Do gays really just hurt themselves with "blatant" advertising?

[LeeshaJoy]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

That it reinforces stereotypes of effeminate gay men.

...by confirming that they exist?

[Really Not All That Bright]

I think that's pretty clearly not what I said.

[panache45]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

ETA: I do think that the S&M/biker/Rob Halford look and other stereotypical looks often seen at gay pride parades hurt the cause. Not because they cause gay paranoia, or anything, but because they reinforce existing stereotypes. The same goes for TV portrayals of gay characters as effeminate, like that one kid on Glee.

No, it's not the bikers and the effeminates who "hurt the cause." It's people who have to hide who they are, in order to fit into your cookie-cutter world of conformity. I have been in Pride parades since 1970, and sometimes I ride with the bikers, sometimes I'm with the "Faeries," and sometimes I sing with the Gay Men's Chorus. I even wore a 3-piece suit once. But whoever I'm with, and whatever I look like, I'm the same person. And if my diversity offends you, then maybe you could stand a little diversity in your own life.

So now we've seen a video that shows a guy coming home from war and embracing and kissing his partner . . . precisely what we've seen straight people doing every time anyone comes home from war. And somehow people get offended by this, because it reinforces a stereotype? What stereotype, that we're capable of the same emotions you have? Let's see if I understand this: Don't be effeminate, because that's a stereotype. Don't be overly masculine, because that's a stereotype. And don't be shown doing the exact same thing as everyone else, because someone, somewhere, will be offended.

The message is clear: The portrayal of us merely existing is offensive. We shouldn't be seen or heard, we should go back to being invisible, like we were back in the '50s. That will make the bigots happy.

Well, don't hold your breath.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

I think that's pretty clearly not what I said.

It's honestly not clear to me. I'm lost, I have no idea what you're arguing anymore.

[Ibn Warraq]

Saying that you're not homophobic but don't like seeing two guys kiss in public is like saying you're not an Islamophobe or a bigot, but you get upset at seeing women wearing Burkas or Hijabs and supporting laws banning the wearing of them.

[florez]

I am under the impression that stereotypes in general are demeaning and detrimental; that representations of the gay community as flamboyant and effeminate are a pigeonhole, yet I have gay friends living openly and being true to themselves who might seem close to that stereotype, especially to people who do not know them well.

My question is with the GLBT equality movement seeming to make so much progress in recent years, is the concern about how the community is seen/judged by the main-stream still as important?

Because, unless I am wrong, it would seem that the general public must be learning more everyday about what makes the group not so very different from heterosexual counterpart groups, except for hardcore haters and phobes who will also hopefully become more accepting in the future. Is this being too optimistic?

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by panache45

So now we've seen a video that shows a guy coming home from war and embracing and kissing his partner . . . precisely what we've seen straight people doing every time anyone comes home from war. And somehow people get offended by this, because it reinforces a stereotype? What stereotype, that we're capable of the same emotions you have? Let's see if I understand this: Don't be effeminate, because that's a stereotype. Don't be overly masculine, because that's a stereotype. And don't be shown doing the exact same thing as everyone else, because someone, somewhere, will be offended.

The message is clear: The portrayal of us merely existing is offensive. We shouldn't be seen or heard, we should go back to being invisible, like we were back in the '50s. That will make the bigots happy.

Well, don't hold your breath.

In fairness, if you mean these paragraphs to apply to Really Not All That Bright, he didn't say anything like that. That would be astro, along with Valteron's friend.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by panache45

No, it's not the bikers and the effeminates who "hurt the cause." It's people who have to hide who they are, in order to fit into your cookie-cutter world of conformity. I have been in Pride parades since 1970, and sometimes I ride with the bikers, sometimes I'm with the "Faeries," and sometimes I sing with the Gay Men's Chorus. I even wore a 3-piece suit once. But whoever I'm with, and whatever I look like, I'm the same person. And if my diversity offends you, then maybe you could stand a little diversity in your own life.

Oh, for fuck's sake.

I'm not offended. I am not demanding that anyone change their dress, mannerisms, or lifestyle. I am providing a (relatively) neutral outsider's perspective. Don't put words into my mouth.

I should know better than to participate in these threads by now.

[panache45]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

In fairness, if you mean these paragraphs to apply to Really Not All That Bright, he didn't say anything like that. That would be astro, along with Valteron's friend.

Ok, you're right, sorry. Some of that was directed toward astro and valteron's friend.

[Maastricht]

Just answering the OP: I think that is a very sweet and necessary tv commercial.
In fact, when I read the OP, I wondered if it was yet again about the almost annual "Do flamboyant gays harm other gay's acceptance"-debate.
Each year, after the Gay parade sends flamboyant gays in glittery pink thongs on boats down the Amsterdam Canals, like clockwork that debate starts up again.

[Valteron]

Originally Posted by Maastricht

Just answering the OP: I think that is a very sweet and necessary tv commercial.
In fact, when I read the OP, I wondered if it was yet again about the almost annual "Do flamboyant gays harm other gay's acceptance"-debate.
Each year, after the Gay parade sends flamboyant gays in glittery pink thongs on boats down the Amsterdam Canals, like clockwork that debate starts up again.

Well, as a non-flamboyant gay I sometimes DO get sort of embarassed that many people think the drag queen in a feather boa is representative of all of us. But then again, I would cut off my right arm before I betray my belief that people must respect differences, and not persecute those who may seem strange or off-beat, as long as they aren't hurting you or interefering with your rights.

[astro]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

I don't really care. Statistically, there is no fight for rights to be made in the younger generations. They get it already. If people in their 60s or 70s get cranky about it, well, paradigms shift one funeral at a time.

You think the majority of young, heterosexual American males "get it" and are perfectly comfortable with man on man snogging in their presence? Good luck with that fascinating hypothesis.

There are lots of people across the heterosexual demographic who are 100% on board with gay rights but are somewhat uneasy with gay men getting physical with each other. It does not make them bigots.

[Inner Stickler]

Originally Posted by astro

You think the majority of young, heterosexual American males "get it" and are perfectly comfortable with man on man snogging in their presence? Good luck with that fascinating hypothesis.

First of all, I said generation. The homophobic young men in America are more than outgunned by the non-homophobic young women. And, yes, when removed from situations where they feel societal pressure to assert their heterosexuality, most of the time, I find them to be perfectly progressive. Anyway, the difference between straight and gay is about 6 beers.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by astro

You think the majority of young, heterosexual American males "get it" and are perfectly comfortable with man on man snogging in their presence? Good luck with that fascinating hypothesis.

There are lots of people across the heterosexual demographic who are 100% on board with gay rights but are somewhat uneasy with gay men getting physical with each other. It does not make them bigots.

I know a lot of them who are, actually. And pretty indisputably the onus is on the rest of them to learn to be comfortable with it. Normalizing it by showing it on TV and not hiding who we are in public seems to me like the most sensible way to help the rest of these young heterosexual American males improve themselves.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by astro

You think the majority of young, heterosexual American males "get it" and are perfectly comfortable with man on man snogging in their presence? Good luck with that fascinating hypothesis.

I think the majority of people who are okay with gay rights are not particularly distressed by the sight of two men kissing. And since youth is directly correlated with acceptance of gay rights, it seems likely that young, heterosexual Americans in general are probably pretty comfortable with two guys kissing in their presence.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by astro

You think the majority of young, heterosexual American males "get it" and are perfectly comfortable with man on man snogging in their presence? Good luck with that fascinating hypothesis.

There are lots of people across the heterosexual demographic who are 100% on board with gay rights but are somewhat uneasy with gay men getting physical with each other. It does not make them bigots.

I think most people are annoyed by excessive tongue wrestling in public, period. In the case of the ad, it was a man greeting his boyfriend who had been away at war. Obviously, you'd see some more enthusiastic displays.

Most of the time, gay or straight, people are usually pretty much hold hands, simple kiss. I think we've all yelled, (or at least thought), "Get a room!" at a straight couple.

[drewtwo99]

Haha!!! Wow. I read through this entire thread before watching the video, and I am insanely aghast that anyone could even be remotely grossed out by this. This wasn't even heavy making out. In fact, it wasn't even making out at all. It was 2 kisses, possibly without even any tongue. After a guy comes home from war. And his boyfriend proposes to him.

If anything like that happened to anyone here, I think you'd see a LOT more passionate kissing that what we saw in that ad.

If that grossed you out, then... I feel sorry for you! I know you can't help it, which is why I feel sorry for you. I hope stuff like that won't continue to gross you out for your whole lives.

[Sitnam]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Saying that you're not homophobic but don't like seeing two guys kiss in public is like saying you're not an Islamophobe or a bigot, but you get upset at seeing women wearing Burkas or Hijabs and supporting laws banning the wearing of them.

To be fair here, the ire over the burkas and hijabs is their perception that the women wearing them aren't allowed a choice thereby subjecting them to a lesser station below men, a situation then exists of which a 'free society' is complicit in oppression.

And perhaps they have a point.

'Misunderstanding' would be the harshest accusation you can level at most of them.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Valteron

First of all, congratulations for coming around to support for gay marriage. We have a saying in French that only an idiot never chnages his mind. Your willingness to be convinced of an opposing viewpoint does not signify intellectual weakness but intellectual honesty.

May I ask what the "keystone" argument was that changed your mind? I would be fascinated to know.

For me, it wasn't so much that I was convinced by arguments for it. I was convinced by the weakness of arguments against it. That, and a gradual realization as I grew up that gay people weren't icky.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think I had already come to that realization before I joined the Dope. Not entirely certain, though.

Originally Posted by drewtwo99

Haha!!! Wow. I read through this entire thread before watching the video, and I am insanely aghast that anyone could even be remotely grossed out by this.

I don't think anyone in the thread has been grossed out. tdn appears to have been mildly uncomfortable about it.

[Lamia]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

You're missing the point, at least with regard to media portrayals. Sure, there are effeminate gay men - but not all gay men are effeminate, yet that's the only kind of gay man you see on TV.

It's not even the only kind of gay man you see on Glee. That particular show has two gay teen boys in the main cast, and two others who were significant recurring characters. A major character is also the daughter of a gay couple, although her dads (played by Jeff Goldblum and Brian Stokes Mitchell) have only appeared onscreen a couple of times.

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Probably. I'm not exactly a fan of the show, but I get the impression that it's certainly reinforcing the meathead jock and whore cheerleader stereotypes. This thread is about gays, though (and presumably the rest of the LGBT community).

Bit of a spoiler, but

SPOILER:

one of those meathead jocks on Glee is gay. One of the slutty cheerleaders was also a closet case who was sleeping with guys primarily to keep people from guessing the truth about her.

FWIW Glee is also one of the few shows to regularly feature non-white LGBT characters. Although the show has plenty of problems, lack of diversity of LGBT characters isn't really one of them.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

I don't think anyone in the thread has been grossed out. tdn appears to have been mildly uncomfortable about it.

Perhaps you missed all of astro's concern trolling posts.

[Fake Tales of San Francisco]

Originally Posted by Anaamika

FTR, I am totally straight so that bullshit line about "only gay people find this couple sweet and loveable" is just that - bullshit.

But are you female?

The reason I ask is, it dawned on me the other day that I find it kind of 'gross' whenever people I don't find attractive kiss. This advert doesn't make me feel uncomfortable per se, but I do have a similar internal reaction to others when two guys kiss. Two girls kissing on the other hand would almost always not create this reaction.
I've seen heterosexual couples kiss in public where I've been very much grossed out, far more so than my reaction to this video. I realised this is because those particular couples weren't exactly what you'd call attractive, very much the opposite. Is that bad? Maybe it is, but it's not like I can control those reactions. Regardless, I'm sure my feelings have nothing to do with the fact that they're gay. And I definitely support this video.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Lamia

It's not even the only kind of gay man you see on Glee. That particular show has two gay teen boys in the main cast, and two others who were significant recurring characters. A major character is also the daughter of a gay couple, although her dads (played by Jeff Goldblum and Brian Stokes Mitchell) have only appeared onscreen a couple of times.

Bit of a spoiler, but

SPOILER:

one of those meathead jocks on Glee is gay. One of the slutty cheerleaders was also a closet case who was sleeping with guys primarily to keep people from guessing the truth about her.

FWIW Glee is also one of the few shows to regularly feature non-white LGBT characters. Although the show has plenty of problems, lack of diversity of LGBT characters isn't really one of them.

Yeah, I admitted a bit further up that I was wrong about Glee.

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Perhaps you missed all of astro's concern trolling posts.

I meant astro, not tdn. Mea culpa.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Saying that you're not homophobic but don't like seeing two guys kiss in public is like saying you're not an Islamophobe or a bigot, but you get upset at seeing women wearing Burkas or Hijabs and supporting laws banning the wearing of them.

Not necessarily. I don't like watching men kiss each other; but then, I don't like watching men kiss women or puppies either. There's just something about men kissing that bugs me; gay porn with close ups of anal sex gets a shrug, but kissing gets a "yuck". Why? I've no idea.

[florez]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

To be fair here, the ire over the burkas and hijabs is their perception that the women wearing them aren't allowed a choice thereby subjecting them to a lesser station below men, a situation then exists of which a 'free society' is complicit in oppression.

And perhaps they have a point.

'Misunderstanding' would be the harshest accusation you can level at most of them.

If that really is the reason for the ire over seeing women wear traditional head coverings, then it is stereotyping a group of people, in that many Muslim women do so by choice. It is also arrogant and ignorant to assume to know the reason a woman wears a burka or hijab, just as it is arrogant and ignorant to assume that all gay men are effeminate.

[astro]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Perhaps you missed all of astro's concern trolling posts.

So my statement of support for gay rights, while at the same time expressing that I was not all that personally comfortable watching two men share soulful kisses was "trolling". I had no idea that dilemma would give you such a case of the vapors. Sorry about that.

It's good to know where you set the bar for people being able to support gay rights or discuss issues openly and honestly. Best of luck with that position.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by astro

So my statement of support for gay rights, while at the same time expressing that I was not all that personally comfortable watching two men share soulful kisses was "trolling". I had no idea that dilemma would give you such a case of the vapors. Sorry about that.

It's good to know where you set the bar for people being able to support gay rights or discuss issues openly and honestly. Best of luck with that position.

Actually, it was the part where you repeatedly argued that we shouldn't depict gay people doing normal things in TV commercials and pretended that it was for our benefit because you knew best. That was the part that constituted concern trolling.

[astro]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Actually, it was the part where you repeatedly argued that we shouldn't depict gay people doing normal things in TV commercials and pretended that it was for our benefit because you knew best. That was the part that constituted concern trolling.

Wow...did I do that with respect to the OP's question? Let's see

Initial comment

I just watched the commercial. It's mixed.

I consider myself quite gay friendly, but watching two men giving each other loving, soulful mouth to mouth kisses does make me more than a bit uncomfortable. I'm not "squicked", but the message of respect for all kinds of love is a bit lost in my reaction to the PDA lip lock.

If it was trying for a respect and tolerance message there are better ways it could (IMO) have gone about it without the deep kiss

.

and then

Originally Posted by Valteron
Well, telling gays they cannot do what straight people have done a hundred million times in movies and TV and which they do by the millions in public places every day does imply something unequal, don't you think? Of course there ARE places where deep kissing is inappropriate. In church, in the aisle of a grocery store, in line at the DMV, you name it. But this video shows a homecoming, in which people are greeting returning combatants. I think we all agree that it is normal and appropriate for straights to deep kiss in such a situation.

I do not fault you for feeling uncomfortable. You are what you are and you feel what you feel. But do you think your reaction to the lip lock would diminish if you saw that kind of thing more often?

Originally Posted by Astro

Maybe, who knows. My reaction was visceral and not a deeply reasoned response. I'm guessing this will be true for large chunk of the intended heterosexual audience.

The "how dare you be offended by these loving men doing the same thing straights do" position may be a perfectly valid ethical position, but the commercial is still transgressive of many peoples PDA boundaries, and will garner a large portion of visceral reactions. Is that smart advertising if the message goal is expanded tolerance and respect?

Yeah... wow - I see now I was really being brutally oppressive. Those over the top comments about how the commercials might have some difficultly re heterosexual audience reactions to the PDA were waaay out of bounds.

[mister nyx]

You spoke out against a commercial whose content should be completely unremarkable, attempted to couch what you said in faux concern for gay rights, and talked down to gay people by explaining how straight people react to us, as though we aren't all much more familiar with that topic than you are.

Originally Posted by astro

Yeah... wow - I see now I was really being brutally oppressive.

So the standard you set for yourself is not being "brutally oppressive", then.

I set a higher standard than that for myself. Since you're congratulating yourself on meeting that low standard, I don't think we're going to reach a meeting of minds on this point.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

'Misunderstanding' would be the harshest accusation you can level at most of them.

If those same people shit their pants every time they saw Amish women or Hasidic Jewish women in their traditional wear you'd have a point, but with rare exceptions they don't.

No, bigotry is still bigotry and it's especially hypocritical coming from people claiming that women should be allowed to choose what they want to wear.

FWIW, I'm not talking about Afghanistan or the handful of Muslim countries where such outfits are proscribed by law(which are outnumbered by states where they are actually prohibitted by law).

[Mnemnosyne]

I think things like that video are precisely appropriate. Normal gay people doing normal things. Anyone who thinks scenes like this should be covered up or hidden may not be actively homophobic, but they aren't quite getting the point. When a male and female couple do something like that it's seen as normal, sweet, heartwarming. The very idea that a gay couple should not be shown in that light is inherently telling them to hide their relationship.

Straight people often say they're fine with gay people as long as it's not 'shoved in their faces' but they fail to comprehend that they are considering normal everyday public behavior as something being 'shoved in their faces'. No one bats an eye when a man and woman hug, give each other a quick kiss, a woman talks about her husband or a man about his wife. But when a gay couple do those exact same things, many people immediately perceive this as inappropriate exhibition. It's not, and any attempt to consider it such sets a terrible double-standard.

I would say that this is exactly the sort of image we need to see more of, so that people view it as normal. Yes, there will be some backlash by bigots who can use such messages as an excuse, but overall I think it will be a strong forward step when such sights are common enough that it's no longer possible to point to a single instance and comment on it as an unusual thing.

[astro]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

You spoke out against a commercial whose content should be completely unremarkable, attempted to couch what you said in faux concern for gay rights, and talked down to gay people by explaining how straight people react to us, as though we aren't all much more familiar with that topic than you are.


So the standard you set for yourself is not being "brutally oppressive", then.

I set a higher standard than that for myself. Since you're congratulating yourself on meeting that low standard, I don't think we're going to reach a meeting of minds on this point.

You spoke out against a commercial whose content should be completely unremarkable,

And yet oddly, for many people, possibly even a majority of the viewing audience it would not be "completely unremarkable", it would be quite remarkable. Your position that a comment reflecting this fairly obvious reality is by default "condescending" and "talking down" to gay people is quite interesting.


The OP was asking

So what do people think? Is such advocacy advertising harmful or helpful? Are gays just creating a backlash that "society at large" should not be surprised at?

Apparently any opinion re the potential real world advertising impact of that commercial other than a strongly pro-PDA position is going to be wholly unacceptable to you. I 'm sorry my opinion re the OP's question of how that commercial might come across to to a heterosexual demographic was unacceptable to you. I really am.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by astro

And yet oddly, for many people, possibly even a majority of the viewing audience it would not be "completely unremarkable", it would be quite remarkable. Your position that a comment reflecting this fairly obvious reality is by default "condescending" and "talking down" to gay people is quite interesting.

I said that it should be completely unremarkable. The fact that you can't understand the difference between "should be" and "is" reinforces my feeling that you obviously have no business lecturing gay people about what we already know so very, very well.

Apparently any opinion re the potential real world advertising impact of that commercial other than a strongly pro-PDA position is going to be wholly unacceptable to you.

When it consists of a bunch of concern-trolling mixed with claims to be totally in favor of gay rights but grossed out by seeing a tame kiss in a TV commercial, yeah, it is unacceptable. Why in the world would I find that acceptable? Fortunately, you were the only straight person who felt the need to share that opinion (aside from Valteron's friend).

I 'm sorry my opinion re the OP's question of how that commercial might come across to to a heterosexual demographic was unacceptable to you. I really am.

If you really are, I hope it means you'll stop and reconsider the implications of ominous warnings that straight people might be offended (again, as though any gay person anywhere is unaware of that!) If indeed I was wrong and you weren't just concern trolling, I'm sure you'll be glad to hear and respond to the perspective of someone who knows the issue a lot better than you do. Because any gay person has way more perspective on how straight people respond to us than a straight person who only has their own perspective to draw on.

[Sitnam]

Originally Posted by florez

If that really is the reason for the ire over seeing women wear traditional head coverings, then it is stereotyping a group of people, in that many Muslim women do so by choice. It is also arrogant and ignorant to assume to know the reason a woman wears a burka or hijab, just as it is arrogant and ignorant to assume that all gay men are effeminate.

To presume women that wear them always have a choice is equally arrogant and ignorant.

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

If those same people shit their pants every time they saw Amish women or Hasidic Jewish women in their traditional wear you'd have a point, but with rare exceptions they don't.

Do those traditional clothes involve completely covering the persons face? Islamic dress borrowed it's tradition from Orthodox Christians and I contend if they still did so the outrage would be equal and exhibit A that this isn't an Islamophobic tirade.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

You spoke out against a commercial whose content should be completely unremarkable, attempted to couch what you said in faux concern for gay rights, and talked down to gay people by explaining how straight people react to us, as though we aren't all much more familiar with that topic than you are.

In fairness, while you're undoubtedly more familiar with how straight people openly react to you, he is presumably more familiar with how straight people react to you in other ways.

Anyway, he wasn't "grossed out". He specifically noted that he wasn't "squicked", which I presume is roughly equivalent.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

Do those traditional clothes involve completely covering the persons face?

Nor does the Chador or the Hijab.

However that didn't stop the French government from having a shitfit over the idea of Muslim girls wearing Hijabs in school, even though they had never gotten all huffy about Jewish boys wearing kippas.

No, the people proposing bans on the wearing of those are small-minded bigots the same as the people who fight to prevent gay marriage.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Perhaps you missed all of astro's concern trolling posts.

Knock it off. You are not allowed to insult other posters in this forum.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

In fairness, while you're undoubtedly more familiar with how straight people openly react to you, he is presumably more familiar with how straight people react to you in other ways.

If you think the perspective of one straight person as to his own attitudes trumps the average gay person's experience with thousands of straight people's reactions to them, I don't know what to say. It's not as hard as you might imagine to find out straight people's attitudes in our culture. In fact, it's quite easy. Comparing the additional perspective he gets from being inside one straight person's head to the perspective I get from having specifically confronted this stuff from thousands of his fellows (and possibly from him in real life, for all I know), it's sort of absurd to privilege his perspective as though it's not one I'm familiar with. I've heard dozens if not more straight men say the same things he's said to me -- so while I'm not living in any of their heads, I've certainly heard the content before.

Anyway, he wasn't "grossed out". He specifically noted that he wasn't "squicked", which I presume is roughly equivalent.

He also repeatedly said that a TV commercial showing a tame kiss was alienating straight people (i.e. him, since there are plenty of straight people whom it doesn't bother at all). It bothered him to the point that he suggested it was a bad idea. He said he was "more than a bit uncomfortable" and that it was a "visceral" response (isn't that pretty much the definition of being "grossed out"?); the kiss was "transgressive" and just showing two men kissing would inevitably work against "tolerance and respect".

If you want to try to finesse his statements into him not being grossed out, enjoy your semantic gameplaying but at this point I'm not expecting you to come up with anything that changes my view of what he said.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Knock it off. You are not allowed to insult other posters in this forum.

I explicitly addressed the posts, not the poster.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

I explicitly addressed the posts, not the poster.

You're not allowed to accuse other posters of trolling.

[Lamia]

I just had the chance to watch the video, and (thinking of Glee), I've seen gay kissing scenes that lasted longer than that on US broadcast television. It's my limited understanding that the UK has looser restrictions than the US when it comes to sexy television content, so I'd expect that kissing scenes even less of a big deal there than they are in the US. As for gay couples in TV ads, the one time I visited England, ten years ago, I saw an ad on TV several times that had a gay couple out shopping and it was portrayed as a very normal thing. I remember thinking you wouldn't see an ad like that in the US.

While I'm sure plenty of people who saw this ad didn't like it, I'm thinking it probably wouldn't be considered particularly extreme or shocking to the average British TV viewer.

[florez]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

To presume women that wear them always have a choice is equally arrogant and ignorant..

No one said to presume women who wear traditional head covers always have a choice, but your statement was perhaps people have a point to their perception that "women wearing burkas or hijabs aren't allowed a choice thereby subjecting them to a lesser station below men." And IMO that is no different then looking down on any unfamiliar group, and applying stereotypes from your own phobic perspective.

[Sitnam]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

No, the people proposing bans on the wearing of those are small-minded bigots the same as the people who fight to prevent gay marriage.

I won't defend all bigots everywhere, I agree banning certain clothes is probably a silly thing to enforce at best, perhaps unlawful at worse. But to claim that ban as a purely hateful attack on a group equivalent to same sex marriage ban amendments is far fetched. Even in a free society, there are women without choice.

[astro]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

If you think the perspective of one straight person as to his own attitudes trumps the average gay person's experience with thousands of straight people's reactions to them, I don't know what to say. It's not as hard as you might imagine to find out straight people's attitudes in our culture. In fact, it's quite easy. Comparing the additional perspective he gets from being inside one straight person's head to the perspective I get from having specifically confronted this stuff from thousands of his fellows (and possibly from him in real life, for all I know), it's sort of absurd to privilege his perspective as though it's not one I'm familiar with. I've heard dozens if not more straight men say the same things he's said to me -- so while I'm not living in any of their heads, I've certainly heard the content before.


He also repeatedly said that a TV commercial showing a tame kiss was alienating straight people (i.e. him, since there are plenty of straight people whom it doesn't bother at all). It bothered him to the point that he suggested it was a bad idea. He said he was "more than a bit uncomfortable" and that it was a "visceral" response (isn't that pretty much the definition of being "grossed out"?); the kiss was "transgressive" and just showing two men kissing would inevitably work against "tolerance and respect".

If you want to try to finesse his statements into him not being grossed out, enjoy your semantic gameplaying but at this point I'm not expecting you to come up with anything that changes my view of what he said.

Again, I must point you to the OP which asked a straightforward question I responded to with honesty and candor. I'm all for gay marriage, and gay rights, and yet at the same time seeing two men kiss each other in a physically intimate way is not something I particularly want to watch. That you seem unable to reconcile these two aspects without descending to name calling is your issue to resolve.

On a further point re my use of the word "transgressive" the commercial was absolutely transgressive and quite deliberately so. That was the whole point of the commercial, to say "Hey look we're people who can kiss in public too! Our love is as real and valid as yours!". That you don't seem to get this, but are as sensitive as a mimosa leaf to all other manner of perceived slights is puzzling.

[Sitnam]

Originally Posted by florez

No one said to presume women who wear traditional head covers always have a choice, but your statement was perhaps people have a point to their perception that "women wearing burkas or hijabs aren't allowed a choice thereby subjecting them to a lesser station below men." And IMO that is no different then looking down on any unfamiliar group, and applying stereotypes from your own phobic perspective.

Civil rights are my phobic perspective? You think social constructs change miraculously when immigrants cross borders?

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by astro

Again, I must point you to the OP which asked a straightforward question I responded to with honesty and candor. I'm all for gay marriage, and gay rights, and yet at the same time seeing two men kiss each other in a physically intimate way is not something I particularly want to watch. That you seem unable to reconcile these two aspects without descending to name calling is your issue to resolve.

Actually, I didn't engage in name-calling at all, and I limited my criticism to your attempts to argue against depicting a kiss on TV. I addressed your argument. You keep sliding away from your argument, and trying to make it appear you said something different than what you did. You tried to argue about what groups advocating marriage equality should show on TV. You are clearly uncomfortable with my responses to what you said, which is, obviously, why you're describing them so deceptively.

On a further point re my use of the word "transgressive" the commercial was absolutely transgressive and quite deliberately so.

But you didn't come up with any real reason why the commercial shouldn't have transgressed this boundary. I agree that it was transgressive. That was part of the point. The problem for you, which you again fail to address, is explaining why they shouldn't have transgressed in this way -- since your only real reason is that it gives you a "visceral" negative reaction, and that's not a real reason.

That was the whole point of the commercial, to say "Hey look we're people who can kiss in public too! Our love is as real and valid as yours!". That you don't seem to get this, but are as sensitive as a mimosa leaf to all other manner of perceived slights is puzzling.

The only puzzling thing is why you feel that the fact that gay people can kiss in public, and have love that's real and valid, is something we should try to hide.

Feel free to advance that argument again, though.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Sitnam

I won't defend all bigots everywhere, I agree banning certain clothes is probably a silly thing to enforce at best, perhaps unlawful at worse. But to claim that ban as a purely hateful attack on a group equivalent to same sex marriage ban amendments is far fetched. Even in a free society, there are women without choice.

So then if tomorrow a City Councilman in New York proposed a law forbidding Jewish New Yorkers from wearing Yarmulkas you would object if anyone called this an example of anti-Semitism and bigotry and you would think anyone who called it such would be overreacting?

Moreover, people advocating bans on same sex marriage also insist that they're not bigots and that what they're proposing isn't tantamount to discrimination.

Both groups are equally wrong.

They're both engaging in bigotry.

[D-bear]

Sorry Astro, I know that you don't want to come across as intolerant in the least, but...

Originally Posted by 1950's Average White Male

I'm outraged! I was relaxing with my Banquet TV dinner in front of my new 7" DuMont and just after Kukla Fran and Ollie was over this "Glee" program came on. Can you believe that they have a COLORED child in class with all of these nice white kids? Her name was Mercedes... Probably a call back to Hitler's bunch from the last war... They depicted her not only in the same classroom, but sharing all the same facilities. She ate at the same lunch table, did her daily calisthenics in the same gymnasium and actually drank FROM THE SAME DRINKING FOUNTAIN... A COLORED girl!!! I'm sending Senator McCarthy a strongly worded telegram via Western Union immediately! This kind of integration being shown is outrageous and will only serve to hurt all of society, white and dark alike!

Same bigotry, different decade...

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by D-bear

Sorry Astro, I know that you don't want to come across as intolerant in the least, but...



Same bigotry, different decade...

Ahahaha, high five!

[Really Not All That Bright]

That's not even remotely comparable.