When it comes to gay visibility on TV, are straight (and a few gay) men clueless?

I think it's fair to say straight guys often don't "get it".

Even within the so-called "creative class" there is a substantial disparity between straight male perception of gays and gay male/straight female perception of gays.

A lot of straight guys are almost obsessively fixated on the idea of someone taking it up the @$$ whenever gay men are mentioned.  That or they almost instinctively fall back on a notion that all gay men are effminate, non-physical, basically male versions of their wives/girlfriends.

This is a large part of why shows under the control of straight men produce few non-stereotypical gay characters, if they produce any at all.  Straight guys don't know how to use gay guys in a story.  It's sort of: "But this is a sci-fi action show, we don't need a secretary or a hairdresser in the cast!"

The gay character is still often the modern minstral.  Middle America likes their gays prissy, effeminate and of at all possible celibate.  As the great sage Vito Russo noted in his treatise The Celluloid Closet, there was seldom any resistance to depicting what were clearly intended to be gay men as "sissies" for comic effect in movies even during the days of the Hayes Code.  To a large extent that's still true.

But there's no room for a Marc St James on Star Trek, and so there isn't one. Of course the idea of a more masculine gay character stretches too many credibility levels in their narrow minds.

It reminds me of a thread that was on here a while back where someone at a comic book store was commenting that gays are "overpossive" of Captain Jack Harkness and that he's "basically straight".  The level of denial required to hold that belief (especially after Series 2) is massive.  But it may also impact acceptance of some shows.

As the visibility of gays has risen sensitivity to anything even vaguely smacking of homosexuality has grown.  I firmly believe that this is why the reimagined Battlestar Gallactica had a female cast as Starbuck. This allowed for a tension in a relationship where even a "bromance" thing might have had some straight guys squirming.

We're still a long ways off from attaining equality on TV or in the movies.  For now gay characters are most safely used on shows where the core target audience is women rather than straight men.  That way no straight guys sensibilities have to be threatened.

After all, if we are to genuinely believe that NBC avoided focusing attention on Matthew Mitcham because he was gay, that suggests that there is still a strong fear of showing gay men as anything other than male women.  Instances where a gay man is equal to or better than straight men, especially in any kind of physically-oriented role, are just too threatening to the straight male target audience.

Retaliation by focusing our viewing hours on Logo or Here is perfectly appropriate in my mind.  If anyone else wants me as a viewer then they better start pandering to me.

There was a comment, I think by Gloria Steinam, way, way back in the 60's. She was complaining that Emma Peel on The Avengers was the only "heroic woman" on TV.

This was very true. Back then a majority of women on TV were wife/mothers.  If the show was more action-oriented they were frequently secretaries who got into trouble and needed to be rescued. Despite being a Lieutenant and a bridge officer, we never once saw Uhura sit in the captain's chair on the Enterprise bridge on Star Trek, even when Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scottie and virtually every other male on the ship had beamed down to somewhere else.

Women were in no shortage on TV, but they were usually in very stereotypical roles.  Mostly they supported the male characters, served as damsels in distress and otherwise functioned as plot devices rather than people.

This is rather where we are now.  Gays on TV are mostly in stereotypical roles. Often they are supporting characters only. We're kind of lucky in that we have at least two heroic gay/bi guys on Torchwood (there go the Brits again, just like with The Avengers).  But as it was for women so will it be for us.  A long, uphill battle.  But maybe our equivalent of the 70's is on the horizon now...

it's when they're turned into a quick, glib "self-evident" joke that's the turn off. "Marc" On Ugly Betty is a sissy, but he's quite complex and multi-faceted. Being that he's the creation of a gay man, such complexity is second nature. Real-life complexity remains a threat. That's th reasons why NBC did it's best to erased Matthew Mitcham. He's strong, he's brave, and he's beautiful. For some straights tht's much too much to deal with.

Straight, middle-aged white guys pretty much don't know how to use anybody that's not a straight, white middle aged guy. It would be nice to say that women, and minorities have advanced and that gays are going to catch up but that's sadly not the case. I mean I'm sorry but Uhura is still not sitting in the captain's chair. I think it's a combination of cluelessness and fear, and I don't see it changing any time soon. My only hope that the generation growing up now, in a more diverse world will be willing to reflect that on the screen.

If there's so few writers willing to put gay main characters into shows, how hard can it be for you to get their names right? You've got Abraham Higginbotham listed as Andre in a photo, and Rina Mimoun's name is not Rita!

Seriously, get an editor. Or fire the one you've got now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of the various Star Trek series over the years, (save for DS-9), but I'm distressed to hear in this article that, once again, gay characters are being avoided in the latest offering from the franchise. For a show that has been celebrated for being cutting edge on so many issues, their complete refusal to ever have a GLBT member of any of the casts in any of the series is insulting and mystifying. One would think that with the success of other, newer sci-fi series which HAVE included GLBT characters... and the relatively lackluster performance of the last few Star Trek offerings, (the last Star Trek film, and the Enterprise series overall), that perhaps whoever's calling the shots now in the Star Trek franchise might be willing to finally address this issue. Disappointing, to say the least.

afhickman

Gee, and I'm always amazed at the 99% or so the "editors" on AE get right! Really, you guys do a fantastic job with what I am sure are limited resources, and I know you never object to what I hope is meant as "constructive" criticism.

Great article, Michael! But I'm wondering: If we want to be the conflicted dad, the bold star ship captain, and the romantic couple- why do the two most OBVIOUS channels to give us that let us down so bad? here!'s programming might be entertaining, but the original shows are basically soft porn held together by a thin plot. LOGO's original programming so far included: An African-American reimagination of QUEER AS FOLK, endless documentaries about coming out, drag queens and how awful it is to live anywhere outside NY, SF or LA, a really FUNNY show about women in Texas which unfortunately constantly gets interrupted by the really awful story of an aspiring actor(!) in West Hollywood(!!) who just got cast for a part in Naked Boys Singing(!!!), struggling to come out(!!!!). And then there's Rick & Steve, which again: A reimagination of Queer As Folk with puppets. Featuring jokes about AIDS that a network like ABC should only dare to make once- GLAAD would have a hissy fit. I know both channels operate on a limited budget- but where is the gay sci-fi series, where's the daytime show that promises to treat 'it's straight characters just like the gay ones', where's the compelling drama? Where is a gay version of THE HILLS on a channel that is OWNED by the same people as MTV, for crying out loud? Maybe we just don't care... enough?

--

The Gays Of Daytime

Then start here

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bErPOo6jGMg

 

Everyone complains that they're "tired of seeing coming out stories," and have one complaint or another about the fare we've been sevred. But as the film Chris and Don: A Love Story shows there are hundreds of areas that need to be filled-in. What I'm talking about isn't shallow "feel good" stuff about "The Gay Greats," but a real examination of gays and lesbians in history. There are a host of wildly different and fascinnting people from all walks of life whose stories would literally blow y'all's minds sky high. I would love, for instance, to see a documentary about Henry Gerber -- the postal worker who founded the first U.S. gay rights organization -- and was arrested by the police for doing so.

I'm interested in Isherwood since I read Klaus Mann's diaries 20 years ago. I haven't read much of his novels (except for the berlin stories & a single man) to be honest but his diaries, his autobiography and his relationship with Bachardy are fascinating. I wonder when or if or why not the second volume of his diaries is going to be published.

They were such an unusual and interesting couple that I actually wondered why there wasn't much about the documentary here on After Elton.

Well, I have seen tiny snippets of the documentary and just hope there will be a region 2 dvd available.

If you're waiting for a prominent non-coded gay role to pop up on commercial Star Trek features and tv, you'll be waiting for a long time.

Instead, if you haven't done so already, do yourselves a favour and check out the Hidden Frontier series of Star Trek fan films. Produced by gay and gay-friendly fans, HF has introduced some ground-breaking gay characters. One of the most memorable is Matthew Montgomery's gay Klingon captain.

True, a lot of the earlier efforts can be difficult to watch with bad acting, bad makeup and costuming and cheesy special effects, but the series does get better over the course of its ambitious 7 "seasons". And considering that everyone volunteers their time, most of the actors are amateurs at best and everything is filmed on a shoe-string budget with costs borne by the film-makers, it's actually pretty darn impressive.

The two spin-offs (Odyssey and The Helena Chronicles) that were introduced following the 7th and final season of Hidden Frontier are even better. The acting has improved a lot and imo is frequently as good as or better than stuff coming from Here! and LOGO, or even some mainstream network tv shows. Matthew Montgomery is back as the medical doctor on Odyssey and both series feature not only out actors but main characters in whom being gay is just one facet of who they are.

Actually, Michael, I think AE should consider interviewing the Hidden Frontier guys (and gals) about their work. One of the out actors, J.T. Tepnapa, who portrays a prominent gay character in many episodes is himself an up-and-coming independent film-maker ("Drag Queen Heist", "Masturbation: Putting The Fun Into Self-Loving"). He also portrays a young Sulu in another soon-to-be-released Trek fan project (Star Trek: Phase II - "Blood & Fire"). Plus, if I read the fan forums correctly, he recently got married in California to his boyfriend.

Hidden Frontier Productions

Star Trek: Phase II

Blue Seraph Productions

It seems that this is a topic that I know that I jump back and forward about. As much as I would love to see a cop drama with a gay lead, I'm not sure how long I would be able to deal with some of the issues that would present itself for a gay detective. Spending so much time, searching for any familar aspects or lineage from TV and movie characters, have been a struggle for me. It's funny because I remember having one TV in my household growing up and watching 'Bewitched' with my mom. It was one of those mother and gay son minus my-gay-wings and fairy dust moments, that I still have with her from time to time. My middle name is 'Maurice' and that would be Samatha's dad on 'Bewitched'. As you can see my mom was such a huge fan and I would grow up and be one as well. 'Bewitched' was one of the many shows, that I would grow up loving and just couldn't get enough of and even now. Personally, it was the idea of the show and how you could have taken out the theme of magic and fantasy and throw in something about being gay. It seems that on the show there was the legendary Uncle Arthur (Paul Lynn) and even though the writers didn't write the character to be so flamboyantly fabulous, he just was. The entire show was so over-the-top without pushing anyone's button. I would later find out that Paul Lynn, was gay in real-life, which wasn't a big shock but I'm ok. As a young child watching TV, always looking for a role model or hero. It seems that Paul character depiction wasn't saying sorry or apologizing for his 'sissy-like' ways but it seems that he was celebrated all-around. The audience and everyone around the legendary Mr. Lynn was in such awe of him because he never attempted to be someone else on screen and in real-life. Some like to say that most of Paul Lynn's line were ad-libs and maybe that is parital true.