X-MAN AGAINST GAY TELEVISION

[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.