 by Brian Juergens
Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 35 members and 833 guests online.
|
Liveblogging "As the World Turns": So Noah Married an Axe Murderer
Oh, fine, fine ... Ameera's not technically wielding any sharp objects and to our knowledge she hasn't actually killed anyone. Yet. But is there anyone out there who doesn't think that she's up to no good? There mustn't be, because if even the characters on the show have gotten wise to the situation (they're not always the quickest on the uptake, if you remember), then that means it must be pretty much written on her face. Yes, in today's episode, noted rocket scientist Casey is the first person to realize that Ameera has designs on Noah that go beyond simply marrying and living with him. (Crazy, right?) The real question now is whether resident Queen of Denial Luke will finally get hip to the situation and stand up for himself and his ever-dense boyfriend, or end up being boiled on the stovetop like Mister Hopsalot. How will it all go down? Click on through the jump and refresh to find out as it happens, and join in the bitchfest in the comments! Ameera, is that a machete in your pocket or are you just happy to see us? 2:55PM EDT: Preview time! A fully-scarfless (and smokin' hot!) Ameera grabs Noah by the face and plants a full one on him. Wow -- that's your two kisses, lovebirds. Now get ready for 6 months of drymouth. 2:50PM EST: Casey stresses that Ameera isn't into him because she's sniffing up Noah's hydrant. Luke replies that she can open up to him because he's "safe" and Casey says, "whatever, dude." I kind of like that he called Luke "dude". Casey's late for work, so he leaves, and through the window Luke sees Noah put his arm around Ameera. And Casey is late, and he gets fired! Aw, poor kid. Evil Emily shows up and asks him for a drink and he says he doesn't work there because the girl he likes rejected him for a gay guy and he was five minutes late. He hands her a bottle and leaves. Back at the love shack, Noah can't figure out why Casey "flew off the handle" and quit the project. Luke tells him that Casey liked Ameera and she's clearly into Noah. He says that he didn't want to see it, but that Casey opened his eyes to the fact that they don't know anything about her and she's far too into him. Luke says, "every day you spend with her, I lose." Noah tells Luke that he's in love with him, and just then Ameera comes around the corner with two plates of food and the stink-eye for Luke. Luke leaves abruptly and on the way out looks at Noah and Ameera sitting down to dinner together, and shakes his head in that "how could I have been so stuuuuupid?!" way. 2:46PM EDT: Casey storms off and Luke follows him. Casey yells, "I quit you, Luke!" and asks Luke if that was loud enough for ICE to hear. Brokeback reference? Eh, not bad. Casey tells Luke that Ameera is in love with her gay husband and the Luke blubbers on about how no, when you save someone's life they want to kiss you in a totally platonic way, or some such nonsense. Luke tries to convince Casey that Ameera is really into him. Um, why, exactly? She's clearly not, and he clearly suspects that Ameera is Noah-blocking. Luke, give me the zipcode from the state of DENIAL and I'll send you a postcard. 2:42PM EDT: Casey basically lays down the law, that what they're doing isn't worth it. Ameera's all "keep your voice down!" and Luke apologizes if his gay teasings went too far, but Casey responds that that's not it, it's that he doesn't want to live a lie (again). He asks Ameera what she thinks they should do. 2:37PM EDT: Blah, blah blah. Lots of other crap. Oh - Emily just got into kind of a hot standoff with her male assistant, who quits on her for being such a bayotch. Bring that guy back - he's good! Okay, back at the diner, Ameera is telling Noah that nothing's going on, that she's just nervous being out in public. Liar! To convince her that things are fine, Luke puts his arm around Casey, who finally reaches his Gay Panic tipping point and throws his arm off, saying that he's not gay and not a cameraman (uh, we noticed!) and since there's clearly no chance of his getting into St Olaf's flowing pants, he's not putting up with all this nonsense anymore. Okay, he's smarter than I thought. 2:26PM EDT: Ameera's all "Noah's not into women, he's with Luke". Casey's all, "Yeah, but you're totally mooning over him and you should cool it" and she's all "POP OFF, CASEY!!" She seriously does get this crazy dark-and-stormy look in her eye and she warns him to mind his own business, and Noah and Luke come over to find out what's going on. HOT! This is better than Rock of Love! Meanwhile, Ice Truck Killer gets into a spat with Emily and asks if she could put her broomstick in the closet every once in a while, and she snaps, "Don't tell me where to put my broomstick!" Back at Snyder Farm, a hilariously bad day-player tries to deliver a hot air balloon to Meg and The Blonde Obstacle's Obstacle. This is gonna be good - I hope they wind up in the lion sanctuary like in Footballer's Wives! 2:18PM EDT: At the diner, Luke and Noah leave Casey and Ameera at the booth and go sit with one another at the counter. Casey sees Ameera's wistful look and asks her flat-out: "You're in love with Noah, aren't you?" Someone get Captain Obvious a bone, please. 2:14PM EDT: Luke tells his actors that they blew it, and Casey says that he didn't have the lens cap off or hadn't pressed RECORD or something similarly brilliant. I'm hoping at this point Luke gets all Lars Von Trier on these guys and starts engaging in serious emotional warfare with his talent. Ameera of course suggests doing another take (maybe this time they'll get to third base!) and Luke says no, they should stop and pick it up tomorrow. Noah is either stunned or drunk and says nothing. 2:08PM EDT: We start with Ice Truck Killer and Sophie. Oh my - there's a ticker at the bottom of the screen telling me that due to the live broadcast of the Pope's visit, "Guiding Light will be seen at 2:07AM". Denied! Guess the Pope likes the gay boys of Oakdale too much to interrupt their story? Back at the love shack. Cake and Nameera are working on their "movie", and they explain the tradition of carrying one's sham bride over the threshold. Ameera is of course tickled to be in Noah's arms, and after she delivers her subsequent line with all the personality of oversteamed asparagus, she suggests they try again. Noah carries her through the door again, and out of nowhere she plants a kiss on his lips. Luke looks at them like that particular interaction is vaguely familiar and perhaps something he himself has experienced, oh, say ... over six months ago? 1:55PM EDT: OMG - two of the bottle blondes on The Bold and the Botoxed just had a full-on fight over one of the woman's dead dog, with her accusing the other lady of killing the pooch with poisoned lemon bars. Drama! Submitted by on Fri, 2008-04-18 13:53. |
 Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
Actually.....
Really?
When Luke and Noah were
The intro is almost always better than the show!
*Tasteless comment alert*
a balloon ride?
Ummm.....
Yes, and I loved the I quit you Luke, line!
FINALLY!!!!
Yup, yup, yup...
He is comming around.
Hello there. I think there is a big knock-down-drag-out boy/girl fight over a boy comming up== or someone may die?
www.arthurinthegarden.com
www.downtownraleigh.com
Ameera must go right now!!!
And I am not even watching this crap anymore. At least Luke may have grown one ball in today's episode. Only time and hormones will tell.
Let's all give one big cheer to the rightwing-nuts at the AFA for bringing us AMEERA, SHE WHO MUST BE OBEYED.
I am switching all my attention (except this blog of course) to Verbotene Liebe, Brothers and Sisters any other gay-themed drama that support gay men and gay women in love in a realistic way.
damn....
I think Casey is the smartest one of the whole group
I am furious!!!!!!!!!
Could this ridiculous Puke storyline get any dumber? I asked the same question at least once a week and you know what? It does get dumber every damn episode! I am so pissed at Luke for being so ball-less! Jeez. smack Noah a couple of times across that ignorant head of his. I thought Noah was wooden in some of his scenes before, but today it was as if he was wound up like the true dummy he is. Casey was the ONLY redeeming character in today's asinine episode. He is also the hottest of that sorry group in my book. Am I the only one that noticed that the Puke segments were miniscule at best? The only screen time they had to amount to anything was the opening and the ending. If I would have blinked during the other segments, I would have missed them. With the looks that Ameera Bitch was giving Casey, I would bet money that she is a plant with every intention of doing harm to stupid Noah and/or Luke. She better watch out because most of the queens that I have been friends with, you don't back them in a corner. You will come out with bodily harm. I wanna see Luke smack Noah and her both right upside their chops. Next week, I'll be damned if she doesn't kiss his dumbass AGAIN! What's CBS and ATWT telling all of us gays? Only a woman can satisfy a gay man? HELL NO! It's past time for Luke to dump this loser boyfriend of his. Way past time!
BTW... Awesome live blog!
My new favorite character
My new favorite character is Emily's assistant. Too bad he got fired. It would have been nice to have someone around with some sense and a spine.
Casey did pretty well, though. He wised up and got out of that mess.
So, as of next week, Ameera and Noah will have kissed as often as Luke and Noah. Is anyone affiliated with this show still insisting that there's no double standard? And if so, do their noses grow every time they open their mouths?
Lighten Up
I think some of us proudly out queer folk have been too hard on ATWT. Yes, there's a double standard, and yes, it's an indication of how far we haven't come. But despite that, I consider it a significant development, as deficient as it is. When the first kiss occurred I got on the ATWT message boards to see the reaction. There is a HUGE segment of the viewing audience (and of the country in general) that feels like throwing up when Nuke even talk about being boyfriends, to say nothing of actual physical contact. And there's another large group that is perfectly fine with gay people, but on a theoretical level. There were lots of comments from people like that who said they were cool with gay people, but they weren't ready to see something like kissing. And read the recent front page story on this site about the difficulties of getting gay characters on nighttime American TV. Then there are the right wing groups who want to boycott P&G and the network for allowing even this cleaned up version of a gay story.
Despite all the double standards and shortcomings I salute ATWT for putting this out there, and persisting with it. A gay teen romance with physical contact is a huge thing for daytime TV. As insufficient as it is, it will only lead to more down the road. And in the meantime, the part of middle America that is watching will be exposed to this for perhaps the first time, and be forced to think about it. And it will become more than theoretical to those who have seen us in those terms. And the goofiness and unintentional hilarity provides us with this fantastic live-blogging experience!
Another thing about the quality of the show. It can be truly awful (and used to be significantly better), but they put out a full hour show five days a week, every week of the year. They also don't pay well to writers or directors. I'm a bit of a writer myself, and it would probably take me two weeks to write a one hour show that didn't suck.
For what it's worth, I'm predicting that the Ameera storyline will play out and she'll leave or get together with Casey, and Nuke will ultimately get into bed. Of course, the question is exactly what "ultimately" means in this case...
I think ATWT is trying to sweep the awards.
They got the GLAAD award for last year, and this year, they're going for the AFA award!
Seriously though, I've stopped watching this show as I don't particularly like being repeatedly insulted. I've also stopped watching anything on CBS, as that is how incredibly insulting the show has become. I've let them know about it, too, and I suggest that anyone who feels the same do so as well.
To the people who still insist they are doing something wonderful just by having this on the show, my personal opinion is that they have more than squandered any goodwill that they should get for that.
http://establisheddisestablishmentarian.blogspot.com/
Insulted
If you're insulted by ATWT then obviously you shouldn't be watching. We all have our own standards for what insults us. I'm insulted that other daytime shows don't even try to have gay relationships, or even gay characters. I'm insulted that prime time shows (with VERY few exceptions) don't have gay relationships, or major gay characters. And that most gay characters have been incidental or acquainances, without truly gay lives or gay relationships.
AfterElton has a current story posted about South Park. I love the show, but I've always been insulted by the constant use of the word "gay" to mean "lame". The writer of the article was not insulted by that at all. It's the old "eye of the beholder" thing I guess.
I don't lose sight of the fact that ATWT is portraying something that totally doesn't exist in daytime TV or in prime time TV (a gay teen male relationship that has included physical contact). I also don't forget that they are not creating the show for the gay community, and their goal is not to provide us with vicarious sexual satisfaction. And I don't forget the positive impact the storyline is undoubtedly having on many formerly sheltered straight people in middle America.
Bottom line: while disappointed in the double standard and the often lousy writing and plot development, the show has not squandered its goodwill with me.
Insulted?
I have to disagree Dennis. It sounds like a battered spouse when you say this is the only show on daytime with a gay character. Like a battered spouse who's afraid to leave and be left all alone. So, for better or worse we should embrace ATWT? Like the battered spouse who feels too lowly to deserve an honest relationship?
P&G are not porviding an inclusive or fair representation of gay people. I don't accept that as good enough or better. I'm glad you see the double standard. The difference between me and most ATWT fans is that while you are disappointed at the double standard, I am outraged. I demand a seat at the front of the bus, because that's the only way people like P&G will give me one.
.
I'm not watching. Didn't
I'm not watching. Didn't I mention that? The reason that ATWT is so insulting isn't really anything storywise (well, unless you consider the current storyline insulting to one's intelligence, which is VERY easy to do). It's that fact that there is a kissing ban in place for Luke and Noah, yet Ameera is now apparently making a habit of kissing Noah. That's a HUGE smack in the face. They know that many of us aren't happy with the situation, and then they go and do that. It's more than a smack in the face, really. It's more like spitting in our faces. If Luke and Noah were kissing, I wouldn't give a damn if Ameera laid one on him. As it is, it's COMPLETELY unacceptable.
As for South Park, I LOVE it! I don't mind the gay jabs for two reasons:
1) In the case of your example, it's genuine, UNLIKE ATWT.
2) It takes jabs at EVERYONE. In that sense, we get exactly what we want (or at least what I want), to be treated like everyone else.
As for the goodwill issue, some of us aren't happy with just being on the bus anymore. We want to sit wherever we damn well please!
http://establisheddisestablishmentarian.blogspot.com/
writers are in a corner
Unfortunately, it seems the writers have got themselves in a corner. In order to make us root for Luke and Noah, they have to be likeable, but Noah's lack of intelligence makes that difficult. Even Luke's lack of consistancy in terms of being able to detect Ameera's BS is odd.
With other characters, even when they're being stupid about their love lives, they can be redeemed with other relationships. When Henry was an idiot and ended up gambling his livelihood, he was still a great friend to Jack Snyder and tried to help with the Parker/Kit problem. When Holden was "Holden' a grudge" against Lily, he was still a great, sensitive father to Luke. Those kinds of things make us care for the characters.
But Noah, unfortunately, doesn't get that opportunity, because his main link in this town is Luke. He really needs to not be dumbed down. They could have done a similar story without making him stupid, but that would require more subtlety. Ameera would have to be less obvious of a manipulator. The conflict would have to come from Noah's own internal struggle over wanting to be proud of his father vs. hating his father. Right now the conflict is from Noah not realising that Ameera likes him, which is pretty silly .
FINALLY!!!
Noah is allowed to kiss someone! Are we sufficiently titillated. Well, you should be. And you should be sitting on the edge of our seats waiting for sweeps week when P&G will allow Noah to actually kiss Luke for a ratings bonanza that will kick off their reality program. I hope everyone is ready to help them out and Blitz the media with the good news!!!!!!!
But don't fret, there will be another sweeps week next fall. When Luke and Noah will be allowed to act like normal gay men for a few seconds and all of us can get together and let the media know about that, too. Too, much fun and love. Too, much fun!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)
.
That.Was.Horrific.
And it looks like the worst is yet to come.
Nuke is now Puke, and Martha Byrne is out next week as ATWT's resident heroine. I swear, PGP should just pull the plug and end everyone's misery pronto.
Back Of The Bus
Ack! I knew if I defended ATWT in any way I'd get the "back of the bus" analogy. And I got it twice! And I got the battered spouse analogy too. I feel like Barack Obama, who can't make a nuanced observation about anything without people over-simplying and attacking him for not being one dimensional.
Let me be blunt. I'm not satisfied in any way with the back of the bus. We deserve nothing less than completely equal marriage rights. We deserve nothing less than full fledged gay relationships on television shows, with kissing and rolling around in bed and character imperfections. We deserve to be able to openly join the military. We deserve...blah, blah, blah. Of course we deserve all those things, and I shouldn't have to prove my bonafides by saying those things.
We also live in a real country that is far from what we deserve. Where in many states you can be fired simply for being gay. Where a majority of our fellow citizens DON'T believe we should marry. Where a kid got shot by a schoolmate about two months ago simply for being gay. Where our enlightened friends in the TV industry find it difficult to get gay characters on prime time TV at all (see the in depth AfterElton article from a couple of days ago), where most gay kids growing up still feel the need to hide their identifies from their classmates and families for fear of being rejected or even kicked out of the house, where about half of the country thinks we're immoral simply for what we are, where people point and gawk and snicker when they see two guys holding hands. And on and on and on.
It's in that environment that I choose to not be insulted when ATWT breaks through a signficant barrier (the barrier shouldn't be there, but it is) and exposes sheltered America to somthing new, allowing millions of them to grow in the process. I choose to see the positive intentions of the people creating that breakthrough, rather than feeling like they're spitting in my face. Is the double standard proper in any way? Of course not. Am I satisfied? F*ck no. But to recognize good intentions, and to appreciate the wall being broken through, and to give them some time and space to grow and develop and gradually overcome the resistance of middle America, is in NO way settling for the back of the bus.
It's a multi-dimensional nuanced outlook. You certainly need not share it, but you should at least try to see past the surface. I certainly think we should raise a stink about it, and point out the double standards, and "demand" more representation throughout the media. But also recognize the world in which we live, and don't reject friends and allies because they're not perfect.
What's a multi-dimensional nuanced outlook?
P&G are playing into peoples fears. They're putting a gay couple on display and making it painfully obvious that it is too disgusting to see them kiss or relate like any other couple on the show. This is the reason why kids hide their feelings. Shows like ATWT lure them in with the promise of inclusion, then throw them the AFA party line. You can love the sinners but nobody should have to actually watch them sin.
I don't accept it. P&G's intentions are shabby. The only reason they have Luke and Noah is to increase ratings. That worked. Nuke aren't going anywhere as long as P&G can exploit the "gay angle."
It's a multi-dimensional nuanced outlook? I'm sorry, I don't even know what that's suppose to mean. But I'm seeing a one-dimensional, fear-based portrayal of gay love. I don't respect a friend or ally who doesn't respect me. Respect is the basis of a friendship, not something you do when it's convenient. It was commendable for ATWT to show a gay kid coming out. It was a ratings bonanza to have Luke fall in love but inconvenient to allow him to show his love.
I feel like P&G are the type of 'friend' who tells fag jokes as soon as I'm out of the room. I'm just not that desperate for friends.
GO YOU. :-D
everything you said....right on! :-D
The answer
The multi-dimensional nuanced outlook mentioned has less to do with the story and more to do with his "superior" abiltiy to view things as us mere mortals are incapable of doing. Nevermind that, in reality, the outlook is as one-dimensional and un-nuanced as can be. And I'm not continuing any further, because frankly, I'm not comfortable with sinking to that level.
http://establisheddisestablishmentarian.blogspot.com/
How desperate are we, again?
This is soooo not a case of 'something is better than nothing'.
A gay storyline done wrong is worse than no storyline at all.
I agree with TWA2 about ATWT having squandered any goodwill they might have once deserved for showing a gay character.
They may have started off good, but it's beyond pathetic now.
Watch Verbotene Liebe instead. The subtitles won't kill you.
You hit the nail on the head
You stating that "a gay storyline done wrong is worse than no storyline at all" hits the nail right on the head.
The current Puke storyline is truly beyond pathethic and CBS needs to scuttle this mess like yesterday. Van supposedly has signed a multi-year contract, but Jake and Tala haven't. It's time to drop this travesty and show them the door. This current storyline is going to do nothing but turn the viewing audience against Jake and his character to the point that no one will care if and when he and Luke get back together.
Various comments on this particular broadcast are all in favor of that.
ATWT does NOT deserve
I've got the solution!
The Nuke/Ameera triangle ends in a three-way murder-suicide. That would free ATAT up to tell a much more interesting story -- how Casey discovers the True Gay Self he's been hiding all these years when he falls in love with Parker.
Now don't go telling me it wouldn't be FABULOUS!
No Mention of Hotprechaun?
Glutton For Punishment
Jeez, I don't check the website over the weekend, and then today I discover that everyone is not merely disagreeing with the points I tried to make, but they feel the need to disparage and attack. What happened to amicable exchange of ideas? Nonetheless I'll hop back in for more abuse.
Nukely, I wasn't dismissing you for using an analogy. Analogies are a great tool. But not so great if they're inaccurate, or if they're used to simply dismiss an argument without actually addressing the argument. It's a Karl Rove maneuver to attack the person making the argument and dismiss him with an analogy like "back of the bus" or "battered spouse", rather than addressing the points actually being made.
Intentionally mis-reading the argument and assuming the worst about the poster is also not helpful. Calling me "desperate" because of the points I made isn't helpful. Or saying I'm acting "superior" to "mere mortals". That implies an inflexible outlook not willing to consider other views. I don't get that.
I won't make all my points again, except to say that the storyline is obviously representative of a double standard, and from a gay perspective is woefully inadequate. I thought I made that clear. All I'll add is to speculate about what happens if the storyline is killed. Who wins then? For one, Focus On the Family and all the other homophobic groups pressuring P&G and the networks to kill it simply because the characters are gay. For another, all those middle Americans (and they were all over the message boards) who said "please CBS, make Luke straight again, he's such a nice boy", or those who said "I'm never watching again until they get rid of the queers", or those who said "I'm just not ready for that, please don't make me watch". For a third, the people at CBS or ATWT or P&G who championed the idea, but who find it's just not worth it when they're being attacked from all sides. And who will think twice before going down that road again. And lastly, bigots and homophobes everywhere who want gays to be totally marginalized, and who certainly don't want them to be seen in any sort of positive light.
Lastly, I certainly hope that everyone who is so enraged about lack of perfection in the show and compromise are themselves 100% out at work, 100% out to their families, 100% out at their school and church (if they go to school or church), and 100% open about showing affection to their partner in public. Anything less is hypocrisy, representing a compromise made for some level of self protection. I've been out for years, including 100% at work, even though it's a conservative financial company. I've never sat in the back of ANY buses.
okay dennis....
I won't attack you, but I am curious about something...you have clearly stated that you notice the double standard....you also ask us to wonder what would happen if the storyline is killed? you ask "who wins then?"
the focus on the family groups, etc have already won, don't you think? having a gay couple (if you can call them a couple) is not enough. the same would go if these were two straight people. luke and noah have only kissed twice. twice. they've also taken their shirts off with each other only to have been interrupted. add to the fact that their past kissing attempts have been met with the camera panning upwards, sidewards or...oh...a hug instead of a kiss.
A lot of us are upset because it's just so freaking obvious why this is happening. if this was happening to the straight couples, i'd gladly shut the hell up.
it's also upsetting to me, because the producers or whatnot stated "we're going to treat them equally" -- oops, a mistake, don't you think? if they had said "we're going to have to limit the affection" then none of us would be expecting anything more.
Lots of people have said that the show did right by having luke be gay and giving him a boyfriend....but when the show slaps us in the face with pan aways and interruptions galore....that's where the credit stops i think. they are no longer giving us a positive look on luke or his relationship. panning away and the interruptions are insulting, because if you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. I think the majority of the reaction for luke/noah was positive, but noooo......their higher ups sadly have the last word. something needs to change. this is 2008, gay people are more accepted by others, more people are coming out successfully, blah blah you get what i am saying?
Thanks Liz
Liz - Thanks for the thoughtful response. It's hard to learn anything or open our minds to alternate viewpoints if we're disparaging each other, To answer your first question, whether Focus On the Family, etc. have already won, my answer is an emphatic "NO". They don't want any queer visibility on television at all, especially a sympathetic likable gay teenager with an equally likable boyfriend, supportive friends and family, etc. They remain as outraged as you are by the storyline.
To address your point about the producers and other PTB, they certainly were not being truthful when they initially tried to say there were no differences in how the straight and gay couples were being portrayed. Since then, though, I've read several comments that essentially admit they're responding to pressure - comments about "the broad spectrum of the audience". Obviously they don't want to come out and overtly say "yes, we're holding Nuke back because of our conservative audience", but they've said as much in backhanded ways.
Related to that, I don't think it's fair when we castigate everyone involved with the production. P&G has the last word, and if they order things be done a certain way then they're done that way. Does that mean we should blame Van and Jake? Or writers who would like to go farther but can't? Or show producers or directors who also would like to go farther but can't? From what I've read I'm not even sure we can blame CBS, which doesn't own the show and has little or no creative control. I remember at least twice when Luke and Noah were close to kissing and there was a knock at the door. Luke grinned slyly and cocked his head, as if he were in on the joke. (The joke being that P&G are chickenshit overseers not allowing what the people on the show actually want to do.)
Looked at in that light, my earlier points can be boiled down to two: first, don't overreact and blame the actors, the writers, the producers, etc., when they have no control. Give them credit for perhaps WANTING to do the right thing. Blame P&G, but don't even just blame them. Blame instead the society that makes this even thinkable, blame the republicans (don't ever capitalize that word) for feeding on and fanning the public's prejudices, blame religion for closing people's minds, etc.
I have a prediction: if this storyline does go forward, the double standard we now see will gradually be eroded. I'd like to see the show (or any show) just say "f*ck it, we're doing it even if it kills the show", but that's not a realistic expectation. For God's sake, Will and Grace - an extremely popular night time show - didn't really show gay people fully as they are, and give the characters sex lives like they do straight people. But ATWT will inexorably move in that direction. I'm willing to be patient with them. If you're not, fine. But I don't see where "nothing" is better than a well-intentioned "something" that has the potential to grow. Don't play into the hands of Focus On the Family and the republicans, who are trying their best to kill even this imperfect animal.
hmm...
I am sure the producers want to do the right thing and i know they can't because of P&G...and i won't blame society, because our society (from what i have experienced) is pretty much to the "I don't a damn" viewpoint about homosexuality....as for republicans....i won't blame them either...i blame P&G...*THEY* are the sole reason this is all happening.
I personally wish van, the writers, anyone would just say "screw this" and take a stand. It really confuses me as to why they won't. I use to watch GH and I remember reading interviews where the actors would say "I hated when they did this....i went to the writers and said no more..." or "the fans really got angry at my character and let me know. So i decided something needed to be done" - - But maybe that's GH....The show has gone downhill lately, but the point is....i feel like the stars of the show should have a say in their characters....van, the writers all know how upset the fans are. it made all the news headlines and P&G especially know how we all feel.
I know you think we have something, but i really disagree. something to me equals full out equality in every sense of the word. having gay characters isn't enough to feed certain people's needs for a positive look into themselves.
You may be right though...we may end up seeing a change....but until then...I'm still pretty ticked...but I'll keep track at the same time to see if and when changes do indeed take place.
Society
Liz - I should probably shut up soon so I don't seem like I'm trying to dominate the discussion (maybe it's too late for that!). I totally respect your viewpoints. I do want to say one thing, though, about republicans and society. I can't agree at all that we're to the "don't give a damn" stage. Look at the polls about whether gay marriage should be allowed, or whether being gay is immoral. Look at all the states trying to pass anti-marriage amendments. And only ONE state has voted that sort of thing down. Read the ATWT message boards. Talk to gay kids in high schools about their experiences. Talk to gay people in the workforce and see how many don't dare come out on the job. Listen to right wing commentators and evangelical christians railing against gay people. Society really IS to blame ultimately for all of this. If society wasn't a problem, then P&G wouldn't care themselves. They're not homophobic, they're just protective of the bottom line and terrified of controversy.
And republicans have been feeding off the evangelical and conservative disdain for homosexuality for years. Karl Rove overtly used fear and hatred of gays in his effort to get "values voters" to the polls. And if we even have a concept of "values" that means anti-gay to a vast cross-section of Americans then we truly do have a societal problem.
well....
don't shut up. we're not arguing. we're simply having a discussion. you can shut up if i start calling you names or something. ;-)
....i know NOT ALL of society accepts homosexuality....but i feel like....no. ok, i don't know anymore. I just sit here and wonder why ellen degeneres has been able to make a comeback. why is it that the characters of kevin and scotty are treated equally on the show B&S?
does P&G only "rule" on cbs and their shows? I am just trying to figure out why this is so different and the "this is daytime" arguement will not fly with me.
It's an annoying topic for me to think about...it's obviously very political and i hate politics. Yet at the same time, I enjoyed this show because of luke and all that...and now i don't..just like other people don't. *sigh* there's no business like showbusiness, eh? whew.
you did make one very interesting comment though....you asked how many of us are 100% out to our jobs, etc.....me personally? i am out, but i'm not out in the sense that i announce it to the world. I don't meet a person and tell them i am gay on the first meeting...or the 2nd...or the 3rd. if the topic comes up and someone asks me...then yes, i will gladly tell them i am gay.
the same goes with a job....I don't sit down for an interview and say "look....I'm gay...will this be a problem?" but i will say it if my boss asks me and if it is a problem...then i will walk out...because i don't need that.
discrimination is still out there, of course.....so i am out to friends, family....some people at work (those i can trust) - - but as for being 100% out....i can honestly say i am not...because 100% out to me means i am out to everyone...and i'm not...nor will i ever be....because of assholes out there. I don't have the time nor the energy to deal with them...
straight people don't go around having to tell people "oh, um....yeah, sorry...i'm straight" (only if a gay person hits on them) so i personally do not feel i need to go around proclaiming my sexuality unless someone honestly asks me.
Liz - I think your
Liz - I think your Ellen comment is interesting. It's my view that people accept her because a lot of people accept gay people in principle - just like those ATWT message board people who said they were all for Luke being gay, they just didn't want to have to see it expressed in any way. If Ellen were kissing women with any frequency it would be a different story. Though even then, people seem to accept women kissing more readily than men kissing. And B&S has a small audience, and an audience of a certain type that is likely predisposed to be a bit more "indie" thinking. ATWT has an audience of middle Americans and older people that have been watching for years. Two boys kissing is obviously going to impact them a lot more.
I'm to the point now in my job where I interview people when they apply to our group. One time we had a woman who very overtly made it clear that she was a lesbian with a partner. She just mentioned it in passing, but she obviously wanted to make it clear that she wasn't going to be hiding her identity. (We hired her.) I don't go out of my way either to "announce" I'm gay. But if people say something like "so, are you married", I just say, "no, I'm gay" as opposed to simply saying no. So I'm not asking people to broadcast it. But if you're not talking about it when circumstances would seem to dictate that, then you're covering up. I'm not one to judge about that - each person has his own path and his own journey. But I will judge if someone gets enraged because corporate people are compromising to save ratings or save jobs or save shows, but the enraged person is also compromising in his own life to save a job, or save a friend, or save a comfort level or prevent diesapproval. That's hypocrisy.
P&G is holding us back
P&G took a 7th rate, as in 7th place, soap and made it into the 3 rated soap in a matter of months with the Nuke Story line. Something that any soap expert at the time wouldn't believe possible with the decreasing viewer ship all around. P&G have gotten tons of free press so much that it has been called the biggest soap event of the decade. EACH AND EVERY soap out there would die for that kind of ratings hike and FREE PRESS.
Believe me, if P&G dropped Luke tomorrow, it wouldn't be a month before another soap picks up a gay story line, and there would be kissing! And gays wouldn't be given the back seat on the bus. (Again, I don't know why that offends you.)
The right wing has won. To sit back and pretend otherwise is silly. Luke and Noah represent the bigoted party line: Love the sinner hate the sin. You can Love Luke and Noah, but you shouldn't have to watch them sin by kissing each other! That isn't a compromise, that's an affront.
Yes, if P&G own up to the fact that they are too chicken to tell a gay love story, they should stop. Get out of the way. And let someone tell that story who respects the subject matter. That may be the only way that lbgt people will get the representation we deserve on day time TV. Right now P&G are holding us back, not moving us foreward.
The Producers are to blame. P&G are producing the show. By the way, this show is unique in that the Producers are also the Client. P&G make the show, they sell the rights to CBS to air it, and then turn around and buy advertising from CBS for their own show. So, yes the Producers are to blame.
I have no respect for the writers of this story line at this point. They chose to write this stuff. I have no respect for people who write copy for cigarette ads either, or beer commercials aimed at children. They make a choice to write for this story, and have to take the same heat as the producers if it goes awry. You wouldn't see me writing this story. Van was under contract up until a month ago. He signed on for another year. Which means he agrees with the telling of the story so far, or believes it will improve. Because he chose to continue to act in the story as written, if it doesn't improve, he's just as culpable as the producers.
.
A couple of questions
Nukely - I truly don't mean to be confrontational in any way, but I have a couple of questions for you. First, you say that if ATWT dropped Nuke there would be another soap filling the void with a gay relationship, and with kissing. Well, what's stopping any and all of the other soaps from doing exactly that? The Nuke storyline is admittedly second class right now, so why aren't other soaps rushing in to fill the void???
You say that any soap would die for the free press and ratings that Nuke have gotten. But any and all of them could do the same thing, and if they add kissing and do a first class job they'll get that press and those ratings, according to you. So why doesn't each and every one rush out a gay storyline with kissing?
Then you say that the right wing has won. If so, then why is Focus On the Family and other groups still enraged that the storyline is on, with attractive gay teens being loved and supported by family and friends? Why are they threatening boycotts and engaging in letter writing campaigns? Why do right wingers and evangelicals continue to post on non-gay blogs about how the storyline sickens them, and how immoral CBS is for allowing such "filth"?
At least there's one thing we can agree on. The producers (P&G) are the people responsible for the storyline not being true to the full gay experience. What I don't understand is why you feel the need to extend your rage to the actors and the writers. You tried to explain that, but it just doesn't make any sense to me.
I also don't understand why you can't see that for P&G to go full force into a full fledged gay storyline would require genuine courage on the part of whoever made that decision. If I were in their place I would make that move, as would most everyone here. But why can't you appreciate the gravity of that for the real P&G executives? If they do that they genuinely risk extended boycotts and loss of sales. I'm not at all sure it would happen, but it's a genuine risk. And any executive making a decision resulting in loss of sales would likely be fired. That's how bottom line business works, and if there is one thing that is undeniable about P&G it's that it is a bottom line business. If they thought sales would go up with gay kissing there would be gay kissing all over the place.
Lastly, I have this question. And this is not meant as the challenge it will sound like (I just want to know where you're coming from). Are you 100% out at work and in all aspects of your life? I note that you use a screen name rather than a real name, with no picture and with absolutely no info in your profile.
Good Point, there you go
You make a lot of good points.
1: "Well, what's stopping any and all of the other soaps from doing exactly that?"
There is no way that the other soaps are ignoring this. Believe me, several scenario's are sitting on producers desks right now. After the first kiss, P&G asked the writers to produce a scenario that would please the AFA, who they had been meeting with. They ran with that story all the while inferring that they were writing a story that was going to be a gay love affair, instead of exploiting a gay love affair. ATWT said, through the charatcers, that this was a new kind of family. I have no idea what they were thinking, perhaps that nobody would notice. So, now there's a big stink and that's why we are talking about it here.
I can only assume why the other shows are sitting on the idea of a presenting their gay character. I could certainly tell them what worked even without their research and poll data. But If I was producing a soap, I would let the dust settle on the Nuke flap before I produced a gay story-line. I wouldn't be surprised to see one come out this summer. If that happens then perhaps P&G can get an award for showing how not to portray gay love.
2: Much like GLAAD to my dismay, Focus On the Family and other anti-gay groups look for headlines; they were basically unconcerned with the Nuke story until it hit media. The AFA has had a long standing feud with CBS, Ford and a few other companies that they arbitrarily picked to protest mainly because those companies afforded the same rights to same sex couples as married couples in terms of health care, etc. There's also the 1980s flap with the P&G logo, which was a ruse to get media attention. These Anti-gay orgs follow the press, not the sin, but they make money off of both.
"Why are they threatening boycotts and engaging in letter writing campaigns?" I miss the call to boycott, I'm not on the list. I read one blurb written at the AFA site that suggested folks write to P&G, (who have been on their hit list since soon after AFA formed in the late 1970s.) P&G have admitted to being in talks with the AFA over the Nuke story. BTW, I believe the AFA can be credited with the slogan Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin.
3. "Why do right wingers and evangelicals continue to post on non-gay blogs about how the storyline sickens them, and how immoral CBS is for allowing such "filth"?" These sick people post on blogs. We could be living in a regime more oppressive than Iraq and those sickos would be complaining on blogs that husbands no longer use a big enough stick to whip their women. They post on those blogs because they are sick, it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
4. "At least there's one thing we can agree on. The producers (P&G) are the people responsible for the storyline not being true to the full gay experience." I will disagree there. The producers are not being true to the full human experience. The way you say that makes it sounds a little shameful by the addition of a qualifier to The gay experience. I'd like to think that my love is unique because I am who I am, but it is no different. It isn't an experience. The word 'experience' sounds like a one-word title for a really, fast, 1990's, carnival ride.
5. "What I don't understand is why you feel the need to extend your rage to the actors and the writers." I don't know if I am in a rage, but I respect that opinion. I mean that if I am going to place blame, that has to be equal. In a hospital, a doctor can write a wrong prescription, but the nurse is equally liable for administering it. You can't play ignorance if you are an equal participant who is benifiting (getting paid) from the act.
6. "I also don't understand why you can't see that for P&G to go full force into a full fledged gay storyline would require genuine courage on the part of whoever made that decision." I have never advocated full force or full fledged, or have I? Yes, it would require genuine courage to do more that what P&G are doing now. They are being cowards. Fine. I do not expect a major corporation to have courage of any kind, quite the opposite. But, P&G gets no points from me for saying they have the courage, and then backing down. If their audience wasn't ready for a gay couple, they had no right putting a gay couple on the stage. To find out that the gay couple may upset some fans but be a ratings bonanza and then decide they will neuter the gay storyline so that they can reap the benefits of the media coverage, that's exploitation. But it raises profits so who cares?
7. "Lastly, I have this question. And this is not meant as the challenge it will sound like (I just want to know where you're coming from). Are you 100% out at work and in all aspects of your life? I note that you use a screen name rather than a real name, with no picture and with absolutely no info in your profile."
I'm flattered that you took that much an interest in me. I was was hoping that my ideas could form your opinion of where "I am coming from." That you wouldn't judge my opinion on what I look like or my job or other aspects of my life. But you are right I have been hiding my identity. I am living with clinical depression. I can't work. I have been in an out of hospitals for most of the last 5 years. While this feels like a highlight of my life because I am finally standing up to some kind of anger I posess, it also feels like the lowest point of my life. Believe me, you don't want to see my picture. I am old, ugly and poor. Picture that.
I know that I don't have a profound intellect. I never did, but I have always appreciated people who do. That's where I have learned what ever I know. And I have never been blessed with what it takes to succeed in life, to belong to a corporation. The only thing I can make of that is that I lack the heartlessness. I don't mean that as an insult, just what I've been told. It's hard for me to look at the world with rose colored glasses. Perhaps that is the core of my problem, I admit that. But even at that I've wondered if there might be something I could offer.
I am glad to hear that you have found a way to navigate the corporate world and be out at the same time. That was unthinkable when I was 20.
But there's something else you've written that's made me think about myself.
"Perhaps some of us on this site and other internet sites are so enraged and so one-dimensional about it because we feel so powerless out in the real world. If we anonymously vent and rage about a soap opera we can feel better about our impotence."
I admit it's true about me. I wonder if we are able to turn the prejudice that exists. I want to hope that's true. It makes me feel good to believe in mankind. So, when I sound bitter, maybe there's a key to our happiness that I'm blind to. My heart tells me otherwise. Sometimes I feel like a Cassandra, but even if that's true I bring satisfaction to no one but myself. I had thought that by sharing my viewpoint maybe I was sharing something more. Really, I was sharing my sickness. I hope you all can forgive me that. For once I'm not being sarcastic. Now you know, and I thank you all for having read my posts.
8. To answer your challenge of whether I am 100% out. I have to admit, no, not really. A drunk, skin head in red, shoe laces challenged me in St. Paul about 20 years ago at a bus stop. I really believed he wanted to kill me. I didn't want to die that way, so I convinced him I was straight. So no, I'm not 100% out, but yes I have been fired from jobs because I am gay but no I haven't put "gay" on the application.
.
Good points all. Then what
Good points all. Then what is the question ...
Settle. Settle for back of the bus? for second best? You get slammed for the same reason GLAAD got slammed. For seeming to settle for second best. Settling... for what? Maybe, its because we, the audience felt we were promised something else, something better. Maybe its the dissembling, the things said by the publicist that leads to P&G's lack of credibility. Maybe its when someone says we're taking it slow. What if the audience doesn't want it taken slow? How many of us are in the audience who don't want it taken slow, and do we matter? Do we end up feeling cheated, disparaged, treated in a way that hurts?
Part of the truth maybe that this is internet, online. In the real world, in front of real people do we risk anthing to stand up, speak out, be heard? Are we fighting battles here because we can't win any anywhere else? Is this the new protest arena? Is this where we take our stands?
I was disappointed. That made me angry. That makes me invested in the fight. Perhaps this is the only place I have to make the argument. Maybe I am less invested in ATWT or this s/l than I am invested in the argument. Maybe I want to win. A victory over bigotry, over being slighted, over people I end up hating as much as they hate me?
The question is ... do we as a people who want equality and to be respected stand together? And if you choose a different point of view, do others take it as weakening the whole? I'm reminded of destroy from within. Together we stand, separate we fall. Easier to beat an opposing side by disention in their ranks.
Who wants to hear about the center? Far left, far right, no middle ground.
Where are the radicals?
Settling ...
settling for scraps? settling for whatever's given. Better to have something rather than nothing? Some prefer nothing. It gives you more room ... to what?
And then blame the writers, producers, actors. Blame them for not causing a scene. For not putting it all on the line for a principle.
Where is that person? Where is that hero? Maybe we feel short-changed because that's what we wanted?
...
"You bit the hand, Marty, You bit the hand!"
Internet Battles
Very interesting thought flow...
Something you said made me think about something new - perhaps some of us on this site and other internet sites are so enraged and so one-dimensional about it because we feel so powerless out in the real world. If we anonymously vent and rage about a soap opera we can feel better about our impotence.
I have to again make the point to anyone wanting to slam me - are you 100% out in your life? In ALL aspects of your life? If not, why not? If not, how are you different than the people at P&G and ATWT who are compromising? You're compromising yourself, and in a way that damages the rest of us. And you're doing it for self protection of some kind. That's what's behind ATWT's compromises. They're protecting their show and/or their jobs. If you're not 100% out you're doing EXACTLY the same thing.
And I don't get this "settling" thing. It completely overlooks reality. Let's push for EVERYTHING we can get. But if we can't get everything let's not throw up our hands in frustration and default to Focus On the Family. In the "real world" first steps have value - because they lead to second and third steps. That's not the same as being satisfied or "settling".
I'm out.
Thanks
Nukely - Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts in such detail, and especially for being so open about your own situation. I hope this doesn't sound cheap or shallow, but I wish you well in your battle against depression. I'll share something of myself as well. Clinical depression - caused by brain chemical imbalances - runs deeply through my family. Everyone has been affected to greater or lesser degrees, and has faced their own unique struggles. I won't go into details, except to say the story includes multiple suicides and hospitalizations. So believe me, I can relate.
If I could give advice beyond "fight and persist", which you seem to be doing very well, I would say three things. First, look into drugs (like Paxil), if you haven't yet - they can definitely help. Second (and I've NEVER done this before), read "Journey Of Souls" by Robert Newton. Third, be aware that we're all trying our best to make our way through the maze of life, and deep down everyone is the same. Give both yourself and others credit for both their uniqueness and similarities.
Regarding your specific points, to some extent we'll have to agree to disagree. But deep down I see more similarities than differences. We both believe gay people should be equal in EVERY way to everyone else, and that we're far past the time when that should be taken for granted. I personally believe we're on an inexorable path to exactly that, and no amount of right wing fulminating can stop it. But it is a process and it will take some time. I'm not satisfied that it will take time, but nothing I or we can do will prevent that. But I'm hoping we can shorten that time. I know you disagree, but I passionately believe that the Nuke storyline, as short of the mark as it is, will make that time shorter. I know where your disagreement is coming from, and I respect it. But I still feel I'm correct!!
Lastly, NEVER EVER doubt the quality of your intellect or what you have to say. Or your ability to express it, which is excellent. It would be a less rich world if you (or any of the other posters here) were not around to share your thoughts and insights.
DENNIS
Dennis, you just don't get it, do you? I strongly suggest you go back and reread the blog threads here...I know that will take some time, but it will (maybe) be worth it. You make excuses for ATWT, the writers, P&G and God knows who else because you see "any" gay s/l as having value. You're much like Michael who believes he's an artist when in fact he's a commercial writer who for the sake of his pay check makes allowances for what he believe rightly or wrongly may affect his employment.
If you reread the blogs above you will see over & over again that a promise was made by ATWT and broken...by whom? Certainly by ATWT - whether it was the AFA or whoever CBS believes their "core" audience to be or whoever who coerced ATWT to turn the positive gay s/l (sadly and all too briefly) into an "anti" gay s/l, that is what most of us on this blog are decrying.
Those of us who are older remember the euphoria from Stonewall and Gay Pride and there has been a change in American society. But ATWT, CBS, P&G have caved to a "perceived" polling of their audience and the power of money (AFA's and other like right wing fanatics) have caused CBS/ATWT to lose their integrity.
I stopped watching ATWT after the Christmas/New Years fiasco & humiliating light cast on gay people. Add to this the shameful negative anti-gay message now being shown from which young gay people can take no solace and you have why I wish ATWT would kill the Nuke story because quite frankly I'd rather see no "gay" story than an anti-gay s/l.
My view.
No Need To Be Condescending
Amadeus - There is no need to be condescending. That accomplishes nothing. For what it's worth I was raised in the 60s so I know all about the evolution of our movement. And I've been reading these blogs for a long time. In fact, I finally registered because the level of one dimensional thinking and over-simplification was driving me nuts.
Actually, YOU should re-read MY posts, but this time think about them with an open mind. You are grossly misrepresenting what I am saying. You're also interpreting an intellectual understanding of reality with an endorsement of that reality. That's the essence of what inflexible minds do. I've pretty much given up hope that people will see beyond rhetoric to complexity (which, by the way, is also why our politics are so screwed up). But I'll try to come at it from a slightly different perspective.
From everything I've read over the past year, the PTB at ATWT went into this storyline WANTING to do it the "right way". Be aware, though, that the "right way" wouldn't have involved as much kissing and sex as you want. I've watched this show off and on for years (originally for the cute guys), and they've always dragged out romances between young people beyond what "real life" would dictate. And they've always been resisitant to sex with young people. Gwen and Will, for example, were shown in physical ways MUCH less than someone like Jack and Carly, who are older. (Reality alert for inflexible minds - I'm NOT saying that caused the cessation of kissing. OF COURSE they pulled back from that. I'm saying that if they hadn't pulled back there still would have been much less sex than with older characters.)
Anyway, they originally wanted to do it the right way. And from everything I've read CBS was essentially behind them. Then the big kiss generated a huge backlash from conservatives and middle Americans. (Reality check - that's simply a fact, NOT any defense from me.) P&G caved to the pressure and ordered the show to back off. It's simple and convenient (and fits nicely into an inflexible mindset) to assume that everyone at P&G is homophobic. But we have no idea to what degree that's true. (Reality check - I'm not defending anyone. But to assume something we don't know is silly and anti-intellectual.) Since they didn't interfere with the storyline until the backlash we have to assume that homophobia on the part of P&G was not the cause. Rather, knowing how business works, it's obvious that they made a purely business decision on the basis of perceived risk. If you're not aware of the details of the backlash I can provide multiple references. Bottom line - human beings in a corporate environment made a hard headed business decision on the basis of perceived risk to their bottom line. That's how business - virtually all business - works in America. And in the corporate world the people who make those decisions literally put their jobs on the line. Their livelihood is dependent on them making the "proper" decisions as seen by their stockholders.
All of the above is in no way a defense of anything. And it's not an opinion. It is purely and simply a fact. The opinion, and the complexity, comes next. Considering those facts, where is blame to be assessed? Does the fact that they've pulled back from equal opportunity kissing mean that society would be better served by killing the storyline? If evolution over time allows the storyline to grow and mature gradually, is that preferable to killing it? Is there positive or negative value when the general populace (which is in large numbers either overtly homophobic or generally unexposed) sees a storyline of gay teenagers expressing love for each other in an environment of complete acceptance, when kissing and sex are removed from the picture, at least for now?
Amadeus - I'm not asking you to agree with my conclusions on those questions. But please, open your mind and at least think seriously about the entire picture. Simple, reflexive thinking requires no effort and can make you feel righteous, but it doesn't really accomplish much.
Lastly, I see that like many others you are hiding behind a cloak of anonymity on this site - no name, picture or any other identifiable information. Obviously, I may be totally wrong, but I can't help wondering if you ARE in fact hiding. Are you out at work and in the rest of your life? If you are, I apologize for this line of discussion. But you and others accuse me of "settling" because I have a different perspective on a soap opera than you do. I'm not settling at all in real life. I'm fully out in the corporate world. You are demanding that straight executives at P&G, CBS and ATWT make decisions about gay equality that could well damage or end their careers. You as a gay person had better be making those decisions in your own life.
Right to Privacy
"Lastly, I see that like many others you are hiding behind a cloak of anonymity on this site - no name, picture or any other identifiable information. Obviously, I may be totally wrong, but I can't help wondering if you ARE in fact hiding. Are you out at work and in the rest of your life? If you are, I apologize for this line of discussion."
I find that line of discussion highly offensive. It was offensive the first time you asked and grows more offensive each time you do. Btw, saying excuse me while you piss on my leg doesn't excuse you.
You need to get off your high horse, buddy.
I thought that telling you why I chose to keep my information private (which it isn't anymore) that you might feel a bit more compassion than condescending to us lowly half-queers, or what ever you think of the rest of us.
I've joined more than 50 boards and forums some glbt some not. I have never posted my real name or photo to any forum I have signed onto. I chose to be private, not anonymous. I have a right to my privacy even if you don't think so.
I came out when I was 18 in 1975 and worked on the Target City Coalition, formed after Anita Bryant targeted cities to eliminate gay civil rights ordinances, much like she had done for Dade County. For better or worse I have been out ever since to everyone.
ATWT has had an out character for little over a year. When Luke was coming out to his parents that was fantastic. Typically on a soap, that would be the end of a gay character. But they brought in a gay lover for Luke and a media-hyped kiss. As soon as right wingers complained about the kiss, P&G, admittedly, put a 'creative' ban on gay kissing. They couldn't drop the couple because Nuke proved to be a ratings bonanza. Instead they kept Luke and Noah so they could confirm on a weekly basis how sickening it is to watch two men kiss. They kept their ratings and took two huge steps back. That is exploitation.
They have used every opportunity to prove on screen that Luke and Noah are banned from kissing. This sends a negative message, "that men kissing is disgusting;" the near kisses aren't titillating they are demeaning. What they are doing now, they should be reviled for it not celebrated. If the recent kiss indicates that P&G have had a change of 'creative' heart, it's too soon to tell. While I would commend them for comming around, they have still ruined the story for me by feeding off of discord rather than love. I don't know that Nuke can ever represent love again.
But you are obviously uninterested in debating a topic, you would rather attack a person than make a point. How dare you assume because I chose to be private on this forum, or any forum, that I am some how in the closet.
I am also offended by the fact that you feel like you are the only person who is qualified to criticize the corporate world. The corporate world has proven that it is woefully unable to police their own. There are thousands of laws written to protect us from the greed and discrimination perpetrated by the corporate world. Defend them all you want. But not fair to dismiss a critic who doesn't belong to the club.
.
Jeezo Peezo
Jeezo peezo, Nukely, you're replying to and getting offended by a post of mine that was not directed at you and had nothing to do with you. The post was DEFENDING myself against the attacks of another poster. I fully accept in every way your reasons for being anonymous, and the right of anyone else to be anonymous for any reason, even if it's to hide being gay. I don't judge anyone because of their reasons to come out or be hidden. I'll try this yet again. I keep raising the anonymity thing because there is a HUGE amount of hypocrisy in the world. Anyone who is demanding that P&G or ATWT show significant overt gay physical contact on their afternoon soap opera, but who is closeted in any part of their personal life, is being hypocritical to an extreme degree. I don't judge that person for being hidden (I value everyone's unique path). But if you ARE closeted in any way you are doing it because you are trying to avoid some repercussions by being open. Again, that's fine. Repercussions can be painful in many ways. But then you have no right to excoriate STRAIGHT executives in a corporation for making decisions about a gay issue that might cause painful repercussions to them. Those repercussions could genuinely rise to level of loss of career. Can you really not see the validity of that comparison?
And you have to quit reading into my words things that simply aren't there. I've never said or implied in any way that I'm the only one "qualified to criticize the corporate world". But if we're having a debate, then isn't it legitimate if I point out when I think you or someone else is misunderstanding corporate culture and decision making? Or when I conclude that a comprehensive consideration of ALL salient facts leads me to a different viewpoint than yours? Isn't THAT what debate is all about?
If I have personal experience based on being in the corporate world, and having been in meetings where corporate decisions were made, is that experience not relevant when we're considering corporate action? Does that not give me an experience worthy, at least, of consideration?
Having been there, I suspect the decision making at P&G went roughly like this. They sat around and decided to OK the decision by ATWT to have a gay relationship. They probably had serious concerns about the reaction of their customers. They do have huge numbers of customers in conservative middle America. But the soap opera form is in trouble, and needed a jolt. So the suits decided it was worth trying. After the kiss they got massive negative reaction and massive positive reaction. They also got seriously threatening communications from organized conservative interest groups, threatening boycotts. They called an emergency meeting and talked about it. They assigned an analyst the task of researching the "data" about protests, viewership changes, etc., and likely commissioned a poll. When they reconvened later, the data was mixed. They discussed the pros and cons at length, and finally decided they could keep the conservative hounds at bay by cutting back the kissing, but they could keep their new, younger audience by maintaining the relationship and giving the gay couple a dramatic storyline. One of the guys came up with the sham marriage idea, and they immediately embraced the idea as brilliant. It maintained dramatic tension and drama, and provided an excuse to avoid the kissing that the protest groups and middle American viewers were so opposed to.
Further, the longer they went without killing the storyline, they hoped, the more middle America would get past their shock and horror about the kissing, and the more invested in Luke and Noah they would become (despite themselves). Further, evangelical conservatives were losing influence in the country, as McCain's success suggested. So if they took the story cautiously enough they might be able to make it work.
I'm speculating, of course, but having "been there" I think a scenario very similar to that is highly likely. Do you consider such a process to represent homophobia on the part of the P&G executives? If you do, it's my opinion that you are badly misusing and misunderstanding the concept. There is homophobia at work, but it's on the part of middle America and evangelical Christians.
Let me ask you to put yourself in the room with the P&G executives as one of them. You're in charge of this "crisis", and your boss wants you to "deal with it". Further, you're straight. How do you react and what do you do? The research shows significant opposition, and the angry letters and phone calls from longtime watchers are pouring in. Well organized groups are making overt threats of boycotts of your products. Meanwhile, you have a large mortgage, a wife and two kids at home, and a career paying you $200,000 a year. The chairman of P&G has made you the point man for the "gay problem" at ATWT. WHAT DO YOU DO????