Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 22 members and 771 guests online.
|
ATWT - Brian Wheatley's Secret Is...... (SPOILER)SPOILER SPACE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian's secret is revealed.... to Luke anyway. Next week, Lucinda has a mastectomy. Following the surgery, Brian proposes and Lucinda accepts. The two are quickly married. Later, Brian finds Luke, who has been drinking since he's upset over the situation with Noah and has a major hang over. Brian and Luke get close.... a little too close and Brian kisses young Mr. Snyder. Luke is stunned and Brian insists Luke not tell anyone as to not ruin Lucinda's happiness....... Submitted by Anthony D. Langford (7526 points) (1645 posts) on Mon, 2008-11-10 14:59. |
 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
Nukely - See my reply to
to debate or not to debate
In a recent My Name is Earl episode, Earl tried to explain to Randy that it isn't debating if every time I say something you just say "your wrong." My point was that I assumed that certain folks on forums like this one, who've acted like Randy, did so either out of spite or laziness. They simply did not want to take the time to form an opinion and look at reasons for that opinion. But they did want to take the time to fire off their reactions to my opinions. I can see now that some of those folks were perhaps ignorant. Offering your opinion and leaving it at that is fine. You'll notice that many people at these forums do just that. leave an opinion, and then sit back. Like casting a vote. But when you leave your opinion, that leaves room for someone to comment on that. And that is where the debate begins. If you truly didn't believe in debating, you wouldn't react to the comments left by others and leave it alone when they disagree with you. But as soon as you comment on the comment, you have chosen to engaged in a debate. Some people choose to debate like Randy, and say nothing more fruitful than, "you're wrong and I'm right." I'd like to think they don't know any better.
I never came to this site to root for ATWT, I think that's clear; seeing folks place that kind of blind faith in a soap is sad to me and annoying.
P.S. thank you for sparing us your awesome debate tactics.
Your post actually kind of
Your post actually kind of highlights the main point I was making in my reply to LOTR1985, which is that back and forth discussion on a message board of the intensity that he/she was talking about usually gets so bogged down in definitions and perceptions and clarifications that nothing can ever be accomplished. In this case, with you, it's the nature and definition of debate. LOTR1985 was using the word in the sense of formal or semi-formal debate, where both sides engage in a point counter point thing where arguments are made, then specifically argued against, with specific examples, etc., as he/she was stressing. That's the meaning he/she was using, and that's the meaning I was using in reply. However, your post above defines it as the simple act of commenting on someone else's comment. That's not really debate at that point, really in any definition of the term. Even if you don't want to refer to a formal point counter point debate, the term still requires a discussion beyond one comment, and then an observation on that comment. It requires that both parties voluntarily enter into an exchange with a specific purpose, whether it be to "win" or to come to a decision, or illuminate an issue, etc.
So to make my point of the normal fruitlessness of debate on a message board of the type LOTR1985 was talking about, you and I have each made a couple of posts on the topic and we're not even to the point of agreeing on what a debate is. And because of those limitations, in addition to the others I mentioned in my earlier post, I just have no taste for online debate. And to be clear, I'm talking about debate of the type LOTR1985 was referring to, not to friendly back and forth discussion, which does work well on a message board.
I do wish you could see how you continue to be sarcastic and demeaning and belligerent in tone, and realize that it's counter-productive if you want to engage others. I respect you and all other posters, and try to avoid disparaging others or using sarcasm or calling them names. It's my experience that those things stifle debate, while being respectful enhances debate. I think it's especially too bad in your case since you seem to be obviously intelligent. It would be interesting to see what would happen if you dumped the attitude and just engaged people in a straightforward, accepting way. I have no need to change you, but I'm curious as to how it would work for you.
Your post actually kind of
Smells.
First of all you are suggesting that there is no place in debate for irony or sarcasm. You are wrong. There has been a very long tradition of sarcasm and irony in both legal debates but also political and especially literary debates. (We are discussing a scripted show, btw.)
You're suggesting there is no place for sarcasm at AfterElton. Which is ridiculous, if we were to remove every column, post and video on this site with a snarky, sarcastic or ironic comment there might be little left but the name, which someone would surely debate as being ironic in some way.
What you're suggesting is that when you debate someone in person, you are never challenged to explain your terms, even for a term as basic as "what are we doing," namely: define what you mean by 'debate'. I find it hard to believe that you've never had a conversation like that and it only happens on line.
The thing is that when you write them, words have more weight. You have to be careful with what you say and be willing to explain yourself when your words are misunderstood. That is part of on line conversations. If you can't stand the heat?.... But I'm unafraid of on line conversations and what comes with them.
What I was trying to say in the above post is that in the loosest form any argument is debate, weather you follow rules or not. A poor or lousy debater is like the example of Randy. I agree, generally when we use the term debate, we are referring to a formal debate, which is also called an 'argument'. Perhaps, my point would have been clear if I had chosen the word 'argument' over 'debate', above. I considered it, but I really thought that people would understand my intention. Hey, thanks for
bogging it downclarifying it, anyway.Seanb, you have nothing to prove, we all know you are a much better human being than I am. Surely, you have won over many more friends here and in the world with perfume. Sorry, if I'm not liken' it.
Unfortunately, you pretty
Unfortunately, you pretty much misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm not a writer, so maybe I didn't express myself well. I'll try to clarify.
First, I did not mean to say that there is no room for irony or sarcasm or wit in debate. You're right, that would be ridiculous. But I wasn't saying that. I was saying that your responses to others are almost always dominated by a really negative tone and a belligerence that I think hurts your effort to communicate with people. Some of the terms you've used with people you're interacting with on this thread alone are: "full of it", ignorant, childish, "lacks the skills and know how", priggish, egotistical, "acted...out of spite or laziness", condesdending, "your post smells". On another thread you had Darcolover asking why you're so mean, and suggesting you quit interacting with her. In my opinion you're not engaging in wit and irony and (healthy) sarcasm. Those things are awesome, and make a debate or discussion much more appealing. AE uses those things a lot, but they're not used to demean fellow posters, which is what you're doing. Snarkiness gives AE much of its personality, but again, it matters who it's directed at or what context it's in.
You also misunderstood what I was saying about being challenged in debate. The challenge is essentially the same, whether it's in person or in writing. The difference is that in person, you can cut to the chase quickly, get the definitions and perception differences out of the way quickly, and then move on to a useful discussion. In print, you have to go back and forth, trying over and over to make yourself understood. Just as we're doing now. It takes a lot of time and a lot of patience, and even then it doesn't work very well for most people, at least in my experience.
I know you're trying to offend me, but I don't get offended easily. The bottom line and the truthful line is that it doesn't matter what you think of me. You say I should just say if I don't like you. How can I not like you when I've never met you and know virtually nothing about you? What I CAN say is what I said before: you seem to have an almost exclusively negative attitude about things, and you delight in slamming and demeaning others. That certainly doesn't hurt me since I can just ignore you if I want. But like I said before, it seems unfortunate that an intelligent guy like you gets bogged down in that when you could really engage people. I have a question for you: why do you post on AE? That's not a debating point, I'm just curious.
The difference
I get what you're trying to say and do. You're policing the boards, educating and talking down offenders. I just happen to be the first victim, someone you disagree with. That doesn't offend me. You have made a value judgment, that's all and you seem to believe it's an absolute. Should I be going through your comments to pick out examples from your tone? ("I could mop the floor with you or Nukely!", "you give off a feeling of belligerence" (If Nukely) "dumped the attitude" besides calling me disrespectful.)
You've made a personal value judgment, you don't like my irony, but everyone else's is fine, for now. And in the grand scheme of all the other writing here, mine in particular, makes you think I'm some kind of monster? L'enfant terrible who needs a good spanking? Again, your assessment of my tone is a little uncalled for because it's unsolicited and deriding.
I also have one question for you, which isn't a debating point. What makes you so much better? I'm just curious.
And to answer your question, why do I post on AE? Right now, at this moment, it's because your uptight commentary makes me feel like Margaret Dumont's whoopee cushion.
See, now that last sentence
See, now that last sentence was great! That's the sort of wit/sarcasm that's used to make a point, not just deride the other person. As the official board policeman, I order you to use that sort of thing more often!
No, I'm not better than you, and I'm not better than anyone else, and there's really nothing in my posts that says that. All I'm saying....I repeat, ALL I'm saying, is that your derisive, demeaning tone toward others is likely to put them off from wanting to interact with you. As it did with Darcolover.
To answer your first question, my beef with online debate vs. in person debate is that it takes SO much longer and so much more energy, with less payoff and less chance of worthwhile success.
So that's my last word on your attitude. I didn't mean to get into a big back and forth about a topic like that. As I said, I have no interest in getting you to change, and this has become much ado about very little. Though it's given me another object lesson about why online debate is counter-productive!
loud and clear, sir
Mr. Nukely....
Mr. Nukely, you're trying to seduce me.....
.
.
.
.
.
.
Aren't you????
(Nice leg...)
Thank you!
I always thought that this was suppose to be a public forum about gay media and gays in the media.
When we lose track of that, when it becomes an exercise in shaming another poster, we all lose. This exchange would have been better left to private messages. The fact that I didn't see that sooner, I apologize for.
here is what i think
Luke's Age and Brian's Desires
Well you have to be 21 in most US states to drink, Illinois is one of them.
Luke could be 19 or 20 which is not "really" a teenager.
The age thing with drinking is totally arbitrary.
Age of conscent (to conscent to sex) is 17 in most states I think (younger in some states)
Luke could leagally marry, vote or join the army so I wouldn't consider him to be too young to kiss.
The fact that it is Brian who kissed Luke I think is gross both because he is Luke's Employee, he's counting on the fact that Luke wants to keep his drinking a secret and probably won't be believed because everyone knows Luke can't stand Brian. It's most gross because he's just married Luke's grandmother Lucinda. WTF
Also, I HATE folks who are closeted and "act out" about it. If a person feels the need to be closeted, that's their choice. But, if you are chosing to be closeted about being "gay" or "bi" don't go around kissing folks of the same sex and expect them to keep your secret for you.
I have sympathy for Brian because I believe he might actually care for Lucinda (even want to sleep with her) but if he can't control he desire to kiss someone else (no matter who it is) he needs to hit the bricks!
"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." (Dorothy Parker)
I Believe.....
Luke is 19. Noah is supposed to be a year older.
I do believe Brian actually loves Lucinda and wants to be married to her. I don't feel as if he's pretending or faking when he's with her. This whole thing with Luke seem to come out of the blue. I don't think (or at least it wasn't played that way) that he harbored any secret passion for Luke. But I think that kiss might awaken something he would rather not deal with.
Lukes age
The Nuke fans and boosters, less than a year ago, where trying to paint Luke as a teen or boy child, in order to explain away the lack of nookie, and make excuses for ATWT. (That was before Parker got his.) What I find a bit ironic, is that now, when a mysterious and somewhat creepy older man makes a pass at Luke, the Nuke fans suddenly shift gears and want to paint Luke as an adult; it seems in order to explain the creepy nature of a much older, closet case trying to take advantage of him when Luke was drunk and vulnerable, again to make excuses for ATWT.
Brian brought Luke home, he got Luke to undress and then tried to kiss him. Brian then denied what happened afterward. It really doesn't matter if it was premeditated, or like any predator, Brian leaped at the opportunity.
For a change I disagree
For a change I disagree with you. And ironically, I agree with Anthony, with whom I was just disagreeing in another thread.
I don't think it's at all accurate to call Brian closeted. As I understand what's coming, this is his first realization of any gay feelings. And apparently the kiss just happened spontaneously, caused by Brian's sympathy for Luke and his sudden closeness in that situation. Sometimes things just happen, and they surprise the person who causes them as much as anyone else. And sometimes a person can be almost completely straight, and then find himself strangely attracted to someone.
And since it wasn't planned, I don't think it's accurate to think of Brian as taking advantage of Luke, or manipulating him, or anything like that. Something like that requires planning, which appears not to be present here.
Brian's Sexuality
I don't think that Brian planned any of what happened with Luke regarding the kiss. It just wouldn't make sense. Luke is his BOSS, he wouldn't want to risk that if he'd thought about it before hand. It just doesn't fit his character. But there are some things in his behavior previous to the kiss that make me think his attraction to Luke might be unexpected but his being attracted to men might not be.
He was just too sensitive to Luke's being gay and out. It didn't make sense in 2008. He had to have done some research about Luke so he must have known Luke was gay and that there was a likely chance that Luke might want to fund some gay stuff along the way. It also does't take a genius to realize that being gay is not necessarily a liability in this day and age if you want to raise money for good causes.
But more than his general behavior, the biggest moment for me was the sleeping arrangement during the mushroom hunting trip. Brian make the bizarre assumption that Luke and Noah would want to tent with him (without even asking) even though they are a couple. Unlike the audience, Brian has no idea that they aren't boffing like bunnies. Even Lucinda didn't assume that he'd bunk with the boys and she's Luke's grandmother. If anyone was going to be skittish about the boys sharing a tent, wouldn't it be the grandma?
Granted a lot of his behavior has been paternalistic at best and scared-of-all-things-gay at worst, but seriously, WHO would do something like that unless they had a reason for not thinking the boys were "doing it" just feet away from their tent.
Wouldn't you just bring three tents or tell the boys to bring their own tent. I get not wanting to assume he's tenting with Lucinda out of good manners but to just pop into the boys tent uninvited like they are either very small children or not boyfriends, was just beyond reason and just sent off all kinds of bells and whistles for me.
At that point, he barely knew Luke and Noah so his barging into their tent just seemed to have something to do with his not wanting them to be left alone together. Even the most blind of fools would have noticed the second time that he barged in that the boys were fooling around, particularly when they indicated that they might want to take a "nap" Brian seems to be a very intelligent and shrewd man so there is no way that I believe he didn't know he was interrupting them. Since then, I've just viewed every move he's made as that of a closeted man. So yeah, I'm a bit biased
I agree, he might not be closeted and maybe that's unfair but I don't think he's never thought about it before given all his reactions to Luke which seemed very personal to me. I get that the secret of his kissing Luke would destroy his marriage to Lucinda if it got out and normally I would think a kiss is just not that big of a deal (even in this situation) but the way he was taunting Luke just bugs be.
It's lovely that he wanted to take care of Luke but I just don't think your average dude who didn't have an inclination for kissing men would have gone much beyond the kiss on the forehead (which given their history was a bit bizarre as it was)
At the very least he could explain himself, apologize up the wazoo and act like he's sorry. I think the reason he doesn't isn't just about him deluding himself about the meaning of the kiss but it's also because he doesn't think anyone will believe Luke because he knows Luke's been drinking and he's using that fact against him. That's just sneaky unforgivable.
I know I'm old-fashioned in that I just think if you are a man and you kiss another man and you like it, you're probably bi (assuming you also like kissing women) and you should just own up about it. It's entirely possible Lucinda wouldn't care that he was bi and she'd never have to know about the kiss.
If he didn't know before, now he knows, he needs to tell his wife, say sorry to Luke and try to make amends or quit his job at least. I don't think he's horrible, I do believe he got caught up in the moment but I don't think he can now just go about as if it never happened.
"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." (Dorothy Parker)
The Tent Scene
You make some excellent points. The bottom line, though, is that right now we don't know what's really happening with Brian. We'll have to keep watching, I guess!
I agree that the tent scene brings up all sorts of questions, and again we don't know the answers. Think about this, though. I think there are all sorts of guys out there with bi tendencies who either don't see them, or who go out of their way to lie to themselves. From what I've seen, I think that Larry Craig genuinely doesn't think he's gay, even after the various gay things he's done. The power of the brain to rationalize things away is awesome. So it's very possible Brian was subconsciously drawn to Nuke's tent out of his bi urges, but that he totally didn't realize it. It's also possible that he was consciously uncomfortable about the two guys making out in a nearby tent (without really understanding why), and thought that by joining them he'd put a stop to it.
I'm really, really hoping that the s/l goes in the direction of dealing with guys who have bi sides to them but don't realize it until later in life. As I've said before, I think that's a situation we'll see more and more as the gay world becomes more prominent in American culture. It would be awesome if ATWT addressed that.
You are so Right On and I'm definitely softening on this
Sexuality is such a core thing for folks regardless of age or orientation.
I really hope the writes will use this as an opportunity to talk about a man's bi inclinations in a way that doesn't make it seem like some dirty compulsion (which is so often the case when bi men or women are depicted on screen)
There is this tendency to depict men in particular as being unable to resist acting on every singly urge or attraction or impluse they might have when really, if folks could be more open about their desires (once they've realized what they are) it wouldn't be so stressful and pent up and "squirting out their ears" as it were.
I really don't want to see Brian get trashed as a character and I think it would be a cop out to have him "just" turn out to be a closeted gay man (I'm with you on that) for a couple reasons:
1) It would imply that his attraction to Lucinda wasn't authentic and reinforce negative crap about both gay men's ability to be honest and the sexual desirability of older women.
2) It would oversimplify a story that I think is nicely complicated and it would waste an opportunity for Luke to have an older man in his life who might actually be able to help him do really good things with his foundation if they could reach common ground. Brian could be an interesting character to watch. I'm not grossed out by the kiss, just the circumstances under which it took place.
A lot will depend upon how Luke responds to things once he's sober again if the whole thing doesn't explode before then.
I totally think they could get beyond it in a way that doesn't destroy everything.
But then again, this is a Soap we're talking about and there seem to be rules about how smoothly any story can be told.
THE RIDE IS GOOD TIMES, I'll say that about it.
"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." (Dorothy Parker)
I think you are right...
...in your analysis of the tent scene. I think Brian full well, intended to interfer with them having private time together. I also agree that I do hope they are going with the bi angle since they have brought Lucinda into the story. What I would REALLY have liked to see is if there had been no love interest storyline for Lucinda with Brian, and yet Brian had come between Luke and Noah as a love interest for Luke. That would have been fun to watch, without the preditor angle, and it could have been very interesting seeing Brian and Luke together. Talk about May/December! Noah could have gotten increasingly jealous to the point of driving Luke into Brian's arms. It could have been a long drawn out interlude with Noah and Luke maturing during the process and eventually getting back together.
I say we take the warning labels off everything and let nature take it's course.
.