How do you feel GLBT people are being portrayed today on TV, the movies, & the media?

[Raimondin]

How do you feel GLBT people are being portrayed today on TV, the movies, & the media?

With all the exposure in the public eye today with shows like "Will & Grace," "Queer As Folk" "Queer Eye For the Straight Guy/Girl" and in various episodes of prime time drama shows, including "The Simpsons, King of The Hill and Showtime's "Queer Duck", do you feel all this exposure has been a plus or a hindrance to us? MTV is even launching a "gay channel" very soon. Then there's the movies and the media's versions.

I know this a rather broad question, but I'm thinking of the recent presidential Election outcome, and the issues regarding same-sex marriage, gay adoption, and Aids is stilll with us, versus the war in Iraq and the economy. What ever happened to gays in the military?

Personally, I'd like to see "Ellen" back, and some of the Roseanne gay episodes were great at the time. I think bisexual issues or themes have yet to come forward. About three years ago there was a very short lived show on CBS called "Some Of My Best Friends Are..." which had some very positive images of gay lifestyles, and probably other shows which I can't remember.

Amidst a politcal climate of "in yer face' conservatism in the country today, I feel all of the above didn't really help us.

How do you feel about all this and what other things would you like to see on TV, in the movies, and in the way the media portrays GLBT people?

 

[College_geek]

At first, the fact that there were more shows that had homosexual or bisexual main characters made me happy. However, it does seem lately (a gay network?) that it's almost exploiting homosexuals, making it trendy. It's good to create acceptance, but not based on stereotypes and such.

 

[Equinoxe]

I think mainstream media portrays the GLBT community in a very narrow one-sided light. A mix of stereotype and fantasy really.

"Lesbians" are generally, in popular media, not so much people as vehicles for girl-on-girl action of some variety. Or the use of a "lesbian" element has more to do with appealling to the 18-34 male demographic than with the story or character or anything (nothing but fantasies of straight men).

Gay men are in a sense the reverse as they are specificly not allowed to be sexual (by and large). They can redecorate your house (smashingly!), but they can't be a loving couple. So, once again we are limited to steretypes and fantasies (this time of straight women).

And nobody gets the Transgendered in mainstream society. Even the GLBT community largely looks down upon them.

There are notable exceptions, to be sure, but nevertheless I think the general state of popular media vis-a-vis the GLBT community is not particularly fair or healthy. It's rather like black culture in the early 70s.

It's exploitation. Like blaxploitation. Only with gays. Fagsploitation.

 

[Never]

Of course they're exploiting gays. It's television; 90% of it is exploitation. I don't see that straight sexuality is any less exploited. I wanted depictions of queers in the media and I got them. I see the desire for "realistic, non-exploitive" entertainment to be a separate issue.

Politically, the country is not more conservative than it has been in the past. A record number of voters turned out for the Bush/Kerry vote (my memory might be faulty but I believe the statistic was that Bush had more votes than any other candidate in history and Kerry had the second most votes of any other candidate) and the results showed a fairly large schism in the America citizenry.

I also think it's wrong to think that more liberal media will swing the country into more socially progressive thinking. The reason that there are more gay themed shows is because the networks have a stable base of liberals they know will watch. There are also more religious and conservative shows because networks see a stable audience.

 

[Equinoxe]

Of course they're exploiting gays. It's television; 90% of it is exploitation. I don't see that straight sexuality is any less exploited. I wanted depictions of queers in the media and I got them. I see the desire for "realistic, non-exploitive" entertainment to be a separate issue.

Politically, the country is not more conservative than it has been in the past. A record number of voters turned out for the Bush/Kerry vote (my memory might be faulty but I believe the statistic was that Bush had more votes than any other candidate in history and Kerry had the second most votes of any other candidate) and the results showed a fairly large schism in the America citizenry.

I also think it's wrong to think that more liberal media will swing the country into more socially progressive thinking. The reason that there are more gay themed shows is because the networks have a stable base of liberals they know will watch. There are also more religious and conservative shows because networks see a stable audience.

I agree on the second and third parts. However, I would also point out that while yes mainstream media does exploit heterosexuality it also deals with it (on rare occassion) respectfully. It does not do the same for anything else. Of course maybe it's just because of population differences (non-exploitative media about straight people being more noticeable as there are more straight people). For the most part though, I do agree. I think society exploits sex and sexuality in general.

 

[Raimondin]

I also think it's wrong to think that more liberal media will swing the country into more socially progressive thinking. The reason that there are more gay themed shows is because the networks have a stable base of liberals they know will watch. There are also more religious and conservative shows because networks see a stable audience.

Yeah, it all comes down to the good old "money formula", what sells, what's marketable, maybe even something like a "Gay Nielsens" rating thing. True, what people watch on the tele vs who and what they voted for became very clear this time around.

 

[Raimondin]

"Lesbians" are generally, in popular media, not so much people as vehicles for girl-on-girl action of some variety. Or the use of a "lesbian" element has more to do with appealling to the 18-34 male demographic than with the story or character or anything (nothing but fantasies of straight men).

Gay men are in a sense the reverse as they are specificly not allowed to be sexual (by and large). They can redecorate your house (smashingly!), but they can't be a loving couple. So, once again we are limited to steretypes and fantasies (this time of straight women).

It's exploitation. Like blaxploitation. Only with gays. Fagsploitation.

Sort of like the so-called "Lesbian-Chic" thing, which in my mind was just another exploitation fantasy for straight men. Yeah, that has always bothered me that gay men are not allowed to be sexual. They can be "gay" but not sexual. Fagsploitation or "queersploitation"!

 

[Equinoxe]

Sort of like the so-called "Lesbian-Chic" thing, which in my mind was just another exploitation fantasy for straight men. Yeah, that has always bothered me that gay men are not allowed to be sexual. They can be "gay" but not sexual. Fagsploitation or "queersploitation"!

Exactly.

Fagsploitation seemed the most appropriate in terms of the flow of it. Ignoring any other factors of course...

 

[Raimondin]

At first, the fact that there were more shows that had homosexual or bisexual main characters made me happy. However, it does seem lately (a gay network?) that it's almost exploiting homosexuals, making it trendy. It's good to create acceptance, but not based on stereotypes and such.

Absolutely. create an acceptance based on a little more on the "reality" of the life of a GLBT person, and not on a "marketable & exploitive" stereotype. Hopefully that's the next step. I still think Queer As Folk was very stereotypical and exploitive.

 

[Harrowborg]

Dunno if this has been said yet in this thread but this is kinda where I stand on the issue. I think media wise today is a lot more tolerant than it was 10, 20 years ago. You only have to look at the lord of the rings films (not a plug honest) to see two of the main male characters sharing a very close bond and that they could cast an actor who was a known homosexual as the main wizard. Ok that might be simple enough to understand but look back 10, 15 years at an Arnie film where you could never have that kind of, underlying theme and you realise how open films are becoming.

What is a little alarming to me, if its true, is that mtv 'gay channel' stated at the beginnig of this thread. It's kinda worrying they have to have a 'gay channel', when why not a 'straight channel' for straight watchers, a 'black channel' for black watchers etc. It just seems a very PC way of addressing someones orientation. I'm bi myself but I would prefer tv/film writers to have the intelligence to write interesting stories that dealt with people not simply be lazy and think, right, lets have a program about Bi people only or gay people or straight people.

Anyway, I hope some of that makes sense.

 

[Queersetti]

Dunno if this has been said yet in this thread but this is kinda where I stand on the issue. I think media wise today is a lot more tolerant than it was 10, 20 years ago. You only have to look at the lord of the rings films (not a plug honest) to see two of the main male characters sharing a very close bond and that they could cast an actor who was a known homosexual as the main wizard. Ok that might be simple enough to understand but look back 10, 15 years at an Arnie film where you could never have that kind of, underlying theme and you realise how open films are becoming.

What is a little alarming to me, if its true, is that mtv 'gay channel' stated at the beginnig of this thread. It's kinda worrying they have to have a 'gay channel', when why not a 'straight channel' for straight watchers, a 'black channel' for black watchers etc. It just seems a very PC way of addressing someones orientation. I'm bi myself but I would prefer tv/film writers to have the intelligence to write interesting stories that dealt with people not simply be lazy and think, right, lets have a program about Bi people only or gay people or straight people.

Anyway, I hope some of that makes sense.

Well, we already have some pretty narrowcasting TV channels, such as Spike, Lifetime, BET, Univision, etc., so I don't see a gay channel as being particularly segregationist.

Personally, I detest Will and Grace. Will isn't gay, he's a bi in denial, and Jack is the worst kind of stereotype, a gay version of Stepin Fetchit. I do not,on the other hand, see Queer Eye as particularly sterotyped, as each of the guys is a very distinct individual.

In general, I am not displeased with the gay images we are getting in the media. The first step towards acceptance has to be visibility. TV has begun to present gays and lecbians as a regular, if not always "normal" part of life. That's no small thing.

 

[sexy-girl]

i agree with never ... i mean the types of shows we're talking about are either soaps or shows like buffy or will and grace

the straight characters on these shows are pretty bizarre and don't usually have model relationships either so you can't expect the gay characters to be realistic

hopefully though with the extra mainstream exposure there will be some better more realistic gay characters on tv too ... i think because of the lack of those realistic characters though the gay community gets a bit hung up on the small scraps we have (i'm thinking of the fury over willows girlfriend getting killed on buffy)


as for this gay channel i'm not too bothered really ... gay culture/fashion is something straight people are interested in too ... it's not just a sexuality and some of it has nothing to do with homosexuals

 

[glamorilla]

i concur.

my biggest pet peeve is the obligatory "coming out" show. almost every sit com and night time drama has had this as a sub plot. the main characters best friend or relative comes out and everyone learns that gay people are just like everyone else...but then after that initial episode said character is never seen or heard from again. even in shows where gay characters are the main characters you very rarely see two homosexuals engaged in an actual relationship. will and grace has been on air for six,seven years now and neither will or jack has had a steady boyfriend.

it does appear things are changing again and moving a little more foward so for me i like things the way they are and hope to see more.

i dont like the idea of "queer eye for the straight girl" tho. i think they should have just called it "queer eye for the girl" just to encompass any women who aren't straight and in desperate need of decorating and fashion advice.

 

[Equinoxe]

Personally, I detest Will and Grace. Will isn't gay, he's a bi in denial, and Jack is the worst kind of stereotype, a gay version of Stepin Fetchit. I do not,on the other hand, see Queer Eye as particularly sterotyped, as each of the guys is a very distinct individual.

I agree with this absolutely. Furthermore, I'd add to it that it's not funny, which I usually find is a pretty good prerequisite for comedy shows.

Note: Before any one considers bringing up Aristotle's understanding of comedy and drama, I'll point out that I'm aware that comedy does not, or did not, imply humour. However, in the modern context, I used it correctly. So there.

Originally posted by glamorilla
my biggest pet peeve is the obligatory "coming out" show. almost every sit com and night time drama has had this as a sub plot. the main characters best friend or relative comes out and everyone learns that gay people are just like everyone else...

That is true, I hate that particular version of the "very special episode" that occurs every time there's a gay character. It's overdone and it always has that saccharin after-school-special quality to it.

 

[sexy-girl]

i just think the gay community are looking for some role model type representation on tv and if you look at the rest of tv you'll see that nobody is representated to the standard that gays are hoping for

i think tv has been good for the gay community in the last few years with the amount of representation we've had ... but i don't think it's going to get much better or more realistic ... because most tv is essentially entertainment based on stereotypes


i must admit though i'm probably as guilty as anyone for checking out a show just because i heard a gay character is on it

 

[Equinoxe]

i must admit though i'm probably as guilty as anyone for checking out a show just because i heard a gay character is on it

It's funny I'll sometimes do the opposite.

 

[glamorilla]

interesting~will and grace is far from my favorite show too. i think in the beginning before it became a big hit it had some satirical value. one of the writers obviously knows his material as some of the jokes ive seen are very accurate to nyc nightlife...or should i say were. i only watch the show sometimes in late night reruns so i dont know whats going on there.

ellen was an interesting show the way it evolved. initially it was called "these friends of mine" and by the time she came out of the closet most of the cast had be shuffled around. still i remember one episode where she attempts to mountain climb in an attempt to get to know her instructor better and i found those 30 minutes of television to be poignant as it reflected just how difficult it can be getting out there and trying to meet someone.

 

[Raimondin]

Here's a couple of links re the new MTV gay channel: "LOGO" with a short trailer.
Supposed to have premiered next month but rescheduled until June

http://www.logo-tv.com
http://www.queerday.com/archives/007497.html

 

[WyldSpirit]

I don't watch that much television anymore, and when I do, geez, I stay away from reality and most everything "trendy" In other words, I watch what I like when I like it and don't let "society" dictate what I should or shouldn't watch. (OMG, A free thinker, quick, I might be in violation of the patriot act or something ) I did/do enjoy Will and Grace occasionally, but, got very annoyed by the fact that Will was never allowed any kind of relationships (I've heard that may have changed the last few seasons, like I said, I really don't watch much TV anymore) Like other posters said, he was allowed to be gay, just not sexual.

The only show that I can think of off the top of my head that showed some lesbian issues (lightly) and really got pretty deeply into transgender issues was, surprizingly enough, FX's Nip/Tuck. I've heard that it isn't coming back for another season, which I'm quite upset about. While it was very adult and quite inappropriate at times (don't ever let children watch this one folks!) they really dealt with some serious issues that no one else ever dreamed of touching, such as the whole transgender thing. It was the one show that I made time to watch. It's just a good thing that it was on FX and was aired like 3 times a week so if I missed it's regular air time I could catch it later in the week. (Have I mentioned I'm not home and don't watch tv much, lol)

So far, I haven't really seen very much at all that shows a very realistic portrayal of GLBT in the media, but then, my question is this, does the media show a very realistic portrayal of ANY area of life or any group?

 

[Pyper]

Note: Before any one considers bringing up Aristotle's understanding of comedy and drama...

Yes, there was a HUGE risk of that happening!

All the discussion of gay characters in the media has got me thinking about the TV show Oz. In that drama, two central male characters develop a long-standing, sexual, and in the end, devoted relationship. Of course, one is a crazy psycho-killer, and the relationship goes through various stages of violence.

What does this portray about gay/bi characters? Hmm, I don't really know, but I do know it's quite different from anything else I've seen.

 

[Equinoxe]

Yes, there was a HUGE risk of that happening!

Apparently, I just think a little higher of the intelligence of people here a Lit...

No, you were right.

 

[Raimondin]

All the discussion of gay characters in the media has got me thinking about the TV show Oz. In that drama, two central male characters develop a long-standing, sexual, and in the end, devoted relationship. Of course, one is a crazy psycho-killer, and the relationship goes through various stages of violence.

What does this portray about gay/bi characters? Hmm, I don't really know, but I do know it's quite different from anything else I've seen.

Yeah, "Oz" I think it was a show that portrayed (as close and realistically as possible) the relationships that happen in a male prison, amonst violent crimminal inmates. It was as real and gritty as The Sopranos in it's presentation of what really is in that world. Of course, I can't complain, it was nice to see a show (or drama) with lots of male tattoed bodies in the background! I didn't miss an episode! Eye candy with really good writing and acting.
Definitely an original and ground breaker!

 

[Queersetti]

Yes, there was a HUGE risk of that happening!

All the discussion of gay characters in the media has got me thinking about the TV show Oz. In that drama, two central male characters develop a long-standing, sexual, and in the end, devoted relationship. Of course, one is a crazy psycho-killer, and the relationship goes through various stages of violence.

What does this portray about gay/bi characters? Hmm, I don't really know, but I do know it's quite different from anything else I've seen.

I think they did a good job of humanizing the characters through their relationship.

And, I can't help but notice that Chris Meloni was way hot as a bad guy on Oz, but isn't as a good guy on Law and Order.

 

[Netzach]

I was actually really bummed out when Ellen came out, though I enjoyed the actual coming out episode, I admit.

The reason I was bummed, is because prior to that, Ellen was the only show I could think of where the woman was a protagonist, and it wasn't always about dating, men, shopping, etc. It was more about the weird minutiae of life, like a proto-seinfeld only funnier. She wasn't gorgeous, she wasn't hyper vulnerable, she was just this person doing funny stuff. That, to me, was pretty radical.

Then it became about her finding a girlfriend and got boring.

The reason for the proliferation? Gay men are very well-heeled DINKS and watch TV. Lesbians are cute to straight people and show off liberals' tolerance meters to themselves. 10% is a big market share. So goes the general thinking anyway.

Me, I think the queer community is maybe becoming a little more sophisticated, realizes that this is a good way to sell subarus and long distance, and some of us remain unimpressed.

 

[kbate]

We are being used to present a politically correct image, and to generate ratings with the horny young male demographic.

The gays and lesbians are generally presented using the stereotypical images. Prancing men who can decorate and remodel, it makes me want to choke a producer. Lesbians and bisexual women are treated as a novelty, a voyeuristic autoerotic thrill for the 18-35 year old males. Bisexual men are not permitted on television other than as accidental encounters with mutual masturbation.

The only (mainstream) movie in which I liked our treatment was "Monster." Which did not deal with lesbians as a prop but as a normal exploration. I was genuinely turned on when the main characters kissed for the first time.

The Simpsons (smithers) features the only normally employed gay man on television.

Have I offended everyone yet?