Sick of all the gay

[rousseau]

So, thank you for all the responses.. Firstly, I would like to say that I am not a homophobe at all, however that popular accusation in this thread speaks directly to what I am ranting about. It used to be that you needed to be hostile to gay people, violent, or in some way violating basic civil rights before someone would be called a homophobe. Now, just not liking to watch two men kiss passionately or otherwise engage in sexual acts is homophobic. this is exactly what I am talking about.

Yep, and it's a good thing. Your frame of mind is on the way out. In thirty years people won't be as repulsed because homosexuality is being normalized. Unfortunately for you, this makes you uncomfortable, but honestly.. nobody in their right mind would care, nor should they.

Two gay men kissing in a park and nobody batting an eyelash is the goal, not the fear.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Threat, real or imagined, isn't really required with the common definition of the term, though it certainly isn't excluded.

[Canadian] Oxford Dictionary 2nd Edition (abridged, 2004)
homophobia - a hatred or fear of or prejudice against homosexuals or homosexuality.

That is the very general way in which the term is used.

Threat and fear are intertwined. The threat maybe real or imagined, but why would anyone fear something which is not perceived as a threat?

It doesn't require fear. The hatred or prejudice portions of the definition could could exist for reasons apart from fear. Homophobia is not strictly a fear.

 

[Keith&Co.]

v It used to be that you needed to be hostile to gay people, ,,,before someone would be called a homophobe.

You don't see

I find it repulsive.. like, you know, the smell of shit.

as hostile?

 

[Bronzeage]

So, thank you for all the responses.. Firstly, I would like to say that I am not a homophobe at all, however that popular accusation in this thread speaks directly to what I am ranting about. It used to be that you needed to be hostile to gay people, violent, or in some way violating basic civil rights before someone would be called a homophobe. Now, just not liking to watch two men kiss passionately or otherwise engage in sexual acts is homophobic. this is exactly what I am talking about.

Perhaps it is the type of shows my wife and I watch.. Modern Family was an early example of a gay couple 'featured' on a sit com. They seemed to represent that culture very well. It has been on the air for years. This year was the first year that they had an on-screen kiss. It was not attractive... but whatever. It just shows a change has been happening.

Orphan Black is a relatively new show (on the third year now). A lot of gay people in that show.. over representative of the gay community.

.. and I guess that is really my point and the source of my "gay affirmative action" comment. Watching contemporary television now-a-days, if families and social circles therein represent American society in any way, then one must conclude that nearly 50% of society is gay, 50% of society is black, 50% of all children are adopted...

everyone gets a trophy. Everyone is represented in equal proportion.

Where are all the shows where there are as many unbelievers and believers? (OK, maybe "The Leftovers" is a unique example of that).

Part of my point in posting this rant was to validate my thoughts.. and you have all validated them. I can't express that the massive increase in male-on-male explicit sexuality on TV is ugly without being branded a homophobe. And THAT is the problem.

For who is this a problem? You call male on male sexuality "ugly." Is this your opinion of all explicit sexuality on TV. I remember the storm created when Dennis Franz's bare ass was exposed on NYPD Blue. He was in the shower with a woman, so that was different.

The reality of drama is it must contain some kind of drama. Without conflict, there is no drama. If you want a reflection of real life, replace your television with a large mirror. If you want a comfortable reflection of life, I can't help you there. The early days of TV, when Milton Berle could dress like a woman and no one suspected a thing, one could have concluded everyone was white and all men were big band leaders. Ricky Ricardo and Ozzie Nelson were both band leaders. Ozzie's band vanished sometime in the second season and when he said, "Hi, Honey. I'm home," no one asked where he had been all day. What was the number of big band leaders in the 50's, as a percentage of the population? TV has never represented American society in anyway. Do you really think the marshal of Dodge City waited for a man to pull a gun on him? The Korean War lasted three years(those were the days). The TV show about the Army doctors ran for eleven years.

You are completely entitled to feel the way you do. Please don't be surprised when people react to what you say. If you want people to agree with your feelings, it's better to find a more sympathetic crowd.

 

[skepticalbip]

So, thank you for all the responses.. Firstly, I would like to say that I am not a homophobe at all, however that popular accusation in this thread speaks directly to what I am ranting about. It used to be that you needed to be hostile to gay people, violent, or in some way violating basic civil rights before someone would be called a homophobe. Now, just not liking to watch two men kiss passionately or otherwise engage in sexual acts is homophobic. this is exactly what I am talking about.

Yep, and it's a good thing. Your frame of mind is on the way out. In thirty years people won't be as repulsed because homosexuality is being normalized. Unfortunately for you, this makes you uncomfortable, but honestly.. nobody in their right mind would care, nor should they.

Two gay men kissing in a park and nobody batting an eyelash is the goal, not the fear.

I understand my Yuch response to seeing men kiss. It is projection. I feel no sexual attraction to other males so my being in a sexual situation with a male (like kissing another man) is so contrary to my nature. OTOH, I do feel sexual attraction to women. Therefore my projection makes it quite understandable and acceptable to me seeing lesbians kissing.

This brings me back to my attempting, unsuccessfully, to convince a couple hot lesbians I know that I am a lesbian in a male body. I fully understand and agree with their revulsion at the idea of having a sexual encounter with men and their sexual attraction to women.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Watching contemporary television now-a-days, if families and social circles therein represent American society in any way, then one must conclude that nearly 50% of society is gay, 50% of society is black, 50% of all children are adopted...

Well, how is that new?
How many TV show characters in history have had a decent home life compared to single parents with spouses just mysteriously missing? Single dads and single moms never mentioning the divorce or cancer or drunk driver that took away half the parental unit...
But was this ever meant to indicate that it's dangerous to get married and have a kid? Or was there just more opportunity for drama and story lines where one has to juggle single parenting, dating, a career and making a gingerbread house for the school bake sale?

I wouldn't look at it as social hammering as much as TV writers are lazy and there's more to mine from gay relationships right now than from plots that have been used by everyone since Dick Van Dyke.

 

[Jokodo]

So, thank you for all the responses.. Firstly, I would like to say that I am not a homophobe at all, however that popular accusation in this thread speaks directly to what I am ranting about. It used to be that you needed to be hostile to gay people, violent, or in some way violating basic civil rights before someone would be called a homophobe. Now, just not liking to watch two men kiss passionately or otherwise engage in sexual acts is homophobic. this is exactly what I am talking about.

Perhaps it is the type of shows my wife and I watch.. Modern Family was an early example of a gay couple 'featured' on a sit com. They seemed to represent that culture very well. It has been on the air for years. This year was the first year that they had an on-screen kiss. It was not attractive... but whatever. It just shows a change has been happening.

Orphan Black is a relatively new show (on the third year now). A lot of gay people in that show.. over representative of the gay community.

.. and I guess that is really my point and the source of my "gay affirmative action" comment. Watching contemporary television now-a-days, if families and social circles therein represent American society in any way, then one must conclude that nearly 50% of society is gay, 50% of society is black, 50% of all children are adopted...

Source?

Because the sources I find (1,2)indicate that in actual counts, the number of gay characters in prime-time shows has been fluctuating between around 3-4% between 2009 and 2013/4, with a peak of 4.4% in 2012.

So either:
a) the pollsters are lying
b) you are lying
c) there was a massive increase by over one order of magnitude over the last year and a half (and you're the only one who noticed)
d) your subjective perception is way out of proportion with reality
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I consider (d) most likely.

everyone gets a trophy. Everyone is represented in equal proportion.

Where are all the shows where there are as many unbelievers and believers? (OK, maybe "The Leftovers" is a unique example of that).

Since your perception of the number LGBT characters is demonstrably way out of proporstion, this comparison is irrelevant.

Part of my point in posting this rant was to validate my thoughts.. and you have all validated them. I can't express that the massive increase in male-on-male explicit sexuality on TV is ugly without being branded a homophobe. And THAT is the problem.

You find it ugly. You. That doesn't imply that it is ugly in any objective or universal sense. That you believe it is makes you an inconsiderate bigot. Finding it ugly alone doesn't.

 

[dystopian]

Orphan Black is a relatively new show (on the third year now). A lot of gay people in that show.. over representative of the gay community.

There's like three of them on the show. One lesbian, one gay dude, and one bisexual girl. But somehow three represents a "lot" to some people, apparently. Besides, I'd think you'd be thrilled; the lesbian is a clone and somehow none of her other clones are lesbians! Maybe the show is saying it's a choice!

.. and I guess that is really my point and the source of my "gay affirmative action" comment. Watching contemporary television now-a-days, if families and social circles therein represent American society in any way, then one must conclude that nearly 50% of society is gay, 50% of society is black, 50% of all children are adopted...

And where the hell do you get this ridiculous notion from? There's almost no show on TV that has a 50% representation of either gays or black people as part of the cast (I'm not even going to address the one about adopted kids, because seriously, wtf are you even on about?); and if we were to look at all of the shows combined and add up the number of gay/black people on them, you're still not going to get anywhere near 50%.

Part of my point in posting this rant was to validate my thoughts.. and you have all validated them. I can't express that the massive increase in male-on-male explicit sexuality on TV is ugly without being branded a homophobe. And THAT is the problem.

No, the problem is that you're actually a homophobe. When you start off on an angry rant in which you compare gay men kissing to smearing shit on their faces, guess what? You're a homophobe. When you come back after posting such a rant and declare that the problem isn't you; it's EVERYONE ELSE not "getting you, man"; guess what? The problem really *is* you.

 

[Malintent]

Threat, real or imagined, isn't really required with the common definition of the term, though it certainly isn't excluded.

[Canadian] Oxford Dictionary 2nd Edition (abridged, 2004)
homophobia - a hatred or fear of or prejudice against homosexuals or homosexuality.

That is the very general way in which the term is used.

Threat and fear are intertwined. The threat maybe real or imagined, but why would anyone fear something which is not perceived as a threat?

When one's pet theory, "thinking male on male sex is repulsive equates to feeling threatened of it", fails, then maybe abandon the theory rather than wonder what is wrong with the definition of words...

 

[Malintent]

He called men kissing (kissing, ffs, we're not talking about gay porn at prime-time) each other on TV "shoving their sexuality in everyone's face", or something to that effect. This is ridiculous, and yes, bigoted. Two people kissing doesn't tell you what, if anything, those people might do beyond kissing in a more private setting, so it basically only tells you that the people involved might occasionally be interested in something sexy with a person of the same sex, nothing more specific can be deduced.

I'm bothered by seeing them kissing, thus I can understand how he feels it's being in your face.

He's wrong but I'm not sure "bigot" is the right label.

Thank you. By the way, note how everyone jumps on the bigot wagon, and completely ignores the part where I clearly indicate my issue is on over-representation... not mere existence. It is amazing how many words have been put in my mouth in this thread.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Phobias involve fear. There's no fear involved for me--seeing it is something distasteful, not something I'm scared of. Thus, while I think it's related to a phobia I don't consider it a phobia.

The term 'homophobia' refers more to a social attitude of general antipathy (which could, but does not necessarily include fear) toward homosexuals. 'Xenophobia' and 'transphobia' are often used in the same way. While there may be a psychological form of this '-phobia' in the same sense as arachnophobia, I don't believe that is how it is typically used. While the root term 'phobia' does (if I recall correctly), stem from the Greek term for fear, it isn't always used that way. Hydrophobic molecules, for instance, are not afraid of water. Perhaps 'homophobia' was not the best term to use, but neither was 'homosexual'.

Good point. You're right, we don't really mean "homophobia" in many cases.

 

[Jokodo]

I'm bothered by seeing them kissing, thus I can understand how he feels it's being in your face.

He's wrong but I'm not sure "bigot" is the right label.

Thank you. By the way, note how everyone jumps on the bigot wagon, and completely ignores the part where I clearly indicate my issue is on over-representation... not mere existence. It is amazing how many words have been put in my mouth in this thread.

One, it's imagined over-representation, not real one, and two, it's complaining about people kissing as shoving it in your face when anyone walking down the street with his or her biological kid is much more in your face about what actually happens in their bedroom.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'll have to tell him that I now know of a case of whatever this is more severe than his. Now you have me wondering if this phobia has been studied.

Probably most people don't know they have it.
I grew up in Idaho, there was always something somewhere.
The navy had me on the shore on several bases, never felt at all inconvenienced.
One trip to Steel Beach for a Barbecue, and suddenly i have this phobia...

The most common reaction, of course, is not only disbelief that such a thing could be a phobia, but they point out that i sail on submarines. The apparent belief is that if i don't have claustrophobia, i can't have ANY phobias....

Yeah, it sounds like something that would be hard to experience before you actually put to sea. Does it bother you on a ship--while it's open in one direction you have the ship itself on part of the horizon, there's no 360 view unless you're up in a crow's nest.

 

[Malintent]

So, thank you for all the responses.. Firstly, I would like to say that I am not a homophobe at all, however that popular accusation in this thread speaks directly to what I am ranting about. It used to be that you needed to be hostile to gay people, violent, or in some way violating basic civil rights before someone would be called a homophobe. Now, just not liking to watch two men kiss passionately or otherwise engage in sexual acts is homophobic. this is exactly what I am talking about.

Yep, and it's a good thing. Your frame of mind is on the way out. In thirty years people won't be as repulsed because homosexuality is being normalized. Unfortunately for you, this makes you uncomfortable, but honestly.. nobody in their right mind would care, nor should they.

Two gay men kissing in a park and nobody batting an eyelash is the goal, not the fear.

I don't know the stats, so forgive me.. lets just say 10% of the American population is gay... I have no idea, nor does it matter for this point.

If you see 1 out of 10 people kissing in a park are gay, then that is what one would expect. Now, what if you were watching a program on TV, and in it, 5 out of 10 people kissing in the park are gay? What does that tell you about the people making these shows that are supposed to represent a population, although in fiction?

I don't care how many people are gay. I don't care if a TV show has a gay couple in it... When every fucking show that comes out has a precisely equal amounts of every protected group.. that is what I am commenting on.

 

[Malintent]

My point... I like TV. I watch a lot of shows with my wife... it is something we like to do together. I am getting a little annoyed about what seems to be a "gay affirmative action" going on in entertainment lately. You can't get a new show on TV without a good helping of onscreen male on male face sucking. ENOUGH ALREADY. I get it. It is ok to be gay. Can you guys lay off the smearing it everyone's face all the time now?

You don't get it. They're not doing it to convince you that it's okay to be gay. Their decision-making process doesn't revolve entirely around you. That's the real problem that you're facing here-- the fact that the entertainment industry's decisions do not revolve around what people like you want as much as they used to. There are other viewers out there who also like TV, but who are not repulsed by depictions of male homosexuality. The entertainment industry is gradually starting to care more about those viewers and less about viewers like you. Which means your complaints are going to fall on deaf ears, because the central issue here is that your feelings just don't matter as much as they used to. You don't get as much of a say in things as you used to.

In other words, you are becoming a minority.

I grew up a minority. White male in a black "slum". I am not saying that my opinion matters to the entertainment world.. I am saying that the entertainment worlds opinion is disturbing to me... and you are all victim blaming me. I am not saying gay people should not be gay, nor that they should "keep it to themselves" I am saying that it does not make for good entertainment... and all of you that are pretending that it does are the ones that might very well be in the closet.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm bothered by seeing them kissing, thus I can understand how he feels it's being in your face.

He's wrong but I'm not sure "bigot" is the right label.

Thank you. By the way, note how everyone jumps on the bigot wagon, and completely ignores the part where I clearly indicate my issue is on over-representation... not mere existence. It is amazing how many words have been put in my mouth in this thread.

You started this thread and said you were sick of seeing it all the time. That seems to me that you're already going too far.

 

[Jokodo]

Yep, and it's a good thing. Your frame of mind is on the way out. In thirty years people won't be as repulsed because homosexuality is being normalized. Unfortunately for you, this makes you uncomfortable, but honestly.. nobody in their right mind would care, nor should they.

Two gay men kissing in a park and nobody batting an eyelash is the goal, not the fear.

I don't know the stats, so forgive me.. lets just say 10% of the American population is gay... I have no idea, nor does it matter for this point.

If you see 1 out of 10 people kissing in a park are gay, then that is what one would expect. Now, what if you were watching a program on TV, and in it, 5 out of 10 people kissing in the park are gay? What does that tell you about the people making these shows that are supposed to represent a population, although in fiction?

I don't care how many people are gay. I don't care if a TV show has a gay couple in it... When every fucking show that comes out has a precisely equal amounts of every protected group.. that is what I am commenting on.

Which is a figment of your information - probably because you feel so outnerved by gays on tv that every one of their relatively few actual appearances leaves a lasting impression. As in, you have a disproportionate and irrational fear of them.

 

[Malintent]

Thank you. By the way, note how everyone jumps on the bigot wagon, and completely ignores the part where I clearly indicate my issue is on over-representation... not mere existence. It is amazing how many words have been put in my mouth in this thread.

You started this thread and said you were sick of seeing it all the time. That seems to me that you're already going too far.

Yes. I am tired of seeing it over represented. THAT is too far?? I also don't like watching cats get run over by cars.. only saw that in a TV show one time in the past 5 years... yet cats get run over by cars every day... shouldn't they put more cats being run over by cars in shows? why not?

I am starting (just now) to believe in the "Liberal Gay Agenda" I hear the rightwingnuts go on about... shit, they may be right.. and many of you appear to have been afflicted.
How many dicks have you sucked today? none? Homophobe!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't care how many people are gay. I don't care if a TV show has a gay couple in it... When every fucking show that comes out has a precisely equal amounts of every protected group.. that is what I am commenting on.

What's going on is that they can't have half a person on a show.

I'm not aware of any ordinary show (not reality TV with an ever-changing group of people) that has anything like enough people in it to have an accurate percentage of any minority other than women. If they go with the demographically-correct answer of zero they get accused of discrimination, thus you see minorities over-represented in many cases. Homosexual is worse in this respect because to depict sexuality you normally need two.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

If you see 1 out of 10 people kissing in a park are gay, then that is what one would expect. Now, what if you were watching a program on TV, and in it, 5 out of 10 people kissing in the park are gay? What does that tell you about the people making these shows that are supposed to represent a population, although in fiction?

What show (not specifically depicting gay communities or a gay pride event) show 50% of people in a park who are kissing being gay? (5 out of ten is a weird way to put it; whom is the fifth gay person kissing?)

I don't care if a TV show has a gay couple in it... When every fucking show that comes out has a precisely equal amounts of every protected group.. that is what I am commenting on.

But that's not actually a real thing. That's part of why you're getting a bit of backlash. You've amped up a minority behaviour on television -- even if some shows overrepresent, on average that is not the case -- into "precisely equal amounts of every protected group".