 by Dennis Ayers
Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
 Who's onlineThere are currently 15 members and 1063 guests online.
|
ATWT video clip update: "We're basically glorified roommates"
Today on As the World Turns Luke becomes peculiarly self-aware and begins to question why he and his boyfriend have dated for eleven months and have yet to have sex. It's like he can hear what we've all been shouting at the telly lo these many months!
Before Luke can storm off to the swimmin' hole, Noah tries to explain that they haven't had sex because he wants their first time to be "special." (Luke needs to remind Noah that sometimes "special" just means retarded.) Will Luke accept this explanation? Will the boys finally set a date for consumating their relationship? Will anyone be watching at that point?
Well, at least the guys kiss. Then Luke heads off to the swimmin' hole only to find Poppa Holden and Carly loitering. He gives the cheating couple a piece of his mind. Check out all the action in today's Nuke clip after the break.
If you missed it, be sure and check out Brian's liveblog from earlier today. It was a particularly funny edition! As always, you can find earlier clips, liveblogs, and other goodies over on our ATWT Resource Page. Submitted by on Thu, 2008-07-24 16:06. |
 Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
New forum topics
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
nice change
wow i'm actually pleasantly surpriced with this new clip of them together.
I have not been keeping up with atwt but this is the first time i seen Luke have a hint of a backbone and i like it alot.
Now if only Noah could loosen up a bit that would be perfect... oh yea and some decent writing and would start watching it again
Luke just turned me on
While confronting Holden like that. He was in great form today.
Well...
That wasnt as bad as I thought it would be. They put a lot of sugar on that pill to make it easier to swallow. Those kisses were sweet.
See you in six months when they will probably have the same conversation, with the same outcome (rolling eyes).
8th Graders Can.
I learned something interesting by watching ATWT the past two weeks. Adultery is fine, if you feel bad about it. 8th graders having sex is fine, if your parents just don't understand you. The police can catch you with a dead body in the trunk but if you didn't kill them then all is forgiven. Flights to New York from Oakdale take 10 minutes and can be booked in two minutes over the phone. A drug addict maybe be able to kidnap a socialite from a hotel and hide her in a basement, but a landscape designer/contactor will recognize it from the sound dripping of water being described to him. All of this is believable - straight people do strange things- but a young gay man turning down a fortune and chosing to live at his grandmother's instead of buying a house for himself and his boyfriend to live in is ludicrous. Yes, I am 'joking but I was thinking today that I couldn't believe the kids were allowed to have sex but the grown adults couldn't be shown in bed together because they happen to be the same sex and that would damage family values. WOW. Can you say hypocritical.
Yet that matches what many people believe
I can't even count how many times I've heard it said that homosexuality is the "worst" sin. And seriously a lot of people, especially in Middle America, think that way.
A teenager having pre-marital heterosexual sex is sinning. But at least it's not "unnatural" like two adult men having sex. Adultery, being such a common sin, is also one of the most readily forgiven ones (because so many straight people do it) even though the Bible mentions how wrong it is a lot more than it mentions homosexuality. Assaulting someone, robbing them and even murdering someone are all forgivable sins if someone thinks the context is right.
Always remember, the worst sin in the world is whichever one you yourself are not guilty of. This is why so many people project their guilt over their own sins onto gays. It allows them to feel like they're still better than the "worst" sinners.
Y'know I think you hit that nail...
I couldn't understand why the deep South fought civil rights for so long until I visited in the early 70s. So many whites in that region at the time were dirt poor and had absolutely nothing, but at least they could still feel superior to Blacks. Interesting that it's the same area that has some of the worst homophobia today. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Nous Sommes Tous Sauvages.
convenient sin
I call it the convenient sin. If you are a clergyman and you were to chose one sin from the buffet of sins out there, and choose that one sin to be worse than all others -which sin would you choose? Adultery, as you mentioned, is like the Prime Rib of sins. 90%(?) of your parishioners are prone to choose it, no matter what you say. So, if you chose Adultery as the number one sin to preach to your congregation, you're going to piss off 90% of your congregation and they are going to march off to another church en mass, so to speak. It would be much more convenient for you to choose the brussel sprouts of sins, homosexuality. Hell, most people don't even like brussel spouts (I love 'em).
That's why these so called Christians choose being gay as the worse sin you can commit. "Guess what honey, I didn't suck cock today, how holy am I?" I mean, it's very easy to "abstain" from same-sex relations and love when you are heterosexual. And if that's all it takes in your mind to get into heaven, than you can sleep with your sorry self at night.
.Thus adultery is a soap opera mainstay
Because keep in mind, the target audience is Middle American housewives here. Adultery is something that many of them fantasize about (and more than a few actually commit). Soaps consequently contain lots of subtle rationalizations for adultery.
It is, as you say, a "convenient sin" because so many straight people commit it, even very religious ones. But they ask Jesus for His forgiveness and He grants it and they get on with their lives. Even if they then go out and commit the same sin again.
But gays are "unrepentant" because we insist on living sin as a "lifestyle". More importantly, our "sin" is not one that straight people are likely to ever commit themselves. Thus they can feel really good about condemning it as the worst possible sin.
This plays itself out in the soaps. Adultery, fornication, murder and such can all be depicted and have been for decades. Teenage unmarried sex? No problem, especially if they are punished with a pregnancy.
Luke and Noah have already been punished amply for their relationship - yet they haven't even had sex, or even kissed more than briefly! This is why I personally feel that there is actually a very strong anti-gay tone to this entire storyline with them.
Nuke kissed twice, briefly, and lo and behold Luke was temporarily crippled. Likewise it was implied that the sleeping dragon (Noah's father) would have left Noah alone had his marriage to Ameera been real rather than a sham. But learning that Noah was just "playing house" while still (in theory) seeing Luke set a fiendish plan in motion. Noah had a chance for a happy "normal" life and willfully rejected it to live in "sin".
Granted, he and Luke have yet to actually commit the "sin" in question. Even a strict interpretation of the Bible technically requires them to have sex in order to violate Levitical law. Two men falling in love and kissing is teetering on the edge but not over it yet. Nonetheless the message from the show is actually pretty anti-gay, because it suggests that even a sexless, barely-there, gay relationship leads to bad things happening.
That's how many viewers want it to be. Men should only ever kiss women. Even if the woman in question is not their wife, at least it's one of those forgivable sins. Not like homosexuality, where even a mere kiss is unforgivable.
inconvenient sin
Actually I was trying to say that being gay is the "convenient sin" because straight people can conveniently avoid it. Adultery would be a very "inconvenient sin" by comparison, because many straight people find it challenging to remain faithful to there spouses. And it would inconvenience them to believe that they have committed a horrible act against God and nature, if Adultery were treated like homosexuality.
The strong anti-gay tone to this entire story-line is undeniable but according to some commendable because it is at least a gay story-line. That is not how "many viewers" want it to be. That's how the AFA wants it to be.
.
IS it realy importent that
IS it realy importent that the boys have sex at all, i mean will the writing all of a sudden be good if they "do it".
The last time i watched a clip other than this one offcourse was when Noah or Luke was given a "clue" by a halfnaked lailorboy in the middle of NY, so at the very least they have not resorted to kitch like that.
Let them worry about maken a good plausible storie for the boys and some characterdriven dialogue, that would be alot better than constanly worrying about them having sex
Well....
Nuke and sex
When it comes to Nuke and sex. Its not really about the sex. Its about being treated in the same way as other couples do. Those couples who hop into bed with anything that moves, even more so with their significant other. Good or bad, that is the way sex is portrayed in soaps. Why should they be treated differently?
Yes, its nice that they would want to make their relationship stronger by waiting, if that was the intention of the writers. But its not, its a way of keeping them apart as long as they possibly can.
And that is more evident now that they are willing to show 14 or 15 year olds having sex, whetter they consumate or not, than to young adults in love because they are men. Just today Parker and Liberty had more physical contact than Nuke in 10 months.
So is not really about the sex.
Actually....
You're right, they're not
You're right, they're not saying kids having sex is cool and gays having sex is not cool. But by showing Parker and Liberty in much more sexual situations in just one episode than they have shown Luke and Noah in ten months, then they are saying it's ok to show the kids having sex, but not the gays.
Yes, they're saying Parker and Liberty are making a mistake, but they're showing them making that mistake. They're showing all the makeout sessions and the condom sharing and the lying naked in bed together. They'll show the consequences, too, but what they won't show is stuff like Parker and Liberty's shoes skidding on the ground as a substitute for showing them making out. They will never show a branch of mistletoe to cut away before Parker and Liberty can make lip contact. Those two will never hug when it makes more sense to kiss, like the infamous Valentine's episode. If Parker and Liberty have an innuendo filled discussion about sandwiches, it will be followed by making out and/or sex, not a discussion about how they want to have a new kind of sexless family together.
Soap characters have sex. It can be good or bad or a terrible mistake, but they have it and the soaps show it. Unless they're Luke and Noah.
"... they're not saying kids
I have to disagree with you here. Story telling is all about showing not telling. When they tell a story of gay men abstaining from sex, they are showing you that gay sex is evil. Basically a young teen aged boy like Parker can "make a mistake" (they might be showing that straight teen sex has consequences, but, what evers.) However, a young adult man, like Luke, is forbidden to face the consequences of making love. Why not? Come on, just say it. Gay love and especially GAY SEX is not equal to straight love. That's the horrible argument.
I know you pointed this out, I just wanted to reiterate. Basically the Parker Libery romance IS a teen age romace. What I have been saying form the get go is that Luke and Noah are "young adults" not "young teens," as AfterElton and GLAAD would love to tout them as. However these adult, gay males have been treated as if they were young teens. No, they are treated as if they are even younger than that, because at least teens get to boink. and did I mention kiss. And kiss again, and kiss some more, before they boink?
.
Actually...
While I agree somewhat with the Show and Tell theory, I was not saying that ATWT was saying anything about the kids having sex.
I was talking about the decision of showing two teens having sex vrs. two gay adult men not having it. Consecuences aside, they think one is completelly acceptable and the other one is not.
At first, I thought the ridiculous need to put the "teen romance" label to Nuke was one way to avoid touching their sexual relationship because, as teens, they are not supposed to have sex.
Well, yesterday that argument went right out the window, didnt?
So what other reason could there be? Oh yes, they are both men. Because as valid as "wating for the right time" is, its not believeable in real life and especially in soap world.
Inclusive
The show was given a GLAAD award for being "inclusive". (Van and Jake were the poster boys for the NYC prestentations.) Inclusive means being treated just like every body else. When P&G accepted the award, they were accepting the idea of being inclusive. They could have refused the GLAAD award, but accepted it. And GLAAD could have reserved the award for a deserving program rather than sully thier principles. (a recent GLAAD comment suggests they don't abide by principles, but we knew that, right?)
Being in love on a soap means having sex. Being young and in love on a soap means having lots and lots and lots and lots of sex. The fact that Nuke are not allowed to have sex at all, and once they break that mile stone it will be like the kissing, um, if they do have sex before 2009, as some predict, it won't be till 2010 before they do it again, if ever. Hey, that's not inclusive, it isn't even coy. It's shabby. To be honest with you, I don't think that P&G give a rats ass.
They are looking for a few more numbers in the Neilsen's, that's all. And as long as they can get that, they will continue to
exploitmilk the gay angle. It isn't about political. It isn't about ground breaking characters. The main objective is money. That's all it ever was about, untill this gay thing came in and "tainted" their main objective with the allure of more money..
It would be nice if that was an option
It would be nice if "better written stories" was an option, but it's not. Nuke stories are usually awful even when they are not having any sex. The straight storylines are mostly just as awful even with sex.
Obviously the writers can't deliver well written storylines or else they would do it for somebody, whether it's Nuke or any of the straight stories.
Equality in this case is that Nuke's storylines should be just as badly written and just as sexual as any of the straight storylines. And there are points where lack of sex/intimacy IS bad writing. Where they are at a point in the storyline where a kiss or a love scene just makes sense and is required by the storyline pace. And where avoiding what would just fit in at this point in bad writing.
What option?
Sorry LolaRuns, I don't get your comment.
"Nuke stories are usually awful even when they are not having any sex." Even when they are not having sex? You must mean "even though they are not having sex."
This has absolutely nothing to do with poor story telling. They can tell a poor story where Luke and Noah never have sex and they can tell just as poor a story about them having lots and lots of sex. It isn't about good or bad story telling. It's about pleasing the AFA and other wing nuts while shaming gay love and claiming themselves saints in the process. I am still waiting for P&G to prove me wrong and deserve their GLADDy.
I want to add that I think the line writing in the last 5 episodes I've seen has been astonishing. The breakdowns are also good, better than they were 6 months ago and something that the fans have derided.
But when the main story goes awry, those folks can do little to correct it. The main story is written by the head writer, and approved by the network and the producers (P&G). I love how this story is currently being told. Brilliant in the last few days, really. I abhor the story that is actually being told. despicable and shameful and P&G will be lucky if it gets completely forgotten in 10 years..
Nuke in bed together
I, too, cannot understand why they cannot show Nuke in bed together.
A couple of years ago on Passions, Chad and Vincent were shown in bed together making out and a few episodes earlier they were shown in the storeroom of a bar with Vincent on top of Chad kissing him, almost naked. They dared to go to this extent. They even had a character say the word F*ck in one episode 3 or 4 years ago. If they can show two guys being intimate like this on Passions why can't they show Nuke in this way?
They should get the writers of Passions to write Nuke scenes and then maybe we will get some Nuke action.
Not to be smug but if ATWT were done in Canada, Nuke would already be in bed as of last year and there would be more kisses. I say this because there was a soap here in Canada about 2 years ago about twenty-somethings in Toronto called Metropia. This show had two gay guys and two lesbians. The gay guys were shown, a couple of times, in bed together making out (in a non porno way) just entwined with the covers off so alot of flesh was shown.
The reason for this is that we don't have the evil Religious Right here in Canada to dictate what we watch on TV. As I've said before, all the TV stations and Newspapers in America should send a letter of Cease and Desist to the American Family ASSociation and threaten them with a lawsuit for restricting their freedom of speech. This will make the religious wingnuts think twice about limiting any gay content on TV.
As for Nuke, I only tape ATWT when they are on and even then I skip all the straight stuff. I only started watching ATWT again for Nuke. There's no point in watching it without Nuke. The straight stuff is so common.
Live Long and Prosper
I am moving to Canada
This writer is so correct. The g'damned religious zeal in this country is what has ruined it. My bf is a state senator who can't even come out and be re-elected, which is challenging our relationship. He's a good guy and so am I. What has fueled this anti-gay rhetoric in this country? I guess it's ignorance, which W. has in spades. His horrible legacy will sadly live on for decades. And where is the Library Lady Laura? On Percodan no doubt.
BTW, I don't even bother to watch ATWT anymore because it's so badly written. The Luke character is well played, considering the awful lines they write for him, but I wouldn't be upset if a poacher mistakenly shot Noah, who is terribly acted. My advice is tune into Bravo which is pretty much all-gay all-the-time or at least all-fag-hag most of the time.
yes, done in Canada...
...would probably make this show better. We have Paradise Falls which is a little like Dante's Cove without the porn. But they did show the two main gay guys finally having sex and it was graphic- no frontal, but naked, putting on the condom, etc.
But I wouldn't be so quick to say that we don't have Religious Right in Canada, because we do. Just cast your eyes towards Alberta. We are definitely eons ahead of the states in our equality evolution, however, but we haven't arrived to a state of Nirvana, yet.
I am a proud Canadian and love what we have accomplished so far with gay marriage etc, but never should we get complacent about our rights. They can be taken away in the blink of an eye.
I say we take the warning labels off everything and let nature take it's course.
Are they even a couple?
Seriously, I think it's relevant to ask this question.
Look to your own lives. If one of your friends had a "boyfriend" that he had been together with for 10 months and you discovered that they had not yet had sex, would you still consider them "boyfriends" or would you think that there's something wrong about their relationship. I dated a guy for almost 6 months and we never had sex. When I broke it off none of my friends questioned my decision!
To me the scarcity of kissing and the sure knowledge that Nuke have not had sex raises the question of to what extent they should even be considered a couple. Certainly no straight "couple" behaving the same way would be taken seriously by audiences.
Early on Nuke were hyped as a supercouple but I think that notion has quietly faded away. Now the question is whether they are a couple at all. They certainly don't act like it. Now Noah pretty much only kisses Luke when he's feeling guilty about the sorry state of their so-called relationship. But it's a stretch now to even call them "boyfriends". Even worse, their relationship seems to cause them nothing but pain. There's not even a little lovemaking to justify the misery they endure!
The writers won't give us Nuke Nookie because --
it would force ATWT viewers to think about it. And in soap terms they don't know how. Nuke can't et pregnant, or commit adultery (unless Oakdale is in California or Masschusetts and Nuke gets married.) They'r eaware of gay teenage hot-tub orges, but won't show them caus that would cross the line into porn.
So on ATW gay sex is . . . .kissing.
Pathettic, isn't it?
No Nuke Nookie because
I disagree with you there. The soap opera conventions you point out are used because they have proven to work in the past. Most of these themes can be traced back to morality plays in the 19th cenury and mellowdramas, but there are even aticedents in the forgotten plays of shakespere's day and even some truely dumb classic greek plays that are only read by a few.
Good soap writers are constantly looking for ways to expand the conventional story. A gay couple would allow them to do that in many very novel ways. In an hour I could easily come up with a dozen plots that could involve Luke and Noah with the current cast of characters in Oakdale, or possibly introducing a few villains, that would involve adultery, illicit sex and or baby making.
And it isn't because they can't think up a good enough plot that doesn't involve illicit sex or babies, that's not why they won't give us Nuke nookie. Heck, it didn't stop them from introducing ghosts, and demented ventriloquists which didn't involve illicit sex or babies. No Nuke Nookie is the same as No Nuke Kissing, it's because they are trying to appease the AFA.WHEN ROOMATES BECOME BOYFRIENDS
MY ICON SAYS IT ALL.
And the scary part
Is that Ollian haven't been together as long as Nuke and they're already several rungs further up the ladder in their relationship. Even setting aside the fact that they've long since initiated a sexual relationship, they also just plain act like they're really in love with each other.
Nuke scores points for playing a tragic courtly love scenario (if that kind of high art is what they're going for). But mostly they just come across as two really ambivalent guys who seem more in love with the idea than with each other.
Im glad you brought in VL
Im glad you brought in VL into the discussion because even there they have shown Ollian in bed 2 times if i'm not mistaken and bouth times it was because the storie required it.
So the rule there is clearly show bedscenes if there is no other was for the rest show them IN LOVE.
I remember a scene from VL long time ago when Ollian came back from the cinema and Ollie wisperd something in Cristians ear and then he sayes with a devilish smile " not here",it was pretty clear what they where talking about and also what there intent was but they did not acually show anything.
That could work for Nuke.So atleast for me it would be ok if they have Nuke kiss and act like a couple and talk about the sex they had, atleast we would know the boys actually have sex.
NO NUKE
Until ATWT decides to allow Luke & Noah to actually consummate in a physical way their professed love for each other, as has been stated in so many blogs above this one, there is NO Nuke; there is no romantic gay couple.
"I want our first time to be special," says Noah. "Maddy was different," says Noah. Baloney! In fact, Noah had feelings for Maddy - the "gay" thing apart. But now with Luke what exactly does he want? They had the house all to themselves for the entire day...not good enough, says Noah. Luke could have saved enough money from his inheritance to give them a week on Maui or a week at the Villa d'Este in Belagio or any number of possibilities. Beyond that, in 11 months (yes it really has been 11 months guys since that first kiss) Noah couldn't find that "one" moment for the two of them to truly commit their feelings to something beyond platonic friendship or as Luke put it so plainly and so bluntly, "glorified roommates?!?"
Maybe the writers will be allowed finally after one whole year to allow Nuke to find "that" moment to be together. But as it stands now, there is no Nuke; there is only the glorified roommates. And until it's allowed to come to pass, ATWT remains the single most anti-gay, homophobic commercial tv series on.
We've all said it in many different ways, noting the inconsistencies, the "gay" adult guys are "different" from the rest of soapland, the "what's ok for straights" is "not" ok for young gay guys in love..."in love" - what a joke on this soap!
And yes, it's only a soap...but for me, it's the "gays are different and not like us" that irks me no end and fosters the anti-gay world out there to look at us as freaks or not like "normal" folks. In 2008, this, at least for me, is unforgiveable!
Ciao guys,