# Yes, "300" is the most homoerotic action movie ever made **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 20, 2007, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-300-is-the-most-homoerotic-action-movie-ever-made/396735 "2007-03-20T17:04:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-300-is-the-most-homoerotic-action-movie-ever-made/396735/81 "2007-03-21T21:19:45Z")
[QUOTE=Eyebrows 0f Doom] Maybe I misunderstood the quote, but it read like Snyder purposefully made the “villain” stereotypically gay because he knew that the target audience is uncomfortable with homosexuality and this way they could easily identify and despise him. [/QUOTE] I read it like he was fucking with them by exploiting their ignorant predilections. I thought it was funny, especially since it didn’t even occur to me that I was supposed to be bothered by it. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-300-is-the-most-homoerotic-action-movie-ever-made/396735/82 "2007-03-21T21:19:59Z")
Let me add that in a sense, what Frank Miller is going for in **300** is anti-homoeroticism. It’s against the people who use the term & all that it stands for. Clearly, the Spartans in this represent not real historical Sparta, but virility & virilism as an archetype. And that is an archetype much abused & lost under homophobia these days. Your “homoerotic” interpretation of the world around you may be swell for you; but I came up in the 1980’s, when among teen boys, there were more homophobes than homosexuals by a large factor, & the fear of appearing “gay” was a guide & a goad for many of us. Maybe times have changed; I don’t think they’re changed that much. I will not sit & take quietly the attempt to co-opt the images of manhood itself for a minority’s particular interpretation. To be a man & glory in manhood does not have to mean that you’re a queer. The real men don’t have to cover themselves up in big baggy pants to be real men, or to be straight. And it’s bizarre that I’m making this argument over a movie about Spartans. But then, I don’t claim that Frank Miller isn’t a nutcase. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-300-is-the-most-homoerotic-action-movie-ever-made/396735/83 "2007-03-21T21:27:45Z")
[QUOTE=foolsguinea] butch dyke, gay boy, queer [/QUOTE] Yes, don’t use rude names. That would be downright pit-worthy! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-300-is-the-most-homoerotic-action-movie-ever-made/396735/84 "2007-03-21T21:35:45Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] What “ugly homophobic crap” was there in _300_? I didn’t notice any. [/QUOTE] The director stated that he deliberately portrayed the Persians as homosexuals in order to make them less sympathetic. > [@](#): > > Also, I’m not sure what you mean by “hypocritical” in this context. Can you expand on that? I’m not sure I can help you here. If I say, “I will insult you by calling you _x_,” it would be hypocritical to then say “I don’t consider _x_ to be an insult.” ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-300-is-the-most-homoerotic-action-movie-ever-made/396735/85 "2007-03-21T21:43:58Z")
[QUOTE=Eyebrows 0f Doom] Maybe I misunderstood the quote, but it read like Snyder purposefully made the “villain” stereotypically gay because he knew that the target audience is uncomfortable with homosexuality and this way they could easily identify and despise him. While watching the film I thought he just made Xerxes appear to be such an “other” from the Spartans so as to emphasize the differences between the two groups, but now it seems as if his intent was to have the teen male audience say “That guy is gay. Gross.” [/QUOTE] I got the impression you did: he was trying to make Xerxes alien and imposing, and at the same time vain and somehow effete, with the consequence being that he came across as vaugely queenish. What I took the quote to mean was that he wasn’t _actually_ making a 10 foot tall drag queen to terrorize the young male audience, but the suggestion of him doing so is kinda amusing. ---
**Author:** ![Beadalin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@Beadalin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beadalin)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-300-is-the-most-homoerotic-action-movie-ever-made/396735/86 "2007-03-21T21:46:27Z")
Anyone see [Savage Love](http://www.avclub.com/content/savage/mar-21-2007) this week? Dan has a lot to say about _300_ (namely that it’s homophobic, not homoerotic). > [@](#): > > The Persian army is an armed gay-pride parade, a threat to all things decent and, er, _Greek_. The king of the Spartans – among the most notorious boy-fuckers in all of ancient history – dismisses Athenian Greeks as weak-willed “philosophers and boy lovers.” The Persian emperor? An eight-foot-tall black drag queen – mascara, painted-on eyebrows, pink lip gloss. Emperor RuPaul is positively obsessed with men kneeling in front of him. Why gay up the Persians? So that straight boys in the theater can identify with the Spartan king and his 300 soldiers – all of whom appear to have been recruited from and outfitted by the \*International Male \*catalog. > > What isn’t up for debate is the film’s politics. The only times the Persian army doesn’t look like a gay-pride parade in hell, it looks like a crowd of madly chanting Islamic militants. And if the Spartan king has to break Spartan law to defend Spartan freedoms? Well, sometimes a king’s gotta do what a king’s gotta do. Because, as the queen of Sparta points out, freedom isn’t free. And, yes, she uses exactly those words. George Bush is going to blow a load in his pants when he sees this movie. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-300-is-the-most-homoerotic-action-movie-ever-made/396735/87 "2007-03-21T22:06:26Z")
[QUOTE=foolsguinea] OK, I can understand that if you’re gay, any celebration of raw male physicality is subjectively “erotic.” That’s understandable. A woman just standing in a loose sweater _breathing_ is subjectively erotic to me. (A plain woman, with no interest in me at all, who’s a total butch dyke in her actual sex life, even.) Well, not necessarily all the time, but you can see my point. That doesn’t mean it’s intrinsically or objectively “erotic.” (Note that by “erotic”, I here mean what is more carefully termed “sexually arousing,” “sexy,” or maybe “attractive.”) [/quote] Of course its subjective. Any emotional reaction to a work of art is inherently subjective. I don’t find depictions of heterosexual intercourse remotely arousing. However, it would be ridiculous for me to object to someone describing a straight love scene as erotic because I, personally, didn’t find it to be so. Now, I did say that I thought the display of manflesh in _300_ was meant to be erotic, and I stand by that. I don’t think it was deliberatly targeted at gay men, because that’s a pretty tiny demographic to target your multi-million dollar blockbuster action film at. I’m pretty sure the intention there was to draw in the girlfriends of all the straight guys who wanted to watch a movie about dudes totally hacking each other apart with swords. I could be wrong: there may very well have been absolutely no libidinous intent in any scene of the movie. But that strikes me as at least moderatly unlikely. > [@](#): > > When you use the word “homoerotic,” it sounds like an objective descriptor to the ears of straight men & lesbians–for whom it’s not automatically erotic just because there are oohh, boy body parts exposed & stuff. I’m sick to death of gays talking as if their subjective, totally _projected_ “subtext” is more important than the actual text of every movie in the world. The world does not revolve around you personally nor gay culture in general. Ooookay… This sounds more like an issue you need to deal with than one I need to deal with. > [@](#): > > _Real_ eroticism, in a literary sense involves more content than just a body that’s an idealized version of my own body (obviously not to _you_, gay boy, but to the rest of us). Your sense of this film, which is about virility & the glory of violence, as erotic, is eroticism only on the most superficial level. And it’s not the primary sense of the film. (I feel like a feminist trying to explain to a man that women in art aren’t just sex objects.) Thanks for filling me in on what “real” eroticism means in a literary sense. If we were discussing a work of literature, that might even be significant. Heck, if we were discussing a film that had more depth than a leaky kiddy pool, it might be significant. But we’re talking about a Summer popcorn film powered entirely by special effects and action set-pieces. Of course the eroticism is superficial. Everything else about the film is superficial, why would that be any different? By the way, I really appreciated being called “gay boy.” I do believe that’s the first time someone has deliberatly used my sexuality as a personal insult. That’s quite a distinction you’ve earned for yourself there. I hope you wear it with pride. > [@](#): > > But mainly, when you use the word “homoerotic,” it’s sexist because you’re acting as if only male eyes look at these pictures. Sexy men being sexy, being virile, aren’t to be assumed to be doing it for desirous male eyes. They can be playing out there sexiness in the normal fashion, as the male half of heterosexual sexuality. But “homoerotic” implies that they are gay, which attempts to steal from heterosexuality, male & female, much of the spectrum of sexuality, eroticism, & appreciation of the male form (whether as one’s own or the opposite sex). Jeez-o-pete. Do you need a porter to carry around all that baggage for you? When I describe _any_ work of art, all I can tell you is how _I_ reacted to it, and that reaction is going to be filtered through a pair of eyes belonging to a gay male. Just because I think something is homoerotic does not imply that you have to find it homoerotic. Similarly, if I say a movie is “good,” that does not imply that the movie is good in an objective, absolute way, and that you have to agree with me. Opinions on art are subjective. They are informed by the life experiences of the viewer as much as the intentions of the artist. I thought large portions of this movie were homoerotic: whatever was intended by the film makers, I found that they were presented in a way that would be uniquely interesting to a gay audience. This is an opinion. You are allowed to disagree with it. That’s how opinions work. But to take personal offence with someone because they have a different opinion than you do is a mark of pronounced immaturity. Particularly when you’re talking about a _movie_, for God’s sake. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-300-is-the-most-homoerotic-action-movie-ever-made/396735/88 "2007-03-21T22:09:53Z")
[QUOTE=foolsguinea] Let me add that in a sense, what Frank Miller is going for in **300** is anti-homoeroticism. It’s against the people who use the term & all that it stands for. Clearly, the Spartans in this represent not real historical Sparta, but virility & virilism as an archetype. And that is an archetype much abused & lost under homophobia these days. Your “homoerotic” interpretation of the world around you may be swell for you; but I came up in the 1980’s, when among teen boys, there were more homophobes than homosexuals by a large factor, & the fear of appearing “gay” was a guide & a goad for many of us. Maybe times have changed; I don’t think they’re changed that much. I will not sit & take quietly the attempt to co-opt the images of manhood itself for a minority’s particular interpretation. To be a man & glory in manhood does not have to mean that you’re a queer. The real men don’t have to cover themselves up in big baggy pants to be real men, or to be straight. And it’s bizarre that I’m making this argument over a movie about Spartans. But then, I don’t claim that Frank Miller isn’t a nutcase. [/QUOTE] Wow. Okay. I guess it’s clear exactly why you object so strenuously to gay men enjoying this movie. I suppose “gay boy” would have been a bigger clue than this post, but I guess I’m kinda naive, sometimes. Probably not much point continuing this discussion in this forum, anymore. I’ll be glad to take it up again if you want to move it to a more appropriate venue, though. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-300-is-the-most-homoerotic-action-movie-ever-made/396735/89 "2007-03-21T22:21:08Z")
[QUOTE=saoirse] The director stated that he deliberately portrayed the Persians as homosexuals in order to make them less sympathetic. [/quote] You said, “in the movie.” What _in the movie_ was homophobic? As for the director’s comments, I assume you’re refering to the quote linked to by **ArizonaTech**? If so, I disagree that the comment is particularly homophobic. I think **pravnik** hit the nail on the head with that one. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure I can help you here. If I say, “I will insult you by calling you _x_,” it would be hypocritical to then say “I don’t consider _x_ to be an insult.” Aside, possibly, for the OP, who here has called _300_ homoerotic and meant it as an insult? I see a lot of people here joking about the (perceived) homoeroticism in the film, but no one using that as a basis to seriously trash the film. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-300-is-the-most-homoerotic-action-movie-ever-made/396735/90 "2007-03-21T22:41:26Z")
So, if I use an image that’s likely to squick people out (say, a [camel spider](http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/4509/images/camel%20spider%2001-2.jpg) (no! Don’t click the link, I said it’s likely to squick you out!!!)) because I want the audience to feel the emotion “squicked out”, then I’m anti camel spider? What if I’m a fan of arachnids and personally think they’re really cool, but I know that’s not a common feeling? Is Lucas a reptilophobe because he put Indy in a pit of snakes? The director didn’t day “Ohmigod, tall guys wearing eyeliner are so disgusting, I’m going to make my villain wear eyeliner just so’s we’re all clear he’s the baddie.” No, I suspect it was more along the lines of, “Hmm…teenaged boys, god bless 'em, tend to be at an age where crossing cultural gender roles is a little disturbing - probably because they don’t quite have the emotional maturity to feel secure crossing them themselves yet. Since I want the emotional impact of this scene to be disturbing, let’s play with that.” It’s possible I’m wrong about that, of course. But I like to play this game where I pretend people are basically good and good at what they do (like making visually arresting popcorn movies by choosing visually arresting images) until they prove otherwise. No one’s come up with any evidence otherwise yet. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-300-is-the-most-homoerotic-action-movie-ever-made/396735/91 "2007-03-21T22:51:33Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] Now, I did say that I thought the display of manflesh in _300_ was meant to be erotic, and I stand by that. I don’t think it was deliberatly targeted at gay men, because that’s a pretty tiny demographic to target your multi-million dollar blockbuster action film at. I’m pretty sure the intention there was to draw in the girlfriends of all the straight guys who wanted to watch a movie about dudes totally hacking each other apart with swords. [/QUOTE] Then it’s not “homoerotic.” It’s… whatever the high-falutin’ term for “beefcake” is. You seem to be saying that when you call something “homoerotic” you’re just saying you, as a gay man, find it hot. I think that’s either naive or disingenuous. I really don’t care if you find it hot. (Frank Miller, who is notoriously anti-gay, might be amused, _as he takes your money,_ but OK, whatever, you find it hot.) The word “homoerotic” is out there, in the zeitgeist, being used by straights now. And it’s consistently applied to the visual portrayal of the male sex, to the point that it’s the automatic fallback word used, almost as if there’s something “funny” & “abnormal” & “gay” about men being sexy, when it’s the most normal thing in the world. I don’t expect a gay man to get it, I really don’t. But when elements in the mass media that aren’t wearing the critic’s orientation on the sleeve use the term, it riles me, because they’re saying that male sexualization is gay while female sexualization is normal. And for most of us, you’re still sexual deviants (whether in the clinical sociological sense or the vulgar pejorative sense). So it’s labeling the embrace of the male body as sexual object, simply for being male, as sexual deviance, thanks so much. 'Cos, you know, if we were really straight, we’d all be fat guys with hot wives, like on TV. Sorry if I overreacted. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-300-is-the-most-homoerotic-action-movie-ever-made/396735/92 "2007-03-21T23:00:46Z")
[QUOTE=WhyNot] So, if I use an image that’s likely to squick people out (say, a [camel spider](http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/4509/images/camel%20spider%2001-2.jpg) (no! Don’t click the link, I said it’s likely to squick you out!!!)) because I want the audience to feel the emotion “squicked out”, then I’m anti camel spider? What if I’m a fan of arachnids and personally think they’re really cool, but I know that’s not a common feeling? Is Lucas a reptilophobe because he put Indy in a pit of snakes? [/QUOTE] So . . . you’re equating the fear of camel spiders and snakes with the fear of a type of human being? So, like, in movies from the 20s and 30s, when black people are made to look like ridiculous animals–animals, say, like camel spiders and snakes–in order to exploit the racist fear and disgust of the audience, that holds exactly the moral value to you as a scary spider image? So when Time Magazine darkened OJ Simpson’s face to make him look blacker, to exploit the fears of white America in order to sell more magazines, that was perfectly OK with you? ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-300-is-the-most-homoerotic-action-movie-ever-made/396735/93 "2007-03-21T23:10:04Z")
[QUOTE=lissener] So . . . you’re equating the fear of camel spiders and snakes with the fear of a type of human being? [/QUOTE] In a movie as visual images designed to evoke emotion, yes. In real life when deciding how to treat actual human beings, no. Your OJ example is of a real human being, not a fictional character, so no, I don’t support artistic use in that case. My point is that, as a director, you use images to evoke emotions in your audience. You choose images based on what your target audience will react to. It’s sort of your job. The guy with no teeth will likely be the racist yokel, the man in the black hat will probably be the bad guy, and the blond in a bra and cheerleader skirt will probably die when she trips while running away from the monster. Cinematic shorthands. This particular example gets a big o’ roll eyes from me, because I don’t get exactly why young men are threatened by guys in eyeliner (having never been a young guy, it’s an intellectual exercise for me), but I don’t think it’s particularly damning evidence of the director’s homophobia in this movie. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-300-is-the-most-homoerotic-action-movie-ever-made/396735/94 "2007-03-21T23:20:05Z")
[QUOTE=WhyNot] In a movie as visual images designed to evoke emotion, yes. In real life when deciding how to treat actual human beings, no. Your OJ example is of a real human being, not a fictional character, so no, I don’t support artistic use in that case. [/QUOTE] You sidestepped the question on a minor irrelevancy, which suggests furthermore that your sympathy is for OJ in that instance. Do you really miss the point that the TIME cover exploited, and indulged, and reinforced, racist stereotypes? So, you’d shrug your shoulders and roll your eyes if every Arab character that appeared in a movie was a wild-eyed terrorist? or if every black character rolled his eyes and blubbered his lips while raping white women? That’s all exactly the same as a bat flapping at the camera out of a dark room? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-300-is-the-most-homoerotic-action-movie-ever-made/396735/95 "2007-03-21T23:25:50Z")
[QUOTE=foolsguinea] Then it’s not “homoerotic.” It’s… whatever the high-falutin’ term for “beefcake” is. You seem to be saying that when you call something “homoerotic” you’re just saying you, as a gay man, find it hot. I think that’s either naive or disingenuous. I really don’t care if you find it hot. [/quote] Hey, you may have missed this, but you’re in a forum where people talk about what they think about books, movies, music, and so forth. If you don’t care what other people think, maybe you find a different forum to post in? Because staying in Cafe Society is going to be really frustrating for you. > [@](#): > > (Frank Miller, who is notoriously anti-gay, might be amused, _as he takes your money,_ but OK, whatever, you find it hot.) If Frank Miller is a homophobe, he’d probably be pissed off that people are interpreting his work as homoerotic. Which is enough reason in and of itself to call the movie homoerotic. > [@](#): > > The word “homoerotic” is out there, in the zeitgeist, being used by straights now. And it’s consistently applied to the visual portrayal of the male sex, to the point that it’s the automatic fallback word used, almost as if there’s something “funny” & “abnormal” & “gay” about men being sexy, when it’s the most normal thing in the world. Oh, bullshit. It’s applied to _this_ movie, because _this_ movie features three hundred buff, shaved Greeks in leather underwear. In a historical context, that’s completely meaningless, because a dedicated warrior culture has enough sense not to go into war without any fucking armor. And in a modern context, that screams “Big giant fag.” To top it off, these three hundred twinks appear in a movie that features a grand total of _two_ women, only one of whom has a speaking role. When you get three hundred half naked, sweaty, muscley men together without a pudenda in sight, it comes off as just a _little_ gay. And this is not done “consistently” in modern movies. 99% of all movies have some display of male sexuality, because 99% of all movies are about straight people in relationships with other straight people. And these movies are not “consistently” called homoerotic. There’s an extremely narrow range of male sexual expression that gets tagged as “gay” with any sort of regularity, and _300_ manages to hit just about all of them short of showing Leonidas go down on one of his hoplites. > [@](#): > > I don’t expect a gay man to get it, I really don’t. Spare me your patronization. I’m gay, not retarded. > [@](#): > > But when elements in the mass media that aren’t wearing the critic’s orientation on the sleeve use the term, it riles me, because they’re saying that male sexualization is gay while female sexualization is normal. Well, fucking get over it. Watching you go into a screaming gay panic because someone thought a flick you liked was kinda gay isn’t nearly as entertaining as you think. > [@](#): > > And for most of us, you’re still sexual deviants (whether in the clinical sociological sense or the vulgar pejorative sense). So it’s labeling the embrace of my own body & sexuality as sexual deviance, thanks so much. In the “clinical sociological sense,” homosexuality is not considered sexually deviant, and hasn’t been for more than thirty years now. And if the basis of your complaint is, “I don’t like being lumped in with you perverts,” well, consider me unmoved by your plight. > [@](#): > > Sorry if I overreacted. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-300-is-the-most-homoerotic-action-movie-ever-made/396735/96 "2007-03-21T23:29:20Z")
[QUOTE=lissener] You sidestepped the question on a minor irrelevancy, which suggests furthermore that your sympathy is for OJ in that instance. Do you really miss the point that the TIME cover exploited, and indulged, and reinforced, racist stereotypes? [/quote] I don’t understand what was irrelevant about setting up different guidelines for real and fictional people. I don’t approve of what TIME did because they did it to a real person. If a movie director darkened a black actor’s skin to make his fictional character more intimidating, then no, I wouldn’t have a problem with it any more than I would with makeup on anyone for character effect. I’d remain sad that darker = bad in our culture, but that’s something the director is exploiting, not creating. > [@](#): > > So, you’d shrug your shoulders and roll your eyes if every Arab character that appeared in a movie was a wild-eyed terrorist? or if every black character rolled his eyes and blubbered his lips while raping white women? Well, I’d see less movies, that’s for sure. I don’t share the popular notion that moviemakers have any “responsibility” to social or political correctness. Their job is to tell good stories and, if they _choose_, to raise social consciousness or deliver a message through their art. I’d hate to see some sort of quota system put in place where a studio had to show 4 “positive portrayals of black people” for every 1 negative portrayal or something. Let the market decide and give filmmakers their freedom. ETA: I reserve the right to bitch about it on a message board, of course, and to try to convince other people not to see it, but I still support the director’s right to make whatever he wants. > [@](#): > > That’s all exactly the same as a bat flapping at the camera out of a dark room? In fiction, yes. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-300-is-the-most-homoerotic-action-movie-ever-made/396735/97 "2007-03-21T23:48:26Z")
[QUOTE=WhyNot] I don’t understand what was irrelevant about setting up different guidelines for real and fictional people. I don’t approve of what TIME did because they did it to a real person. If a movie director darkened a black actor’s skin to make his fictional character more intimidating, then no, I wouldn’t have a problem with it any more than I would with makeup on anyone for character effect. I’d remain sad that darker = bad in our culture, but that’s something the director is exploiting, not creating. Well, I’d see less movies, that’s for sure. I don’t share the popular notion that moviemakers have any “responsibility” to social or political correctness. Their job is to tell good stories and, if they _choose_, to raise social consciousness or deliver a message through their art. I’d hate to see some sort of quota system put in place where a studio had to show 4 “positive portrayals of black people” for every 1 negative portrayal or something. Let the market decide and give filmmakers their freedom. ETA: I reserve the right to bitch about it on a message board, of course, and to try to convince other people not to see it, but I still support the director’s right to make whatever he wants. In fiction, yes. [/QUOTE] Wow. “Quota system”? Wow. I have seen some straw blown around in my day, but between you and Bryan E, this thread has been a real eye opener to me. You do realize I hope–both of you–that the lengths of illogic to which you’re willing to stretch in order defend your defensiveness comes off as, well, a little defensive. I’m just sayin. Not that there’s anything wrong with that . . . ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2007, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-300-is-the-most-homoerotic-action-movie-ever-made/396735/98 "2007-03-21T23:53:39Z")
[QUOTE=lissener] Wow. “Quota system”? Wow. I have seen some straw blown around in my day, but between you and Bryan E, this thread has been a real eye opener to me. [/QUOTE] Well, I was just positing a system by which moviemakers could be limited in their stereotypic portrayals, since that seems to be what \*\*you \*\*want. I’m just fine with guys in eyeliner playing bad guys and there being nothing homophobic about it. 'Cause, remember, I’m _pro_-leather speedos and thrusting spears. There’s really nothing homoanything about \*my \*love of beefcake. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2007, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-300-is-the-most-homoerotic-action-movie-ever-made/396735/99 "2007-03-22T00:06:37Z")
[QUOTE=WhyNot] Well, I was just positing a system by which moviemakers could be limited in their stereotypic portrayals, since that seems to be what \*\*you \*\*want. [/QUOTE] Um, exercising my right to comment on it is the same as calling for legislation against exactly how? Although, I can’t quite be sure that’s what you wrote; it’s hard to read through all this straw. ---
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2007, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-300-is-the-most-homoerotic-action-movie-ever-made/396735/100 "2007-03-22T00:09:51Z")
[QUOTE=foolsguinea] I came up in the 1980’s, when among teen boys, there were more homophobes than homosexuals by a large factor, & the fear of appearing “gay” was a guide & **a goad** for many of us. [/QUOTE] A goad? What does that mean? Had some “fun” with the gay boys, did you? [QUOTE=Miller] Watching you go into a screaming gay panic because someone thought a flick you liked was kinda gay isn’t nearly as entertaining as you think. [/QUOTE] Yeah it is! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-300-is-the-most-homoerotic-action-movie-ever-made/396735.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-300-is-the-most-homoerotic-action-movie-ever-made/396735.md?page=6)