You know, I am a big-breasted, straight woman who loves big, burly men who are a bit macho. I even love and understand football, though not quite as much as I enjoy sex (hey, two balls are better than one!). I also don’t understand why women don’t enjoy giving blowjobs. I’m also quite definitely pro-homosexual, if such a position exists.
Brandus, a post like yours makes it clear to me, that, much as I enjoy men, I will never have sex with you. It’s a bit of a shame. You see, I think giving guys multiple orgasms is fun!
On the grounds that this is far more revalent to my life than this lame-ass OP: Surely you don’t refer to multiple-orgasms as the term is commonly applied to women? Because if so, I’m going to have to demand a cite, or at least a how-to manual.
People seem to be missing that bit of info (that Brandus himself provided), in their red-faced ire. I read the OP as a rant about how he perceives the media as making Gay the flavour-of-the-month that is thrown into the mix to “kick it up a notch” – Which makes it kinda weak because, well, this sooner or later happens to almost every segment of the population and sure many of them will also react with “oh, great, now all my white-bread neighbors/coworkers are going to be asking me if all of us really do/act like that…”. To which the answer is, of course, “it’s just a TV show, they’re playing it up” and I switch to the Discovery Channel.
Yeah, when I posted at #3 I didn’t know that and got really sarcastic, and Brandus took care of that in post #7, clearing up the ambiguity. I considered posting a “D’oh, sorry for the misunderstanding” post. What puzzles me are the posters who posted after his bit of extra info yet didn’t seem to have read the entire thread before posting. I know that can be tough with a 4-page thread, but around 25 posts or so it’s not all that unreasonable an expectation.
Or possibly, it could be code for “Those gays who insist on screaming about how gay they are at every oppourtunity, regardless of whether or not they are in accepting or supporting company. That percentage of the community and culture that embarrasses the other majority by their constant whinging about persecution and unacceptace and over compensates for it by behaviour that’s obnoxious by ANY standard.”
I don’t see why it’s not acceptable to be a little tired of hearing about Gay rights. For those of us who DO support the cause and don’t give a crap if you’re gay or not, the rhetoric gets boring. We want to know all the facets of your personality, not just the bit that needs to scream “Im here, I’m queer and I’m not gonna dissappear!” all day long. Not every Hetero supporter feels the need to be an activist. If it comes to votes I cast mine in favor of Gay Rights, and that’s as far as i’m interested in it. Why? well I don’t have a personal interest in it. I agree that the OP is whinging about something trivial though.
I’ll let you in on a little secret (and I hope my fellow hetero’s don’t find out I’m telling tales out of school): we never gave up control. Contrary to your assertion, the incidence of homosexuality in TV is statistically quite small. We maintain a small sample population of gays in popular entertainment for educational purposes - people who may never have encountered a gay in their life need to know what to look out for.
That’s why we keep Jack around, the Queer Eye guys, and that guy on Entertainment Tonight with all the teeth. . . as examples of exemplary gay behavior.
(That’s also why Ellen’s sitcoms have tanked – she just refused to act gay enough, so we had to take her out – she was confusing the masses).
So, the primary reason we maintain an inventory of gays on TV is so heteros know how to spot 'em. The second reason is so gays will know how to behave. Yep, they’re role models so the Gay population will know how to comport themselves. We can’t have 'em acting all “normal” and everything – next thing you know, they’d just be like everyone else, and then where would we be?
Every so often, you find an OP that is so preposterous, you can’t help but wonder if you’re being whooshed. :rolleyes:
However, I’m going to take a moment to attempt to make some sense of what he’s saying. Brandus seems to feel as if Gay is the Hip, New Thing on TV and the media, and you know what?
He’s partially correct. Gay IS the hip, new thing for Mass America. However, just because it’s the Hip New Media Thing doesn’t mean it hasn’t been around for a long time – just that media coverage and, with it, Mass America’s acceptance of it has come a long way since, say, the 1950’s.
However.
Your tone is such that you seem to think it’s acceptable to imply that gay people should get the fark back in the closet and give television back to the breeders. This, my misled chum, is why the people on the SDMB will be calling for your head next to Alfredo Garcia’s.
Your words are standing in the way of your point. I think what you want to say is:
“Why are there so many shows about gay people, and gay characters on sitcoms, and such? When did every show have to have on gay character in order to be a realistic slice of life?”
And the answer to your question is:
“Since networks discovered that by adding at least one gay character, they can bring in an entirely new demographic.”
I hope that helped. The rest of you may continue with the flame-war you’re so eager to incite.
Actually, I was looking for a cite of some sort. IIRC he has consistently maintained that he is het, and if I’m mistaken then I’d like to know about it.
I’m sorry it took me a while to respond, I had to supress my gag reflex. It’s behavior like this why we’re gay in the first place. Women trying to hold dominion over males through sex is the most degrading thing ever in the history of everything. Oh no! She won’t lift up her skirt for me! Must bow to her will!
