ATWT video clip update: Back to the bottle

leave.

Hopefully the writers have some particularly grisly demise for Noah in store.

Noah's outrageous claim that what Luke did was worse than what Kevin did is ridiculous. Kevin nearly had Butters' girlfriend raped.

Secondly, Nuke should get over themselves. They have never had sex and it's been 18 + months since they've met. There is no "relationship" here.

Luke should just hook-up with Reg and get it over with.

And Afterelton should stop covering ATWT because the producers and owners of the Soap are just toying with this audience. I don't think we'll EVER see any consumation

It's My Boy Noah!

Luke shouldn't get to have sex until he's willing to leave the frickN farm. 

And I am unanimous in that!

"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." (Dorthy Parker)

As the World Turns is in a no win situation with the Luke and Noah storyline. First people complain that they don't kiss...now they kiss too much. Then people complain that the relationship is unrealistic because there's no strife. Now there's plenty of strife between them and people are complaining. Then they complain Luke is too perfect, and now they complain about his fall from grace.

With the revelation of Brian's sexuality this show will have 5 gay characters (counting Reg and his boyfriend). That is amazing! Luke's descent into alcoholism (after a liver transplant no less), Brian's exploration of his sexuality, Lucinda's eventual heartache,

and Noah's disenchantment with Luke is an excellent storyline. I have started watching the show again and hope other people will too. 

it

The current Nuke storyline is terrific because both Luke and Noah are acting like real people. In other words, they're basically good people, but with quirks and failings that can occasionally get them into deep trouble. The good and the bad coexist, just like with real people. They fight, and they're both wrong, and yet both right at the same time. It's not that there's one "hero", and one person who made a mistake and has to be redeemed. And both characters seem well-fleshed and multi-leveled, with not a trace of stereotype.

I also think that for a change the writing in this storyline has been quite good. Some of the exchanges have been riveting. And Van's acting has also risen to new heights in a couple of scenes. I've got my fingers crossed that they might have moved the story and characters to a new level, but I can't help but have the fear that they'll go back to the silliness of the past.

I'm really looking forward to the upcoming episodes. The fall off the wagon, the issue with Wheatables, the effort to save the relationship - if that's all handled as well as what they did this week I can't wait!

I'm not sure what to say; I guess I just have a different perception than you do about what's going on here.

This will probably make you throw up in your mouth, but I would love it if ATWT would write in a feminine male character. And have him become good friends with Luke or Noah or both. One of the things that has bothered me about both Luke and Noah is the degree to which ATWT has gone out of its way to make both of them as "straight-acting" as possible. I'd like to see one of them have a thing for Judy Garland, or be into dance, or dress a bit flamboyantly, or even just mention they love the Scizzor Sisters or Rufus.

It seems to me that Kevin and Mark played dirty politics first and Luke and Cassie responded in kind.

I think if this has been some kind of campaign between two opposing Gay candidate, I might see the "gay" in it

Let me just say also that what is or isn't a negative stereotype with regard to race and sexual orientation and gender is incredibly subjective.

Soap operas are all one long meditation on male and female stereotypes (in terms of straight folks) and no one seems to have much of a problem with the hysterical damsels constantly in distress. It's campy and funny and over the top because that's what soaps are about. Melodrama. Outrageous behavior that can't really be justified in the real world

As per Luke's being punished for his "gay politics", I don't think he's anymore uppity about his politics than he is in general. Which is to say, Luke is a be uppity to begin with (having more to do with who is mother and maternal grandma are than anything else). He is insanely impatient and Can Not Stand not to get exactly what he wants when he wants it how he wants it. Most of the time it's charming but sometimes it does come out as a bit "Diva" and that would be true even if he were straight (Holden can also be a "Diva" which he showed during the whole "Luke in a wheel chair, Lily hangs with Dusty" period)

People's first forays into politics tend to come from some personal experience or desire to make the world better based on personal experience that there is injustice in the world.

Kevin's political platfrom was totally about WHO he is (frat boy, partier, big white male on campus. ) but we tend to treat that as "generic" college boy.

Luke's stuffing the ballot box is not some particularly "gay" way of trying to win the election. It was one of those dirty tricks that Noah was worried Luke would be driven to if he didn't get his priorities in check.

If you compare political tactics, what Luke did is certainly not any where near as EVIL as kidnapping, threat of rape and the public humiliation and homophobia displayed by the video Mark uploaded to the web.

The problem is, Luke's actions had the power to rob the entire student body of a fair election and it "stole" the votes of those students who wanted Kevin as their president. As F'd up as Kevin and Mark are, rigging the election doesn't just punish them. If I were a student, I would be a lot more pissed with Luke and Cassie. Kevin and Mark are scum (no question) but if the student body chose to fairly elect scum, then Luke needed to find another way to be heard regarding the Film Festiva and work through his personal (though very valid) issues with Kevin's present and past behavior some other way.

But it seems pretty clear to me that Luke didn't do what he did Because he's Gay, he did it Because he's Luke. The same Luke that chased Noah to NYC, chased Noah to Chicago, etc It's part of his personality to go after something full on and not really think about the consequences. Part of what I love about his character

All the comments I've read on the youtube clips (both Anthony's and Lukvanfans) seem to very clearly see the difference between these actions.

Luke should be punished for his actions, ABSOLUTELY, but so should Kevin and Mark (seems to be the general feeling in the comments)

What has disturbed me here and on other blogs is this idea that Luke shouldn't be involved in politics that are "about" being gay because that is somehow limiting which I think is backwards and part and parcel of the "we are so post gay" kind of mentality that has kept young gay folks from being politically active in gay causes and kept most of them out of the anti-Prop8 political activities previous to the vote.

There is nothing wrong with a gay man or lesbian or any age standing up for their rights as a gay person and calling out oppression wherever they see it. It should not just be something folks do when they are young but it should certainly be a part of any young out gay person's world.

Because the gay students are apparently such a minority on the OU campus, Luke was kind of alone in his fight (with the exception of Cassie et al) and that's just pitiful.

In terms of Luke and Noah as representations of gay, I really love the fact that neither of them felt the need to radically change their appearance or behavior upon coming out but I also really love that Reg is not super masculine (and neither is Luke even though he's a sports lover). Reg is very fierce about gay rights and gay student activities and Tony is a little bit promiscuous and kind of a party boy. I love it all because I think together as a group, they represent different ways of being young gay men but not in opposition to each other.

I never perceived Reg and Tony as pervy or "the bad gay" and I've not heard any other commentors (other than on AE) refer to them in that way. If anything, most folks think they are "normal" and Luke and Noah are the oddballs for being so chaste. (But let's not get into that again...)

"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." (Dorthy Parker)

"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." (Dorthy Parker)

1) It feels like you frequently assume that I (specifically) would see things differently if the characters in question were black which if you knew me, you're realize how crazy that is. I don't have a different standard for how I want black or female characters to be treated in media than I do for how I want gay and lesbian characters to be treated. It all affects me.

Dallas and Bonnie are black, yes, but honestly I think the fact that no one every talks about them being black or they never have any issues related to being black in a CLEARLY mostly white midwestern town is kind of surreal and crazy but I don't watch the show for them so honestly, I don't really care what happens to them unless it's related to Nuke.

But since you brought it up, let's go there for a minute. If Dallas broke the law in order to bring down someone for using the N word, I would support him losing his badge. I wouldn't necessarily think it was the writers trying to bring down the Uppity Negro. "Words" are not illegal. It wouldn't be the first time he'd heard the word and it wouldn't be the last time either. Dallas would have no right, regardless of how he felt personally, to arrest someone for being a racist twat because being a racist twat isn't illegal. He would also have not right to break the very laws he's sworn to uphold just to punish someome for hurting his feelings.

If Bonnie had to represent a member of the White Supremacy of Oakdale and didn't do so to her best abilities because her client kept calling her mammy, she should be disbarred.

And yes, it would suck if folks decided to just assume that all black lawyers and police officers were partial to black causes at the expense of other things or if viewers took the storyline to mean something about whether or not they could trust black officers of the law or courts to have their best interests (as white citizens and potential clients) to heart.

I don't know why you seem to assume that I'm always going to think differently about racial issues than I would about gay issues just because I happen to be black.

I would hope that's not the case.

I'm Black and I'm a Lesbian. How could I possible prioritize one over the other?

You Stated:

Nukely Quote

"Let me see if I understand, by the same token, if Kevin had been running against a black man and put up a youtube video depicting his opponent as lazy, violent and wanting to recruit gangs in the school quad, you would have found it entertaining and intriguing to see the black candidate stoop to dirty politics in order to get his way, and then take the fall for reacting to the bigotry? That's the kind of stories you write? (and the only way you would see the racism in it is if it was between two opposing black candidates?)"

1) I never said I thought how Luke behaved was entertaining. Other people have said that. I did not. What I said was that "I" as a viewer who is gay, recognize that Luke is behaving the way that he does because he is "Luke", not because he is "Gay" and I've observed that many viewers are able to get that. (based upon what I've read from comments sections)

2) I think what Kevin did was dispicable and I think Luke was completely justified in losing his SHIZNIT over it!. If Kevin had done a similar kind of thing with regards to a black opponent and the black opponent (who was his former best friend) had gotten totally crazed about it, I still wouldn't think stuffing the ballot boxes was a reasonable solution.

The issues would be the same : 1) A Straight/White Candidate who is in the majority using ugly stereotypes and homophobia/racism to try to influence potential voters to win the election 2) Two former best friends going up against each other in a race that SHOULD just be about student government issues but is really as much about racisim and homophobia and betrayal as it is anything else.

I wish that the writers had NOT written this story the way that they did only because it seems to have taken away from what I thought would be a great storyline about what it means to be an out student in a non-urban environment.

I don't disagree with you that they COULD HAVE written a cajillion other senarios to give Van something to sink his teeth into and give Luke and Noah some non-crazy daddy drama.

It sucks that Luke's first foray into gay politics came down to this.

But again, I could see the same scenario happening if Allie had been ex lovers with kevin and they were both students running for office and Kevin/Mark had decided to use her having done porn or her sister-mother situation as fodder to bring her down. I could see her going just as crazy and doing ridiculous things and Emily and Allie's friends trying to talk her down to no avail and her getting expelled for stuffing the ballot box.

We're dealing with a young gay man. But I don't see everything he does as "Hey folks, this is how a gay would do it". I don't think most viewers are so ignorant that the don't know this as well.

I just think you are underestimating the audience's ability to see things for what they are. If this was the first time that Luke had flipped out and done something extreme to get what he wanted, then yes, I would say how could the audience not think it's some kind of "gay way" of doing things.

But I guess I'm just giving the audience the benefit of the doubt to see Luke as an individual young man who happens to approach life a certain way (whether it's the student government election or his parents divorce, he's all "I WANT IT LIKE THIS AND I'M GONNA HAVE IT LIKE THIS AND CONSEQUENCES BE DAMNED"

3) I didn't write the script so I can't possibly know what the writers intended. I can only know how I interpreted what's happening in front of me.


4) Finally, You Quote Me
Darcolover Wrote: I really love the fact that neither of them felt the need to radically change their appearance or behavior upon coming out

Nukely Wrote: You know what? I could go on a diatribe over that one comment, but I won't. I want to pause and reflect on it. Because it makes me feel very, very sad. That's what happens when I repress my anger.

I'm very confused by your "anger". That just seem like a strong reaction to my saying I'm glad Luke and Noah are basically treated like individuals.

Why in the world does this make you angry? All I meant was I loved the fact that both characters Noah and Luke (at least as far as I can tell) maintained their sense of self while also being out and proud and gay and a couple. They don't just agree about everything simply because they are both gay.

They are very different from each other and they differ on how to deal with issues even though they are both very pro gay. This was true before Noah came out and it's true now.

Two gay mean who love each other and are equally angry about the film festival being de-funded and the homophobia it represents can argue so much about the right thing to do.

Whomever we think is right or wrong, they have differing points of view because Noah and Luke approach the world differently. It's not like one is the "bad" gay and one is the "good gay.

As for their style,

I would love there to be MORE diversity in how gay and lesbians characters are depicted. More feminine boys and more butch grrls who are queer on television would more closely reflect my reality for sure. I'd love to see gay men who are sloppy and not totally fit and lesbians with a bit of belly who hate lipstick and have duct tape holding their boots together and aren't slaves to the idea of what "gay" or "lesbian" "Should" look like.

It would have been weird if Noah had suddenly stopped wearing t-shirts and jeans and plaids and started wearing Armani because he "thought" he had to dress differently in order to show his pride as a gay man.

It would have sucked if Luke had stopped liking sports or hanging out with his family because he "thought" he couldn't do so as a young gay man because it wasn't cool.

That said, who decided the hot tub party was a bad thing?

Who says Reg is a "bad" gay because he's outspoken about homophobia

Who says Tony is a "stereotype". He's a college aged man who drinks, smokes pot and wants to have random sex. Is that unusual for a college aged guy? gay or straight?

I'm not a television writer. I'm a librarian. I'm not going to attempt to rewrite the script of a soap opera.

But I do think there is more than One way of interpreting things and I don't even pretend to know what the writers WANT me to think (nor do I care). I also don't pressume to know what the viewers are thinking (beyond what I read in the comments sections).

I'm not ignorant with regard the stereotypes on ATWT (racial, gendered, gay, lesbian), but I'm not blinded by them either.

Every character/actor that is marginalized or a minority in some way has multiple subject positions. They have to try to represent both the individual character while also being aware that they MAY represent some larger group (intentionally or not) who's image/treatment will be affected by their characterization or the way in which the storyline/character is written.

Maybe you are right and the viewers won't be able to distinquish any of Luke's actions from his being gay and dealing with homophobia.

Maybe the viewers do think that Reg and Tony are evil sex having gays who pray on "innocent" "virginal" couples like Nuke. But wouldn't they have to be more than a little bit twisted to think that?

I just hope that you are not right.

"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." (Dorthy Parker)

Guys & any ladies out there,

For me, if Luke and Noah were truly a "couple" (which of course they are NOT), this sl would take on much more significance.  Luke finally screwing up because he's human and obviously still has issues with kevin which is what Noah is rightly hitting on, would be a great sl...if they were a couple.  Again, if they were a couple, this would really spice up the story.

Unfortunately, I cannot get by the ATWT writers words supposedly, but NOT, giving flesh to their characters: in this case, Nuke.  What do I mean?

Does anyone remember that first moment?

Noah: "do you just not like me, Luke?"

Luke: "No, Noah, I like you - pregnant pause, - yes, like that!"

the problem of course is even after 16 or 18 months, "like that" has NEVER come to pass.  And then there was the time the two of them were at the farm, alone, together, remember?  And Luke finally points out the "friendship only reality of their quote/unquote relationship."  What does Noah say?

Noah: "it's not right here, Luke.  the time & place need to be special for us."

Problem?  Well, yes.  In 16 or 18 months, Noah has NEVER been able to find Luke in the "right" or "special" place or at the "right" or "special" time to make it their special moment.  Poor Noah, (and Luke too), neither one of them is terribly bright or even sadder passionate about their relationship...which of course really does not exist.

And finally, that's why I never watch Nuke except on You tube.  The Nuke sl on ATWT is ANTI-GAY; I cannot forgive them for that.  Some who blog on this site, think that by saying Luke & Noah are gay, it's a positive gay soap - but in reality, what ATWT, their sponsors and the critics of the Nuke story are saying it that, "well, ok, it's ok if they kiss and hug, but they will NEVER be intimate with each other."  In other words, heterosexuals can be real people, fall in love and actually be passionate and truly consumate their love for each by going to bed together, but gay people will NOT be allowed to be real or normal people, to fall in love and go to bed.  By dehumanizing us (those of us who are gay), they are saying to the str8 world, ok, they exist, but we won't allow them the passion and sex that heteros enjoy.  ATWT emasculated Nuke as a couple and I do not forgive that.

I don't think there is anyone on this site who thinks it reasonable, preferrable or logical that Nuke hasn't had sex yet.

But since we're talking about fiction and the parameters for this particular fictional story involve a senario where a gay couple (who are in love and lust after each other) have "chosen" not to have sex, we can't just DECIDE that those aren't the parameters we're dealing with.

We have to suspend disbelieve like a MOFO for all kinds of reasons when it comes to soap operas (people come back from the dead, time travel, etc)

Nuke not having sex is ridiculous but it is no more ridiculous than a lot of things we have to allow ourselves to believe in order to watch a soap opera.

As for the explanations given for why they arent't having sex,

Why is Noah responsible for whether, when, where and how he and Luke have sex?

Because he's not a virgin? Because he last slept with a girl? BOLLOCKS!. 

He's made the first move every time and the only time Luke seems to come on to Noah is when he wants something (but not necessarily sex) or he wants to TALK about them having or not having sex.  Has he ever made a pass a Noah since the cottage?

Luke's all "We've been in this house all day and nothing"  Well dude, do something about it. It's Luke's grandma's house and HIS grandma's rules. Luke is the one who REFUSES to leave the farm.

Noah may be F'ked up over all the daddy and mama  dying insanity and coming out and  post Ameera madness but I'm sure he'd snap out of it if Luke hadn't just complained and had actually stepped up and made the first move.

Noah was explaining why HE hasn't approached Luke.  But I don't recall Luke ever explainging why HE hasn't approached Noah (and kvetching about why Noah isn't touching him is not sexy)

Luke should have grabbed the keys to one of his mama's shwanky hotel rooms the second Noah decided not to join the Army and decorated it all nice and sexy and comfy and surprised Noah  stole him away for the weekend.  Done and Done.

Every time Noah suggests they leave the farm to be along together (gay away weekend, getting an apartment, using those adorable llittle-sister-at-camp-made lanyard keyrings in their own place) Luke's all, "I can't leave my family" "I can't break Grandma's Rules." 

And the lanyard keyring thing was all AFTER Luke threw a fit about them not having sex.

Noah is totally living in Luke's world.  I'll grant, maybe right after my father died (psycho as he may have been) wouldn't be the "right" time for me to have sex with my very first same sex lover.

But I don't think it's Noah's fault that they haven't had sex (even if you accept all of the reasoning put forth by the script thus far).

Noah's all "I think about it all the time", "I can't stand being near you and not touching you", "Let's do it on the grownup bed who cares if Ameera is sulking outside the bedroom door"

Luke's bizarre "Why aren't we have sex TODAY" fit this summer was completely random just like his jumping up and running out of the cottage 10 minutes after he'd decided to move in even though Noah was closing the door in Ameera's face and trying to get it on.

I continue to watch because it's fun, I'm fascinated that the storyline even exists (still the only of its kind on American Television) and I'm interested to see how it plays out.

I personally am under no delusion that NUKE represent any "authentic" idea of a young gay male couple but then I don't have that expectation from a soap (maybe I should but I'm not a general soap fan so....)

I know for us a gay people, SEX is the basis upon which we are descrimated against and so of course is unrealistic, hetereosexist, anti-gay sexuality to show a couple that is in love and committed and DECIDES not to have sex for no "reason" that makes sense to use as viewers.

I can't imagine that any of the viewers here on A.E. or the youtube watchers wouldn't agree.

"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." (Dorthy Parker)

Sorry, seanb, I think you're nuts.

Actually, darcolover, you and I agree on a good many things regarding ATWT & Nuke, to whit:

1) No one on this site thinks it reasonable or preferable or logical that Nuke have not had sex yet.

2) Nuke not having sex is ridiculous...

3) You also may be correct in Luke being the party that most frequently puts off having sex - I haven't kept score, I only know that if one suggests it, the other finds some reason (the AFA, P&G, and CBS) to put off going to bed together.  Quite frankly, since the debacle of the Christmas/Mistletoe episodes from last year, I have only watched the Luke/Noah episodes on You Tube and only, I admit, because I am hugely and physically attracted to both Van and Jake.

What I absolutely cannot agree with includes:

1) ...can't we just suspend disbelief? or,

2) "...not having sex is no more ridiculous than a lot of what goes on in soap operas."

Sorry, darcolover, but I strongly disagree.  If str8 couples on ATWT were never shown in bed together w/sex as the sl, then agreed, it would be ridiculous and so would a sex scene with Nuke.  But the depiction of "gay" love as strictly AND I DO MEAN "STRICTLY" platonic as shown on ATWT is demeaning, dehumanizing, and harmful to the gay community.  It is insulting and condescending on so many levels that I can neither understand nor appreciate that point of view nor the acquiescence of bloggers like seanb.  ATWT is being influenced and directed by bigoted groups like the AFA and if we do not fight against them, they win.  I prefer to speak out against their anti-gay agenda...soap or no soap opera - and yes, I do know this is only a soap opera, but it is expressing a very strong anti-gay theme with which I object. 

we're getting TONS of Luke and Noah. For past few months --even with the Ameera nonsense -- they've been on in little dribs and drabs. Now we've got a REAL soap storyline, with good people screwing up and doing bad things.

Luke falling off the wagon after stelaing the election and being expelled opens the door to blissful redemption via Noah. Obviously it won't happen overnight. And being a soap it shouldn't. But with Luke's life a 10-car pile-up on the I-Five, who can possibly look away?