That was a really chaste kiss, and very sweet. But then, your friend wouldn’t be surprised at be thinking that, big old gayer that I am.
But the point is that people sholdn’t be shocked by something as mild as a chaste kiss. It’s OK if, like Astro, you’re mildly squicked, because it’s not like we can all simply throw off the homophobia we grew up with. But getting over that mild squick will be helped by such adverts, not harmed - it normalises it.
As for the drag queens and such at Pride parades - well, I used to be a bit annoyed by them and wish there were more ‘normal’ gay people in the forefront of parades (such people make up the vastmajority of the people at Pride parades, but ordinary people walking along in jeans and t-shirts make for a boring photograph). But Pride is about promoting equality for all gay people, not just the ones who can pass for straight.
And it’s also a carnival, for dressing up and having fun. Does anyone watch the Notting Hill Carnival and think all Afro-Caribbean women walk around with giant headresses on?
I feel the same way astro did. I loved the commercial otherwise. I wish I was fine with two guys or two girls kissing, but it sets off a “weird” or “should I be watching this?” feeling.
Not a huge fan of hetero couples kissing, either. Even on a sitcom, I’m like, gaah. I guess I couldn’t help but to feel there was a slight…shock…factor going on. Like, yes, now we are k-i-s-s-i-n-g. In slow mo.
That isn’t what happened. I thought the friend was British, only realized afterward that the video was British and the friend’s nationality was not given, hence my retraction.
Read your history books. In 1950 a black person was strictly forbidden to drink from a WHITE only drink fountain. They couldn’t sit at the same Woolworth lunch counter. They had to sit in the back of the bus so white folks could have the seats in the front. If you can’t see the similarities, then you really chose your membership name appropriately…
Most people don’t, but I know someone so stupid he was sincerely surprised to discover that Rio’s Carnavales are not year-round: cariocas do not walk around in skimpy-bodied, big-sleeved, mega-hatted, shiny costumes all year round!
Never underestimate the boundaries of human stupidity.
Thank you for standing up for yourself rather than backing down as many do.
It’s responses like you were getting, that completely ignored everything you said just to call you a bigot that hurt he cause. And I say that as someone who calls out bigotry when I see it: thing is, I know to do it to people who think it’s acceptable, not to someone who is trying to help.
And the corresponding 1950s version of what astro said would be the people saying they shouldn’t run the video with the guy at home being an African American woman, and it would only be because the public wouldn’t accept it. And guess what? That’s exactly what happened. Hasn’t turned out too shabby, now has it?
It’s basic psychology, particularly reponse avoidance. Gradually introduce it, and give people time to get used to each gradual part. Flood them, and they wind up more resolute in their actions.
I personally would have had no problem with the ad had they not zoomed in on the guy’s face. And, yes, the same thing bugs me anytime I see any two people kiss and I’m not attracted to at least one of them. that’s why I watch lesbian porn.
Exactly what qualifies you to say what helps or hurts the “cause”? What, in particular, do you know that enables you to make these judgments? What is you expertise?
BigT made a bunch of noises about how mean it would be to call astro a “bigot” (despite the fact that no one had done so). He also said it “hurt [t]he cause”. I rolled my eyes and asked what qualified him to make that judgment.
Is it actually your contention that the original topic of the thread was whether or not it “hurt[s] [t]he cause” to call astro a bigot? Because if not, this quote here:
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
The fact that the OP asked.
[/QUOTE]
