm annoyed by TV show runners proving their liberal cred by adding gay characters now just because "gay" is trendy. Where were they when "gay" wasn't trendy?

I am under no obligation to work to make things better for a younger generation that wouldn't give me the time of day if my watch stopped--and neither are you, though, again, if you choose to, that's your prerogative. Just don't expect to be thanked for it, since the young know everything anyway, and gratitude to their elders is never very high on their list of priorities. If you think they're looking to you to fight for them, you're a fool.

Not that it's any of your damn business, but my priority is first, seeing that my aging and widowed father is well taken care of--with no siblings who might help me with the care and oversight--and second, to be blunt about it, to make sure I'm well cared for as I grow older, since experience has shown me that in the end, we all have to look out for ourselves. Am I selfish? Yes; my life experience has been that I need to be. Gay men can be the most self-absorbed creatures on earth; don't expect younger gay men to be around to help you when you need it.

And reading your blog shows me that you're in no position to complain about posters twisting other people's words.

Get your head out of your ass and go to hell.

[morrobay]

My original posting about the button-pushing was prefaced by my comment that this was what came into my mind when things looked dark and grim, and came unbidden and unwelcome, and tentative.  This part seems to have gotten lost in the minds of the two out straight people in the discussion. 

It didn't get lost - I just find it sad for you that some small dark, grim, tentative part of you believes it.  I'm a straight woman and have no idea of what you've experienced over the years, in a largely gay-hating world.  And nobody's asking you to be grateful for anything. 

How horrifying that anyone could even THINK of criticizing the straight world for its history of brutality and murder aigainst the gay community!  Good God, don't gay people watch TV and movies and can't they be grateful that from time to time they are being portrayed as other than perverted, dangerous psychopaths or as step-n-fetch-it buffoons?   Sorry serious crayons and butlers fantasy, I DO watch but I'm NOT grateful. 

what makes  you think that I view the stereotypes on TV (which I really don't, I think all the current shows including Modern Family unwatchable for many reasons) as realistically representative, or well-written or anything but a money-making ploy to get on the current trend of loving the gays?  It will pass, just like The Jeffersons, when they find the next new minority to court.

As for you, Jeff, your cries of enough gay activism, already, I don't buy that either.  Reading your words I was reminded of the three monkeys—one covering his eyes, another covering his ears, and the last one covering his mouth.  I believe every single member of the LGBT community has a moral obligation to be an activist for LGBT rights at least to the degree their ability and circumstance permit them to be.  The real world—not Plato's cave—does not give you licence merely to be  tired of it.  The futures, indeed lives, of your brothers and sisters are depending on you to do what you can—not to ignore the world and watch a rerun of Bewitched. 
 

Your words to Jeff are quite idiotic, in my opinion, for reasons he has stated well, including your total ignorance of his own personal life situation, and to which i need not add. 
Although i think it's extremely odd that you call on Jeff "to do what you can", yet you think that straights who work for and support your cause are asking you to be grateful for that work?? 

Since i'm not needed, i think i'll go watch another rerun of Bewitched - I LOVE Paul Lynde!

[CellarDweller]

I see  both sides of this discussion.

The generation who has been there and done that should share the knowledge (if asked) instead of just saying "been there, done that".   Sharing that knowledge can be as easy as just being visible in the gay community.  After all, now many times have we heard that gay men had their role models from TV, or simply had none at all?

that being said, not everyone wants to be a role model, nor should they be.  Those that choose not to be should not be the targets of venom and criticism because they have things going on in their real lives, and must tend to them.

[x-man]

Who died and made you God with the right to dictate what others should and should not do?

Get your head out of your ass and go to hell.

Jeff, 

GOTTCHA!  I do believe what I wrote, but I didn't need to say it quite like that. I knew you would rise to the bait and bring some excitement.  Don't hate me--you know my penchant for trying to set a cat amongst the pigeons, as I like to say.  To be fair, Jeff, I DID say we all have a moral obligation to the extent that our ability and situation permit.  Perhaps you have reached the stage where you must pass on the torch, but you do strike me as the sort of person who will not abide homophobic insults to pass you by.  I may have been risky in poking an old bear, but I know that old bear has a good and brave heart.  I wouldn't even want you to change a thing!  Can you forgive me?  Don't hold a grudge--I didn't.  You knew it was going to be intense and edgy when I started this blog.  So hang on, keep the energy level high, and we'll all have an interesting time.  I absolutely refuse to take back any of my compliments about you, no matter how much you trash me!   

butlers fantasy,

You know I like your postings--they are so strange they often leave me quizzical--which I enjoy a lot.  Odd. I could have sworn you were a man.

Cellar Dweller,

You seem to me generally to take a moderate accommodating position.  I like that because I know I need not fear attack  or anxiety (as much as I can be charged with bringing it on myself).  I was afraid you had taken my last posting, on another thread, addressed to you personally, as being all directed to you.  It wasn't,  I started out referring to the quote I gave, but then I was looking elsewhere, and when I said "you" I meant the plural--you all.

[morrobay]

Odd. I could have sworn you were a man.

If I had a dollar for every time someone said that to me-

[milomorris]

The generation who has been there and done that should share the knowledge (if asked) instead of just saying "been there, done that".   Sharing that knowledge can be as easy as just being visible in the gay community.  After all, now many times have we heard that gay men had their role models from TV, or simply had none at all?

I assume when you say "role model," you mean a sexual minority who can be an example for young sexual minorities, as opposed to role models in general...right?

[milomorris]

I would have thought that in male-to-female surgery, the prostate would have been one of the organs to "go," especially if the surgery involved creation of a vagina (I have read somewhere of that being done). But maybe not? 

Apparently removing it is unnecessary. And I don't think I need to tell most guys how complicated the surgery is. So it is usually left in place. Besides, the hormone therapy makes it shrink. The vaginoplasty creates a space that runs between the prostate and the rectum. Supposedly the prostate then becomes the "G spot." But I don't see how that works because most men aren't wired for prostate orgasms.

[milomorris]

I believe every single member of the LGBT community has a moral obligation to be an activist for LGBT rights at least to the degree their ability and circumstance permit them to be.

I disagree. And you could replace "LGBT" with black, Jewish, latino, etc. and I would still disagree. No member of any group owes anything to the group as a whole. They might have a moral obligation to individuals such as their parents, colleagues, educators, and neighbors who have helped them along the way, but that is up to the individual to decide.

Do I wish more young black men would conduct themselves in a way that they would take advantage of the opportunities that Martin Luther King, Jr., Medgar Evers, and the other Civil Rights leaders helped to create for us? You bet I do. But I don't think these young black men are morally obligated to do so. However, I do think that young black men have a moral obligation to themselves to build their characters in ways that would allow them to take advantage of those opportunities. Likewise, I think that young sexual minorities have a moral obligation to themselves to build their characters in ways that will allow them to succeed and thrive.

[x-man]

I assume when you say "role model," you mean a sexual minority who can be an example for young sexual minorities, as opposed to role models in general...right?

Milo, could you explain this in a little more detail?  I'm not sure I get what you're driving at.

[milomorris]

Milo, could you explain this in a little more detail?  I'm not sure I get what you're driving at.

As I grew up, there were certain black men that were role models in my life who helped me understand what it means to be a black man. And there were other role models who were neither black nor men who helped me understand other aspects of life.

See what I mean?

[CellarDweller]

I assume when you say "role model," you mean a sexual minority who can be an example for young sexual minorities, as opposed to role models in general...right?

correct

[Front-Ranger]

If I had a dollar for every time someone said that to me-

Me too!

[x-man]

The direction this thread has taken in response to my provocative posting and the dramatic responses to it raise a few questions—2 of which are: Does a member of the LGBT community (or any oppressed minority for that matter) owe anything to the community at large?  And, why is x-man so obsessed by this question—to the point of seeming to suggest that anyone who does not see it my way is morally wrong?  I'd like to leave the first question for later, but I would like to address the second one now.

The answer to it I only fully realized not all that long ago, and it is one I have never told anyone else.  I mean it, no one.  So here it is.

 I am almost possessed by the guilt I feel because I remained HIV negative while so many around me fell.  It certainly was not because I was the posterboy for safe sex.  Given my behaviour I should have become positive early on.  I should have.  I was lucky to an extent I did not deserve, and for which I find myself apologizing still.  In the early 80's I was in graduate school;  I had heard of AIDS and that the catcher was more at risk than the pitcher, but that was about all I knew.  I screwed around, but as a lone wolf rather than a part of any community.  My time was occupied with school; I was on a full scholarship and didn't risk fucking up.  I was oblivious to what was happening in the gay community.  Then I was off to Morocco and then to Asia to teach.  At least in my earlier years teaching, HIV wasn't seen to be much of a problem, and it sure didn't make the news where I was.  I was not sexually active in Korea, but I was in Indonesia, Malaysia, Morocco and especially Thailand.  By the time I was spending a lot of time in Thailand  the HIV rate had gotten alarming.  Still I payed no attention.

You have to understand that before I returned to Canada in 1994 I had never touched a condom in my life.  It went completely against my whole understanding of what sex was all about.  At my doctor's insistence I got tested immediately upon my return.  A tense week of waiting, but Negative.  My unearned luck was holding.  My dedication to barebacking was not based on the difference in feeling between flesh and flesh versus flesh against latex.  To me the question was always that as human beings we are condemned to alienation from each other because our centres of consciousness are separate and that alienation can never be overcome—it is the price we pay for individuality.  Bees, ants, and some herd animals seem to have overcome this alienation to some extent, but at a price humanity would not pay.  In sex we come as close as possible to unity, but on the most fundamental level we are not successful.  But we try.  For me the essence of sex always centred on holding or being held, bodies pressing against each other, one person inside the other, indeed for a few moments literally glued together.  For the pitcher this is a sensation; to the catcher it is a realization—the closeness, the cries from deep within you, the sweat, the surrender, the coming together (pun intended).  I found transcendence in touch.   For me this would be just about gone with a condom in play.  

When I began working with People With Aids I finally woke up.  Virtually everyone there was HIV positive.  My boss and my editor knew I was negative, but otherwise I kept it secret.  Occasionally I was asked, but that was officially forbidden and only happened when someone wondered if I wanted to have access to some service, such as massage, that was only open to HIV positive people.  I always managed to talk around it without answering.  I was, in short, ashamed of being negative.  I had no right to be negative.  I was surrounded by positive men and a few women positive because of HIV positive boyfriends.  Antiretrovirals were on the distant horizon.  For the people I was with, HIV was a death sentence, and the main issue was how long that sentence could be delayed.  My job was to edit the news letter and write books to inform HIV positive people what lay in store for them—the various diseases and the sequence in which they usually came, and what could be done to stay as healthy as possible to delay them.  I was mandated to write for someone with an 11th grade education, a speaker of English as a second language, and with as much humour and lightness of touch as I possibly could.  This meant a lot of research on my part, a lot of learning, and the rapid realization of what those around me were going through, and how important it was to do all you could and to remain optimistic—in the face of tragedy.  I met so many brave and worthy men and women,  I should be amongst them, but so unfairly to them, I had been spared while they were doomed.  I have no right to be here, they do.  

So, you wonder why I am so obsessed?  Because I lost my chance to help out much.  Until 1994 I stood on the sidelines and watched.  You can't imagine how ashamed that makes me feel.  When I come on strong now, I am really accusing myself.  I am imploring other people to avoid my fate here.  I have no right to preach morality to anybody, but for me it was not so much a matter of cowardice but of ignorance.  For me there was no excuse for either one.
 

[Front-Ranger]

I think we all owe to the generations that came before us to be curious and to find out what they went through and why. It is said that those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. A certain amount of respect and understanding is called for, along with an attitude of wanting to build on the good outcomes of the past while learning from the bad outcomes.

My daughter would not call herself a feminist in any way, shape, or form. Yet, she is able to do many things that women of my mother's and even my generation could not do. She is a successful business woman and buys her own cars, equipment and property. When we bought our first house, I worked in the financial industry so I was able to get an attractive mortgage. Yet, the house deed listed my husband's name as owner along with the words "et ux" which actually means, in Latin, "and property." I threw a fit and had the escrow company change it to my name with the words, "et vir" instead. I was required to get my husband's written permission to make the change!! This is just one example of how things have changed. Depiction of women on TV has also changed...isn't there a show called VEEP now? I'm not up-to-date on the goings on in TV land, gay programs or otherwise, so I can't comment on that.

[serious crayons]

Katherine, was your friend--or were you--speaking hypothetically here, or from actual knowledge?

She was speaking from the experience of someone who works in medical records at a large hospital and has a degree in it.

I would have thought that in male-to-female surgery, the prostate would have been one of the organs to "go," especially if the surgery involved creation of a vagina (I have read somewhere of that being done). But maybe not? 

Good question. And Milo's answer sounds accurate to me. I guess I didn't think it through -- if I had I might have asked the same question or perhaps assumed that sex-change surgery just deals with the superficial parts. In any case, I thought my solution -- if you've got a body part, insurance should cover it -- seemed pretty simple, but my friend claimed it wasn't.

[CellarDweller]

Apparently removing it is unnecessary. And I don't think I need to tell most guys how complicated the surgery is. So it is usually left in place. Besides, the hormone therapy makes it shrink. The vaginoplasty creates a space that runs between the prostate and the rectum. Supposedly the prostate then becomes the "G spot." But I don't see how that works because most men aren't wired for prostate orgasms.

It is my understanding that the prostate is not removed with sex-reassignment surgery.

As for it becoming the 'g-spot', I believe I read that the prostate does not serve that purpose.

The testes are removed, and most of the inside of the penis, and the skin is 'tucked' inside to make a vagina.  Apparently it's easy to do this, and a number of drag queens will 'tuck' themselves up when performing, to prevent a tell-tale bulge in the front of the dress.

Anyway, because the head of the penis is the man's most sensitive spot, that will be tucked back and become the 'clitoris'

[serious crayons]

This kind of posting mystifies and angers me because it is based on a deliberate misreading of my posting which has led to a silly outrage

As I said, I was barely outraged enough to take the time to respond to your comment the first time because it just seemed so ill-considered and ignorant. But ignorant in a boring way, not worth getting into a ridiculous back and forth about. But [*sigh*] here we are. So I'll post my response, read yours if you make one, either respond to it or not, and then be done with your blog. There are other blogs and a whole wide internet out there that are far more worth my time.

My original posting about the button-pushing was prefaced by my comment that this was what came into my mind when things looked dark and grim, and came unbidden and unwelcome, and tentative.

Hmm. Let's revisit the preface to your original comment:

the grimmer part of me tentatively believes

You do mention "grim" and "tentative." I'm not seeing the part where you also said "dark," "unbidden" and "unwelcome." It sounded to me like you were admitting that, pessimistic though it might sound, you at least partly believe it.

How horrifying that anyone could even THINK of criticizing the straight world for its history of brutality and murder aigainst the gay community!

This part is so absurd that it tires me to even take on the argument -- and as many here can attest, I do not tire of arguments easily. Apparently what you're saying here is that I can't stand anyone criticizing straight people for committing violence, oppression and bigotry against gay people. This is an accusation you're making to someone who's been active on a Brokeback Mountain discussion board for more than nine years. Tell you what, somehow over those nine years of frequently discussing issues surrounding anti-gay discrimination and violence, not to mention getting into roughly 10 million arguments, this is the first time anyone has lobbed that one at me.

But if it helps to reassure you, x-man, I do recognize that such violence exists. Heck, if nothing else, I would have discovered it when I watched "Brokeback Mountain." But in fact, having read a newspaper or two in my lifetime, even the movie's horrifying depiction was not news to me. Not only do I encourage criticism of it, I would emphatically contribute to such criticism. As fucking any non-troll on this entire site would. Obviously. Jesus.

Oh but wait! Let's s again revisit what you actually said the first time. You were not talking about criticism of the straight community as a whole for acts of anti-gay violence throughout history. You were talking about an imaginary scenario in which (italics and question marks added)

even the most gay-friendly, had the chance to get rid of the LGBT problem [? ?? ??] for good, by simply pushing a button and we would all disappear--no one would get hurt, we would just disappear--that they would push the button without hesitation, believing they were doing the world a favour

This is so completely different from what you said above. I have to wonder if you read your own post. Again, you weren't talking about Ennis' dad here. You were talking about THE MOST GAY FRIENDLY people. You were talking about IF THEY COULD PUSH A BUTTON AND ELIMINATE ALL GAY PEOPLE. You said THEY WOULD do that WITHOUT HESITATION, feeling THEY WERE DOING THE WORLD A FAVOR. Like, Bye Jeff! Bye Milo! Bye Chuck! Sorry to have to do this, guys, but you've been destroying the world!

None of that even makes sense. I would recommend that the non-grim part of you tell the grim part of you to at least think through the logic or what it's saying. I explained earlier why that contention is ridiculous; you can look up my previous post yourself.

  Save your faux dismay for somebody else.  I'm not buying it.  I never buy intellectual dishonesty.

Fine by me. Like I said, there are other blogs on BetterMost and, beyond that, a whole beckoning internet.

[x-man]

Serious crayons writes, "None of that even makes sense."

Of course it doesn't--that was MY point.  I'm not going to defend the idea that the button-pushing business was logical, accurate, or even what I really believe.  I was saying that such thoughts come into my mind when things are looking bad in regard to matters LGBT--they come into my mind unbidden, undesired, and ultimately not accepted.  You want to spend your efforts being outraged about what you perceived as a bashing of straight people.  I wanted to make the point that a life of enduring homophobia can lead to such thoughts.  My whole argument was one of emotion, not logic, as should have been clear to you.  I am not going to go through it piece by piece as you did above.  What's the point?  We are not arguing a director's idea of motivation in the latest film you have reviewed.  We've done that sort of thing elsewhere, and lots of interesting things come out.  What is happening with this argument is flogging a dead horse, hunting last year's wolf.

I am an emotional and passionate man, perhaps to a fault. Am I not, perhaps, TOO emotional and passionate? some may wonder.  I would point to Rev. 3.15-16:  "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot.  I wish that you were cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm,, and neither hot nor cold, I will spue thee out of my mouth."  I had hoped my previous posting about why I am so taken with this issue would give some indication of where some of that emotion and passion has its origin.  SC, the  herd has moved on.  Let's drop it before any more damage is done.  Nitpicking will only keep antagonisms alive that should be allowed to die.

[CellarDweller]

Cellar Dweller,

You seem to me generally to take a moderate accommodating position.  I like that because I know I need not fear attack  or anxiety (as much as I can be charged with bringing it on myself).  I was afraid you had taken my last posting, on another thread, addressed to you personally, as being all directed to you.  It wasn't,  I started out referring to the quote I gave, but then I was looking elsewhere, and when I said "you" I meant the plural--you all.

I guess that depends on who you talk to.  LOL   I'm sure there are a few people in the past who would feel that my replies have had a bit of acid to them.

Everyone can let their passion overtake them, but that doesn't happen to me often.

[serious crayons]

You want to spend your efforts being outraged about what you perceived as a bashing of straight people.

As I believe I said at least twice, I was NOT outraged by your remark -- far, far from it. Believe me, I see outrageous things on the internet all day long -- things that in many cases actually DO upset or anger me -- and the remark you made was too ridiculous to scratch the surface. The only reason I finally bothered to respond to it was because I thought you were unfairly criticizing butlers fantasy.

Throughout my interactions with you, I have continually felt you ascribed far more investment and emotion in my responses to your comments than has ever existed. I'm sorry, but normally my interest level is actually pretty low.

I would imagine a gay man of your generation has seen a lot of suffering and oppression and injustice, and not only do you have my sympathies for that, in other hands I would be interested in hearing accounts of your experiences.

But I have no interest in interacting with someone whose comments seem designed mainly to stir up drama. And I'm definitely not interest in being called names or serving as your punching bag or standing in as representative for the entire straight community.

So ta ta.

[x-man]

I guess that depends on who you talk to.  LOL   I'm sure there are a few people in the past who would feel that my replies have had a bit of acid to them.

Everyone can let their passion overtake them, but that doesn't happen to me often.

Oso,

YOU with an acid tongue?  Hard to believe.  Perhaps I should count myself lucky that it hasn't yet been turned on me.  Let's hope it never has to be.

Now that I've got you here, I want to talk to you about tattoos, since I regard you as the Tattoo Man (referencing QAF) of BetterMost.  As you know, I recently got back from 6 weeks in Thailand and Malaysia.  From the time I got into the plane in Toronto until the time I got off the plane in Toronto when I got back, I wore tee shirts, so the tattoos on my arms were visible to all.  I was rather surprised by the reactions to them I got.  It started in the Hong Kong airport where I was awaiting a connecting flight to Bangkok.  A little Chinese boy walked passed me and surreptitiously ran his hand across my arm seeming to want to find out if he could feel them on my skin. It was charming.  

I should tell you about the tattoos before I go on.  When I got them, there was a certain look and content I wanted.  I didn't get them all at once, of course, but I had the plan.  I told my tattooer I was aiming at 1) a retro 1950's-60's look, 2) my having been a seaman, 3) looking like they had been put on haphazardly when I was drunk, 4) gay, and most of all 5) a memorial to a Friend (with the last I would have had his name tattooed across my forehead if I thought I could get away with it).  He got what I was after, and did it beautifully.  That's 8 tattoos, 2 outside and 2 inside on each forearm.

In both Thailand and Malaysia I was asked about them.  In Bangkok I was stopped on the street by Western men who complimented me on them.  I was naturally quite flattered.  The reason the tattoos were noticed was because lots of the men had tattoos, but most of them are a sleeve of an intricate floral or mythological theme--very complex, probably very expensive--but basically they were all alike.  I am sure when each guy got his tattoos he thought they were going to be unique, but when he looked around at everybody else's tattoos he saw how common they were.  Until I got to Penang, Malaysia, I did not see anyone with discrete tattoos, looking separate and unique.

The first guy I met in Bangkok was a spectacular muscle bear from Montreal.  He actually WAS a rugby player, playing for a team in Montreal while he studied to become a commercial pilot.  We talked about Canadian politics and tattoos.  He had no tattoos on his arms, and told me that visible tattoos were forbidden by airline companies.  However, he did have tattoos on his thighs--which, he shyly told me, were so muscular they were the size of lots of people's waist.  In fact with the last tattoo he had put on,  the tattooer had to take a break halfway through--in Asia tattooers charge by design and size rather than by the hour, and the tattooer didn't realize what he was getting into.  Anyway, you know me.  I had to force myself NOT to ask to see it.  I'm not THAT slutty, although he was obviously aware of what his body looked like and the effect it had on people seeing it.  He wouldn't be spending all that time in the gym if he didn't.

When I had the first tattoo put on, I was worried that I would soon regret it.  Not to be.  It wasn't long before I realized I really liked them.  I  fight to tell myself NOT to have any more put on, since I want to return to SE Asia next winter and must save my pennies.  Tattoos can be an expensive hobby.  How about you?

[CellarDweller]

I currently have three tattoos, I'm not sure it will ever be more than that.  LOL

I don't regret my tattoos at all, and I'm glad I have each one of them.

[x-man]

I currently have three tattoos, I'm not sure it will ever be more than that.  LOL

I don't regret my tattoos at all, and I'm glad I have each one of them.

Urs,

Only 3?  Come on, my furry friend, 3 is only a start!  What does your boyfriend—or other more casual friends—think about them?  Before I actually got a tattoo, I didn't really like them.  I come out of a generation of people who regard tattoos on men as making them look like hoods or bikers (and I was never into rough trade) and making women with tattoos look like whores.  Now on men they really turn me on (My mouth dropped open when I saw Ryan Gosling bare-chested in Place Beyond the Pines.), and I am neutral when I see them on women.  

Speaking of tattoos on women, the Canadian muscle bear told me that women often have a small tattoo on the small of their backs which he called the “tramp spot.”  I had never heard of this.  He knew I was gay so he explained that the tramp spot was there to provide the man something to aim at, as he put it, when he pulled out.  I didn't ask why a man would do that—I didn't want to be revealed as a total naif—but I am, being a gold star gay with absolutely no experience of women that way.  Later, in a cafe I hung out in, I asked some straight guys, “Why do some women have a tattoo on the small of their backs?”  “Tramp spot!”  They all cried out.  They didn't have an answer.  An American friend  suggested that it might be because of porn movies where they show the man cumming.  He said that people watching the film are not satisfied seeing a pleased  look on the man's face to indicate what had happened.  Well, that may explain it for porn movies, but why would any guy do it in real life?  What's the point of sex at all if you pull out before the climax?  I just don't understand—for straight or for gay sex.  As far as birth control or safe sex are concerned, isn't that what the pill and condoms are for?  Does anyone have any expanation for this phenomenon?
 

[CellarDweller]

My friends like them, my family got used to them.  LOL

My job has a restriction that tats can't be seen at work, so mine are on my upper arms, so I can wear short-sleeve shirts.

[x-man]

My job has a restriction that tats can't be seen at work, so mine are on my upper arms, so I can wear short-sleeve shirts.

Arktos,

Your job has restrictions against visible tattoos too?  I want you to join me in forming the T.L.A., the Tattoo Liberation Army!  We can march, have tattoo die-ins.

This all reminds me of when I grew my beard in 1963 (actually at the same time JFK was assassinated, but that wasn't the reason).  I was in northern BC.  Lots of guys had beards up there, but not down south.  At first I thought I was eventually have to shave it off. Then I realized there was no way anybody was going to make me shave--I've had the same beard (shorter now) for 52 years.  In southern Canada ("civilization") guys would ask me when I was going to shave it off.  Not wanting to waste time, I went straight to the Freudian subtext and answered: "I'll shave off my beard when you cut off your balls."  It shut them up every time.

With tattoos there is a similar problem if you want to teach in other countries.  Before starting they always give you a complete medical physical exam.  In some countries this would be no problem, but in some--like Korea--it would be.  The doctor would look at my tattoos,  see the gay content, and tell my prospective employer, and that would be it because doctors and employers there believe they can intrude on and disapprove of your personal life.  Thus I had no tattoos when I was teaching abroad.  Countries like Korea are so reactionary, if an employer discovers a male employee is having an affair with a female employee, they fire the woman.  I'm not sure what they would do if it were 2 men--probably fire both of them.)  Anyway, since I didn't have any tattoos until after I quit teaching, I never had to face that problem.  The beard was enough for them to cope with--but my academic credentials were such that they would take me beard or no beard.

Does anybody here have more than 8 tattoos?  Or am I the oldest, most tattooed, and biggest trouble-maker in BetterMost?  I can't do much about the first two, but I am working on the last one, and am trying to get my program together.   

[CellarDweller]

More than 8?   Not me for sure.....my younger brother may have that many.

[x-man]

The procedure on my eyes will take place on Tuesday, May 26.  They will be doing both eyes at the same time, and they say I will be able to see as good as ever immediately.  I'll be back to irritate you all then.  x-man forever will come back to life.
 

[CellarDweller]

Good luck on Tuesday!

[x-man]

Good luck on Tuesday!

Thanks, Urso (Esperanto).  This will be the third operation on my eyes.  3 times:  It makes one a little paranoid.  Maybe it is punishment for "Looking For Love In All The Wrong Places."8*  Ya think?
 

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MnU6p3sGSw

[CellarDweller]

Or perhaps too much masturbation? 

Isn't that one of the old wives tale?  You masturbate and go blind? 

[x-man]

Or perhaps too much masturbation?  

Isn't that one of the old wives tale?  You masturbate and go blind?  

I think you're right!  Is that why my right palm is hairy?  (I have to use Nair as a hand lotion.)  Maybe I should start hiring hustlers, so I won't need another operation.  Can't be too careful, can I ?