CBC Radio discusses As The World Turns kissing controversy

Now that apparently the ban on kissing between Noah and Luke has been lifted, are other things also been lifted.  For example one of the key things to this storyline is  the honesty between the two characters.  For example Ameera kisses Noah, Noah calls Luke and tells him.  Sweet and honest.  Today when Noah calls and inquires about a flight to New York that seemed a little bit out of sync.  Now they both could be on the plane but I get the feeling that's not the case.    I know get a life.

My point is did we lose something by getting something.  They don't have to kiss everytime they leave a room.

and I wasn't entirely sure when I was going to be on. Glad I didn't embarrass myself too badly as I had to get up at 4:45 AM my time to do the interview (and that was after getting home late from driving up to Seattle to catch High School Musical!)

Even though I hate the sound of my own voice, I'll listen to the whole thing in the morning. Thanks so much for posting the link!

I can't believe they couldn't find someone other than Bob "I have a quote for everything even though I don't know anything about this show" Thompson! Really! The guy is infamous for uttering the most obvious observations and then presenting them as holy writ. And I say that as someone who teaches in the area. And The Center for Popular Culture? That's Bob. His office. Table for One! That said, I'm glad Michael got the word in before the Wingnut from Family Values Anonymous!

Is there a link available for the interview? I went to the html page and couldn't find an mp3 link to the show or that part of the show. Does cbc.ca have the shows on line?

Nukely, the url I posted should be working. Look for an audio player to the right of the text "Listen to Part Two."

Michael, you sounded great. I like how you were both honest and diplomatic about PGP's claims that there was no kissing ban, and just plain honest about the AFA.

Michael, that interview you gave was perfect! You did well! I liked your answers It's odd to hear your voice :o) I was almost expecting you to mention Forbidden Love though.. *laugh*

I find the use of Tim Wildmon's "we are a pro-family association" offensive. As if non-members are contra-family.. It's not the right use of words. The guy sounds so old-fashioned, you want to de-dust him.. *cough*. Did he say "Transgenderdism" at some point!?

And Thompson - Luke and Norah? Seriously! ;o)

@ ggtrig - it is indeed annoying not to be able to highlight text anymore, but what I do is this - very antiquated, but it works: you can highlight the entire page with ctrl+A. Then you copy ctrl+C the entire page and you open your Notepad (not Word, 'cause that's no good) and paste the entire highlighted page ctrl+V. Then only you copy/past the entire thing onto a word document. There of course you have to delete everything you don't need. It's tedious, but it works. Hoping though that it will soon be possible to highlight text on AE again.

----------------------------------------------------- 

R.I.P. - Heath Ledger [1979 - 2008]

..I see only what I wanna see..

Michael - I thought your interview was terrific. And you actually have a very nice voice. (I hate hearing my own voice, too.)

Tim Wildmon was actually not as bad as I expected. Which is not to say he wasn't grotesquely offensive. But having been raised in a culture of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and Donald Wildmon (Tim's father???), Tim was reasonably restrained. Though we don't like it, and we shouldn't have to put up with it, the simple reality is that gay equality in the US is going to be an evolution. And it's actually a step along the path of that evolution that the spokesman for one of the most anti-gay organizations in the country is saying that they don't mind gay relationships being portrayed, they just don't want to see it. Falwell and his ilk back a few years would have been aghast at such a "concession". Of course, that's sort of like saying that Saddam Hussein was an improvement over Hitler because he killed fewer people, and his rhetoric was milder!

Contrary to Knickie's opinion above, I actually thought Bob Thompson was interesting. Maybe a bit of a blowhard, but his observations weren't as obvious as I expected, and I have the impression he actually thinks for himself.

I don't like to think of the AFA as a barometer of humanity. Wildmon was simply stating the party line: the Hate the Sin Love the Sinner campaign was devised by the AFA in response to charges that they are hateful and arbitrary about their sins. They had to tone down their rhetoric or lose the media war. That happened quite some time ago. But they have remained every bit as hateful as ever. They simply have enough couth now to wait until the reporters leave the room before telling fag jokes.

 

I don't understand why gay folks find their stance to be tolerable or are lulled into a sense of comfort because of it.
.

I wondered who would be the first to intentionally misinterpret my comment, and I predicted it would be you! LOL! You can't be serious in your last sentence when you say I'm finding their stance to be tolerable, or that I've been lulled into a sense of comfort. I have to ask: what color is the sky in your world???

Your comment about the AFA having to tone down their rhetoric or lose the media war is actually proof of what I'm saying: that the evolution toward gay equality is occurring. How in the hell is recognition of that undeniable evolution equivalent to finding their stance tolerable or being lulled into a sense of comfort? Nothing could be further from the truth.

Here's what the problem is with how you see the gay world. In every circumstance you look for the worst, most negative interpretation of things, or of comments people make. And then you choose to assume that's the reality. Homophobia is everywhere, there's no progress being made, in all cases people's motives are base and evil. There are no gray areas, only black and white. I'd sure hate to live in that world.

Dennis, I'm undeserving of your personal attacks.

By gay folks, I meant to say "gay folks" not "Dennis in Mpls." That's why I wrote gay folks.

I started posting at AfterElton by noting that P&G were following the party line laid down by AFA, namely "Hate the Sin Love the Sinner," something that gay folks here and at GLAAD seemed to be oblivious to. You can call me a curmudgeon for pointing that out, but it has proven to be true.

The AFA's current stance is insidious, but I believe every bit as evil. I caution that we all be wary of it.

.

I'm the last person to limit free speach, and I love a good argument as much as the next guy, but sometimes enough is enough.

A board is always going to have debates and posters will have differing opinions, but when it is the same person constantly finding offense at the most off-handed comments, many times comments that weren't even directed to them, and instigating long-winded arguments, over and over again, it gets old fast.

It has less to do with the subject matter discussed and more with the poster's need to percieve themselves as a victim of an attack. Sometimes it's not about you. To paraphrase an episode of "Reba" (I can't believe I just wrote that) -- There are billions of stars and thousands galaxies revolving around one single point in the universe, and that point isn't you.

I welcome your opinions and I hope you continue to post and to believe as passionately as you do in everything that interests you, but speaking for myself, life is a lot more interesting when you aren't always looking for a fight.

You might want to pick up a book called "The Velvet Rage" it makes a few interesting points that might speak to you.

and I apologize for the Armchair psychiatry.

...I agree with Nukely. There are some vicious, nasty people out there, and they are smart enough to simply change their tactic when confronted by their opponents. It is of the utmost importance to not get lulled into a sense of complacency. Yes, we've come a long way, but even in Canada where my people tend to be more liberal about these things, sudden voilence against a gay person can rise up at any moment. Both our countries are made up of immigrants often from countries that have absolutely no tolerance for gays. A case in point was the news coverage from Gay Pride Vancouver this year showing the "detractors" holding up their signs. I noticed that many of them were visable minorities and when interviewed were English-as-a-second-language. Add them into the mix of self righteous christian fundamentalists and you have a dangerous brew. This is not to say that many immigrants have a great deal of interest in human rights, and may have come here to enjoy them with the rest of us second or third generation immigrants, but ingrained beliefs die hard. The demographic of the countries are ever changing and must be carefully monitored. Even here, we are one crisis away from a riot.

 

 

 

 

 

I say we take the warning labels off everything and let nature take it's course.

Point taken, guilt admitted.  I was starting to get annoyed at myself!  Though I hope you're equally unhappy about the constant repetition of the contentions and attitudes to which I've been objecting.

Also, to be fair, I think you'd have to admit that in this case the comment likely WAS directed at me, considering it immediately followed a quote from me. 

I think there could be a very interesting and fruitful debate about the concept of monolithic thought within the gay community, and the number of highly vocal people (referred to as "hotheads" by a member who sent me a private message of support) who want to marginalize those who don't agree with them.  I'd refer to them as the "radical fringe", and there are many here.  I do realize that this is not the place where a debate about that issue can occur.  Actually, the internet in general is not a place where something like that can likely occur.  Forums (on all subjects) are generally dominated by the "hotheads" of the world.  And so you have name calling, and misrepresentations, and juvenile things like voting zero on all posts from someone who tries to challenge the orthodox thinking (I see you over there, Joseph!).  And so mutually respectful exchange of ideas gets drowned out.

So yeah, I've been pushing a bit too hard.  I don't mind annoying the one-dimensional thinkers who can't abide dissent.  They need to be annoyed and challenged once in awhile.  But I do understand that it gets old to regular, fair minded readers like yourself.  And it gets old to me too!  Orthodoxy (and the resultant warped perceptions) will always be with us, especially in "special interest" groups, and it's truly not my mission in life to change that. 

I agree that P&G is a business and makes conservative decisions based mainly on what they believe is in the best interest of their investment. That is a very cold take on business in the 21st century, but perhaps not far from the truth. A financially sound decision isn't always what is best for the community at large. While I can understand why a company makes decisions that may be harmful or callous toward the GLBT community, I don't have to agree with it, or commend them for what are half-hearted efforts. It doesn't mean I think they are evil or malicious, just cold and greedy.

I see my position as holding their feet to the fire. You seem to position yourself to explain P&G's oblique handling of the show. Fair enough.

I am able to differentiate the show, ATWT, from the producers, P&GP and the owners, P&G. (As a matter of fact, I feel like I was one of the main educators in that regard on this and other boards 3 months ago, when people were calling CBS to complain, and while AFA were quietly in discussions with P&G.) Ultimately everything that happens to the show is to the benefit or determent of the parent company and is directed by P&G.

I am interested in how P&G are handling the show, since they have the final word. Speculation that the writers and directors are somehow retaliating against the parent company seems remote and misses the point.

I believe there was a kissing ban, even though it has been denied. Jeannie Tharrington hints at it when she talks about the change that happened in response the negative feed back from the first kiss. That's where the AFA's involvement starts.

The two kisses were necessary plot points, (as noted here by Psyonics (sp).) After the first kiss, it was reported that P&G were in conversation with the AFA, Wildmon confirms that they have an on going dialogue. As a matter of fact, he talks about an earlier boycott which he claims resulting in their demands being met. "but they did change their activities. So, we called off the boycott. We do still have a relationship with Proctor and Gamble and they have responded positively on other issues that we have brought to their attention." So, they could expect that P&G would meet their demands last August over the Nuke story-line. As Wildmon suggests from AFA's stance on gays, there was no reason for concern prior to the first kiss. "If they want to have a relationship as gays or homosexuals you can do that, in our view that's okay, we don't approve of it because of our world view, but we understand that gay people are real people and they are part of the social fabric of our country and north america... " After the first kiss the AFA were reported to be in talks with P&G.

When the CBC interviewer asks, "So, it's the actual kiss, it's not the relationship between the two men depicted in other ways?" Wildmon answered in part: "... All we asked Proctor and Gamble to do was don't be explicit with the sexual nature of the relationship and they did that for a while, and now, and then they turned it up a notch with this mouth to mouth kissing."

The phrases "for a while" and "and now," suggests that the request that he's referring to was the one made after the first kiss. (This also suggests that AFA believed they were in collusion with P&G over a kissing ban.) The second kiss was already in the can and had to be used to further the plot. However, Luke and Noah didn't kissed again after that. And it wouldn't have been that noticeable if not for the mistletoe pan at Christmas. Many of us were willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, until Valentines day and the subsequent interrupted kisses and pan-away shots (which could be interpreted as P&G giving proof to the AFA that P&G were following their directives or that the director was thumbing his nose at the parent company. The later seems unlikely, since a single memo from P&G could have put a stop to that, too.)

I believe that the Media Blitz brought to light a glaring injustice. And helped to turn the tide of public opinion away from the conservative views, also the coveted new viewers were not as offended by seeing two men kiss. The world was suddenly interested to see if P&G would do the right thing, what ever you believed that to be.

It seems obvious to me that P&G were using Nuke as a pawn in the ratings game, and if that was the expressed intent anywhere along the line, then it is exploitation. Especially when they stated repeatedly that they wanted to do the right thing by way of the gay romance, asking for our trust. But it seems obvious that P&G have flip-flopped. First instituting a kissing ban in deference to the AFA, and now reversing it.

While the current affection is commendable, I'm still finding it hard to trust their business decisions. They clearly couldn't lose Nuke last fall because of the rating boost brought on by the story-line, but at the same turn they were caving to the AFA's "Judeo-Christian world view," which restricts mouth to mouth kissing.

I have wondered if P&G has been orchestrating this whole thing, and if it has all played out as planned, but I doubt it. There has been too much derision and bad feelings all around about the handling of the subject matter. But that derision has also come with controversy which ended up benefiting ATWT in higher ratings.

The down shot for P&G is that the brand has been smudged at both ends of the political spectrum. I'm sure somebody's nuts are in a vice right now because of it.

But I am uninterested in playing armchair CEO of P&G. I am only interested in the effect and outcome of the decisions they make. And when I have an opportunity to bring to light decisions that are, or appear to be, exploitative, I will do it.

The past couple weeks is showing a good faith effort by P&G if not because of the media blitz. If we follow the rule of the 6 month attention span, then by July, we will have forgotten about Valentines day. And by December the AFA boycott will have blown over and Luke and Noah will be raising Ameera's baby and maybe I'll be a fan again.