No gay men on daytime soap

[AllardChardon]

I read on yahoo news that the longtime fans of As The World Turns are protesting the gay relationship between Luke and Noah. Does this mean that the currently popular trend to display homosexuality on TV has crossed into uncharted territory, only to be turned back? Are they going to kill them off to quiet the masses, or will the writers just move them to another town and be rid of them that way? Or will the gay lovers win this battle and remain? To be continued....

 

[sr71plt]

Oh, I thought this was a claim that there are no gay actors acting in daytime soaps--and I was going to give that assertion a good horse laugh. Sort of like the claim that there are no gays in Iran.

 

[AllardChardon]

No, I am sorry for the ambiguous post.

The basis for the protest seems to be that the gay men are not represented realistically, which would include romantic kisses. Some viewers accept that they are gay, but do not want to "see" it.

Why is seeing two people of the same sex so repulsive to others? Is it religious bias or natural disinclination? Seeing people kiss in a sexual manner is stimulating when the people involved have true feeling for each other. Lust is lust and comes in all flavors.

So many movies have the "big kiss" scene for heteros. Will there ever be the day when there is a popular movie that shows two people of the same sex enjoying that same kind of kiss with the romatic music swelling in the background and a warm fuzzy feeling washes over the audience? I have seen things drastically change in this regard during my life. Will we ever get to that point, I wonder?

 

[impressive]

Considering the popularity of M/M erotic romance, I'm surprised that soap opera watchers (who, I believe, are some of the same demographic devouring said fiction) aren't thrilled to see more of it portrayed on TV.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't find it very strange at all. I think it will be some time before television accepts men kissing men without having a little tizzy over it. It will have to migrate from the higher range cable channels (some of that there now), but it might be the daytime soaps where it gets developed in mainline TV on a regular basis. I had to really laugh at the As the World Turns reference (and I haven't looked in on that program for some time), because I did a short turn on that program myself in the late 60s, and, well, I'm . . . bi, at least (but I'll admit I didn't know/practice it at the time. But a whole heck of a lot of the actors around me on the set were gay).

 

[3113]

I read on yahoo news that the longtime fans of As The World Turns are protesting the gay relationship between Luke and Noah. Does this mean that the currently popular trend to display homosexuality on TV has crossed into uncharted territory, only to be turned back? Are they going to kill them off to quiet the masses, or will the writers just move them to another town and be rid of them that way? Or will the gay lovers win this battle and remain? To be continued....

There are two protests. One is from the gay folks saying that the Soap is not letting the gay men kiss. The Soap argues that Soaps go slowly, and they will get more involved but at the usual snail's pace common to day-time television.

The other protest is, yes, those not wanting the gay characters to be on the soap at all. The "Family" groups that protest any such thing on broadcast television. Supposedly they're gearing up for a big protest, but it's unlikely that anything is going to happen to this on-going gay love story because it's bringing in a lot of young and new viewers--which Soaps are desperate for.

In short, they're popular. So it's unlikely that the anti-gay protests will win out. As for whether and when they'll kiss...

 

[AllardChardon]

That makes sense. It is Hollywood after all, the city of my birth in 1952. My grandmother watched As The World Turns when I was little and she has been gone for over 35 years. I looked it up and it debuted in 1956.

I would imagine it is the older viewers who would rather not "see" homosexuality and the younger ones who would. We have come a long way, baby...

I didn't even know there were homosexuals in existence until I was 14. My mother told me because I asked why these two men acted like they were married.

My mother worked as an accountant for Jensen Fisher in Redondo Beach, I think it was. Pete Jensen and Cliff? Fisher were wonderful men who loved each other and their employees. It was a good introduction to their world and I have wonderful memories.

 

[sr71plt]

There are two protests. One is from the gay folks saying that the Soap is not letting the gay men kiss. The Soap argues that Soaps go slowly, and they will get more involved but at the usual snail's pace common to day-time television.

The other protest is, yes, those not wanting the gay characters to be on the soap at all. The "Family" groups that protest any such thing on broadcast television. Supposedly they're gearing up for a big protest, but it's unlikely that anything is going to happen to this on-going gay love story because it's bringing in a lot of young and new viewers--which Soaps are desperate for.

In short, they're popular. So it's unlikely that the anti-gay protests will win out. As for whether and when they'll kiss...

This is sort of funny--the soaps have gone to witchcraft (Young and the Restless?) and a murder a month and that seems to be "family" enough? Right.

But we had murder "back then" too. I think my favorite Christmas letter told how that year I'd been knocked off by a drug lord and stuffed in the trunk of a car. The soaps were great fun; we didn't know from day today whether we were going to get laid or cancer the next day.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

No one is sure why homophobia ever happened. It didn't really take off until the XIV Century and very good historical research still hasn't established why it happened then. I'm guessing that we are on the leading edge of seeing it finally die out, at least in the technologically advanced world. Africa and the Middle East still have a loooooonngg way to go.

 

[MagicaPractica]

I do watch this soap from time to time. I don't know what will happen with these characters but they are popular enough to be getting a big storyline and so I doubt the soap will get rid of them.

 

[Trinique_Fire]

I read on yahoo news that the longtime fans of As The World Turns are protesting the gay relationship between Luke and Noah. Does this mean that the currently popular trend to display homosexuality on TV has crossed into uncharted territory, only to be turned back? Are they going to kill them off to quiet the masses, or will the writers just move them to another town and be rid of them that way? Or will the gay lovers win this battle and remain? To be continued....

Soap operas are right down there with late night HBO soft porn.

 

[AllardChardon]

I blame the Catholic Church and their frightful sermons of hell fire and damnation. If some heathen acted so foolishly to be condemned to hell for all time, you better not look at them doing it or you will surely go to hell with them. Or some such crap.

 

[3113]

No one is sure why homophobia ever happened. It didn't really take off until the XIV Century and very good historical research still hasn't established why it happened then. I'm guessing that we are on the leading edge of seeing it finally die out, at least in the technologically advanced world. Africa and the Middle East still have a loooooonngg way to go.

It actually starts in the Roman Empire. It's not that Romans condemn homosexuality, per se, but being the macho empire that they are, they insist that Roman males must always penetrate and not be "penetrated." Hence, they look down on the Greeks who go either way, and look down on any Roman male who isn't in a top position. A Roman man, therefore, can only have sex with a non-Roman man (likely a slave).

And non-Romans, to Romans, are all lesser beings.

Cross this mode of thinking with Judeo-Christianity, which forbids homosexuality, and it's no surprise that you eventually get a form of homophobia. It's not JUST that the Church forbids it and says you'll go to hell. I'm quite convinced that homophobia is male fear of rape, of being overpowered and made "the woman." It isn't just dealing with something unfamiliar and strange, but also the threat of losing one's masculinity.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

3113, get a hold of the book Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality by John Boswell. It is a model of scholarship and will demonstrate that your arguments, while commonly held by many, are just a bit over-simplified. For one thing, Biblical Christianity does not outlaw homosexuality. In fact, the New Testament's original Koine Greek has no comment to make on the sexual behavior of unmarried people in any way. Boswell's tragically early death was a horrible loss to the discipline.

 

[Katyusha]

Cross this mode of thinking with Judeo-Christianity, which forbids homosexuality, and it's no surprise that you eventually get a form of homophobia. It's not JUST that the Church forbids it and says you'll go to hell. I'm quite convinced that homophobia is male fear of rape, of being overpowered and made "the woman." It isn't just dealing with something unfamiliar and strange, but also the threat of losing one's masculinity.

I wonder if that explains why so many men are so afraid of being labeled "gay," for anything they do. Even my husband, who couldn't care less about one's leanings, once had a dream where he was blowing another guy and spent half the next day looking at straight porn and screwing me to make sure he was still straight. I've often wondered why straight men seem to be SO afraid of that. It's not like I've never dreamed about screwing a woman, but then again I'm a woman so it's not a big deal.

There were lesbians on All My Children awhile back...I think they had the first homosexual kiss in daytime history or something like that a few years ago. There were more kisses between those two, then one left and the other stayed and there was kissing between her and a different girl...I don't recall any uproars about that one way or the other.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I wonder if that explains why so many men are so afraid of being labeled "gay," for anything they do.

No, actually it doesn't. Whatever the source of homophobia is, now it's just a sort of self-fulfilling phobia. Up until the 14th Century, many prominent churchmen wrote love poetry to each other. At least two sets of the saints in the early church were same-sex couples. There is no theological basis for homophobia. It's just . . . there!

 

[3113]

For one thing, Biblical Christianity does not outlaw homosexuality.

Leviticus 20:13-- "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

I dunno. That sounds pretty homophobic to me. Now if you're inclined to start spouting the many arguments as to why this law should be ignored (as Christians ignore so many laws in Leviticus), or viewed as not homophobic, don't bother. I don't care what the bible says and it makes no matter to me whether it's been misinterpreted, misread or hypocritically brought up when other laws are ignored. I only quote this because it supports my original point about JUDEO-Christianity not favoring homosexual sex. Just because Christianity favored the New Testament doesn't mean that it completely ignored the Old.

And I've read some Boswell, and, from discussions I've had with many rabid Roman scholars, I have to disagree with his assessment of Roman tolerance for *any* kind of homosexuality. This is much more in line with what I know about the Roman view of homosexuality from just about every scholar I've talked to:

The Roman Empire has often been portrayed as possessing a moral tolerance of homosexuality, and there is some truth in this. But, the Roman conception of same-sex relationships was very different than that of the modern West. The most important factors in the Roman view seem to have been the status and role of the partners....Unlike the modern view, social class mattered a great deal in the acceptability of homosexual relations. The upper classes were much more likely to indulge in homosexual acts, and masters had the sexual use of their slaves. But homosexual relations between freeborn Romans were regarded as disgraceful....The role taken by the respective partners in homosexual acts between males mattered a great deal to the Romans. The measure of sexual manhood was to penetrate, while to be penetrated was regarded as effeminizing. The first was seen as an assertion of dominance, the latter as a degrading submission.

In short, I have done some research, and I don't think I'm as grossly oversimplifying or mistaking things as you seem to think.

 

[AllardChardon]

3113,

I find your remarks very enlightening. I had always wondered how homophobia began, especially after a movie like Alexander which shows, real or not, that Greek men were open about it and warriors were as likely as any men to indulge. It made sense to me. Sailors, too. Prisoners. Too many men, too much testosterone, and not enough pussy.

And I do blame a huge amount of homophobia on religion. But, the penetration issue makes a ton of sense to me and will be added to my understanding of sexual dynamics. Women fear being overpowered by stronger men against their will, but it would be much worse for a man.

It seems as soon as someone, including God through his interpreters, tell others NOT to do something, everyone runs out to try it out as soon as possible. "Better try that out before they pass a law against it", we said in the drug-crazed sixties. The ten commandments are still not adhered to even though there is some good advice in there.

I am amazed by "God's" creation, meaning US. We are a "one body fits all preferences" type of construction. No matter what floats your boat, you can find it and be satisfied by it. If God were really a homophobe himself, why would he make a body that can swing both ways with such ease?

If a bunch of women were thrown together on a desert isle, they would figure it out and the same with men. Unless they were missionaries. Then they might all abstain or be worse than the heathens... a preacher's daughter joke...

Allard

 

[3113]

I am amazed by "God's" creation, meaning US. We are a "one body fits all preferences" type of construction. No matter what floats your boat, you can find it and be satisfied by it. If God were really a homophobe himself, why would he make a body that can swing both ways with such ease?

Well, if you're a firm believer in that law and in what certain priests/ministers tell you about such things (including other biblical quotes used to support the homophobic contention that heterosexuality is the only type of sex god ever intended for us), then you can't believe that god made anyone a homosexual. You have to believe that homosexuality is a choice and that it can be resisted or "cured."

So all homosexuality is to a religious homophobe is a bad choice that you have the free will to reject--like with the ten commandments. You can choose to steal or not. Likewise, they're absolutely convinced you can choose to be a homosexual or not.

And no one who is a homophobe is going to agree with you that our bodies can "swing both ways with such ease." They'll say, "It doesn't fit." That vaginas and penises were made for each other and to try and fit together two men or two women doesn't make any "natural" sense.

But then logic and facts don't usually enter into religious arguments. Nearly half the U.S. doesn't believe in evolution. If we don't like what science or even reality tells us, we're very good at denying and ignoring it. The whole history of the human race shows that we prefer fantasy over reality--which can be good if we're trying to get to the moon, but really damaging if we're convinced that witchcraft is killing our cows.

 

[AllardChardon]

I had a boyfriend whose Dad was gay. He married this man's mother and they had two sons rather quickly in the late 50s, Kansas City. Soon the husband confessed his truth to the wife and she took him to see doctors. They gave him shock therapy to try to shock the homosexuality out of him. After the boys were grown, the father left the wife for his longtime male lover.

As if anyone could shock the genetic predisposition out of another. Could you change a heterosexual using shock therapy into a homosexual? I doubt it and I wonder why they did not think of that before they tried changing what cannot be changed.

But that is the point, isn't it? Is homosexuality genetic or environmental? I say genetic mostly and environmental sometimes. I have met enough different types of gays to see the difference.

During the disco era I hung out at a place called the Paradise Ballroom with a friend of mine from high school who was the asst. manager. It was in North's Hollywood's gayest district and was an after hours club, closing at 4 am. As a busty fag-hag, I had alot of fun dancing to Donna Summers with the "girls".

 

[3113]

But that is the point, isn't it? Is homosexuality genetic or environmental? I say genetic mostly and environmental sometimes. I have met enough different types of gays to see the difference.

Research seems to indicate that Kinsey got it right. That, essentially, sexuality and sexual orientation is on a sliding scale. At either end is a percentage of the population that is very hetero or very homo and have almost no desire at all to experiment with their own or the opposite sex. And it's pretty clear from the fact that such folk will often say that they knew from childhood which they were--even before the knew what homosexuality was or had hit puberty--that this is genetic. They were born that way.

Then there's everyone else who ranges up and down the scale. The genetic inclination of people could be anywhere on this scale--liking the opposite sex a little and their own a lot (hence, being primarily homosexual), or vice versa, or right at the middle as a 50-50 bisexual. This is where it gets easier for people to "obey" the dictates of culture over their own inclinations. There are a good many bi-sexuals I know who are obviously attracted as much to their own sex as the opposite sex. They won't, however, give their own sex a try. Unlike homosexuals who--like your friend in the 50's there--tend end up with lovers (or, on the more extreme end, go for celibacy or commit suicide), such bisexuals stick to hetero marriages happily enough; but they're obviously missing out on exploring a part of themselves.

 

[AllardChardon]

Yes, the sliding scale does work.

It is the people who miss out on exploring a part of themselves that get lost in the cracks, so to speak.

Being a sexual beast by nature, I am fascinated by what turns people on. Did you read about the 39 year old Japanese man that dressed up as a school girl and was discovered in class? Things like that amaze me. I always wonder what drives people to such extremes. I know the school girl outfit is hot and all and young girls do smell really nice most of the time, but didn't he think someone would notice the "new" girl?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Yes, the sliding scale does work.

100 poor cent! I, too, have known men (a couple of tenors in our church choir, to be exact) who fathered children and stayed in the marriage until the kids were grown before becoming a couple themselves. Sexuality can never be a binary on/off situation.

 

[sr71plt]

Yes, the sliding scale does work.
QUOTE]

100 poor cent! I, too, have known men (a couple of tenors in our church choir, to be exact) who fathered children and stayed in the marriage until the kids were grown before becoming a couple themselves. Sexuality can never be a binary on/off situation.

Hey, I'm a tenor.

But to me, sex is sex is sex.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Hey, I'm a tenor.

ROFL And so was my father. If I'd been trained, I'd have been a countertenor. Head tones are easy for me.