Regardless of sexual orientation, I think sex has lost its sanctity. Bear with me as I may go into preacher boy mode here, but hold off on to your negative comments until the end. I believe that sex is a matter of love between people. However, it's lost that meaning in today's society. Even a decade ago, stuff like infidelity and premarital sex were considered taboo and for a good reason: they're immoral, in my opinion at least. The glorification of such actions, such as how they've been portrayed in the media as of late. In terms of sexual orientation, I think that it gets way too much attention. You're gay, congrats. Why does it have to be made such a big deal? On both sides of the coin—for or against it—it should not be made into such a big publicity stunt or selling point. It's really not that big of a deal that someone is gay. It shouldn't change how you perceive anyone. When my friend came out to me, it really didn't change our friendship. I think if we, you know, just let people do their own thing and stop making a big deal out of it, it'd stop becoming such a taboo and attention whoring topic. I know people that flaunt the fact they're gay just to get attention and it pisses me off.
LGBTQA - Discussion and support.
- Thread starter Leer
- Start date
- Status
Broad-ass topic but im gonna hack at it. Traditionally we've had a "We're just loike you but gay!" kinda representation of, white, masculine, christian middle class gay men. Who are very much monogamous, cisgender and average. Maybe with a bit of throwback campyness in the mix, because sassy stuff is funny. You can see this in celebrities like Ellen DeGeneres, Neil Patrick Harris, and shows like Modern Family and The New Normal.
Token gay characters, funny, witty, and effeminate, but vapid are common. Such as in School of Rock, or whatever. There's hundreds of em. When written by actual gay men, they actually retain some form of depth and character progression, such as in Ugly Betty or Glee.
Shadier topics and queer history, such as the aid's epidemic, homeless queer youth and mental illness tend to be brushed under the carpet, for the sake of integrating and merging with modern culture. "We're just like you! Please don't throw bricks at us!" Kind of like how with black people, there's this subtle undercurrent, a real insidious nuance to not "act" black. Maybe when your telling a joke, but otherwise never talk differently. Be as socially white as possible.
Really good representation can be seen in stuff like United States of Tara, Lip Service, Hit and Miss, Buffy, the whole Doctor Who/Torchwood universe and Orphan Black. If you want bisexual or Trans representation go home because that stuff is like gold. Generally speaking the BBC and english broadcasting are pretty on top of queer representation, and kind of shine out because of it. With LGBT characters even in daytime soaps.
Go away, if two people want to have orgasms together, and mutually trust each other in a respectful manner, it doesn't remotely concern you. If people want to sleep with a hundred people that's cool. If people want to have kinky weird stuff that's cool, and if you want to enjoy bodies and human natural urges, without emotions attached that's cool. And equally if people want to have one monogamous emotional relationship with one person in a vanilla manner, that's cool too.
You know whats not cool though? Judging and being a douche about the way other people live, and the things they do that make them happy. As long as no-one is being abused, its none of your freaking business.
Frankly, you can tell that we're still in the beginning stages of being represented. Although homosexual characters are being shown more and more, a lot of them are still being portrayed as one-dimensional characters. More often than not, gay character's story arcs only focus on dating and dealing with their sexuality. We basically have gay characters, but we don't have characters that happen to be gay. I desperately want us to take the step into making characters that aren't so focused on their sexuality, but Hollywood is just beginning to accept it, and they are going to milk the simple storylines for all they are worth.
Did I judge anyone in my post? No. Did I say it was just my opinion? Yes. No need to harp on me for expressing my views. I'm not judging or condemning anyone. Just because I express views that are different than yours does not mean that you need to call me a douche. If I said "all people that do this are corrupt people and deserve to go to hell", then sure, call me a douche. Better yet, call me a dick and call me out on that because that attitude is not acceptable from anyone. But no, I just said it was my opinion and I said it without tearing anyone down.
I feel as though you are judging him too harshly. I'm going to outright say that I don't agree with him about premarital sex, and he and I share very different views. However, he didn't state his opinion in a disrespectful way. He even said that it was just his opinion, and nothing more. I also think he does make a good point about us putting too much emphasis on sex. Although I consider his points differently in that I think that we simply need to mature as a country so that sex doesn't have the "dirty" connotations, so that we can talk about it and inform people properly.
But, he didn't do anything wrong. Having a different opinion does not equal being a douche.
Colour Bandit
Senior Member
Thank you for the examples, I'll be sure to look into them
Thank you, I can agree with the milking of simple storylines as all the examples we looked at in class were mainly focusing on the dating aspect... :/
Stevey Queen
The Queen of Mimosas
I agree that sex has become a very big thing and at the teenagers age, it somehow sneaks into every conversation and people are having it way too much and way too soon. I'm guilty too but I'm trying to save my next time for someone special.
The next point. Homosexuality has become such a big deal because the government banned gay marriage and are taking forever to legalize it. If it had never been banned, it wouldn't be such a popular topic and this thread probably wouldn't be here.
Umm I forgot what I was going to say about the last thing I highlighted other then thats annoying. Yah that was probably it.
"and for a good reason: they're immoral,"
If it's immoral, your calling the people who do it immoral, and thus you call them bad people. And its that kind of poopy mentality that is extremely damaging and socially irresponsible and causes stuff like the magdelene laundries and women being burned with acid. Its that kind of mentality that causes the US government to not teach sex ed, but abstinence. The reason why hundreds of teenage girls have babies that dont want and end up being kicked out and homeless. The lack of sex ed that caused an aid's crisis and killed thousands.
Stop.
Sure stick rings one each other and save yer boners for one person that fine and dandy, but dont create the facetious fallacy that your somehow purer or more depthful and mature than others. Because at the end of the day its just sticking moist organs together because it feels nice.
Thanks for taking my words out of context and trying to build a terrible argument against it. See, the thing you're not getting is that the person that does something bad isn't a bad person. I don't like the action, but that doesn't mean I don't like the person. I'm calling the actions immoral, not the people. Also, there's really no need to use language like that. There are kids on this site and while this is a mature discussion, we don't need to start taking it in too much of a mature direction.
I completely agree with Bacon Boy. And I believe even more in the idea of practicing what you preach, however that is a completely different conversation.
Also, I don't think your angle on this discussion, gorgonara, is incredibly appropriate for this forum's audience. In addition, I don't agree with some of your points, such as your comment on the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and 1990s. AIDS caught Americans, the government and the medical community unaware. The slowness defining the disease, identifying treatments and searching for a cure was due to the stigma that was attached to being gay at the time. This said, education on how to avoid transmitting or receiving AIDS was a first priority for many AIDS organizations, including the Gay Men's Health Crisis, but to say that was the cause and reason the intensity of the epidemic is quite a statement.
But anyway, it doesn't matter that much, I just finished a paper on the Gay Men's Health Crisis so I just have that abundance of knowledge on the AIDS illness. In a word, stop arguing, we were doing so well with not having arguments on this thread!
Also, I don't think your angle on this discussion, gorgonara, is incredibly appropriate for this forum's audience. In addition, I don't agree with some of your points, such as your comment on the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and 1990s. AIDS caught Americans, the government and the medical community unaware. The slowness defining the disease, identifying treatments and searching for a cure was due to the stigma that was attached to being gay at the time. This said, education on how to avoid transmitting or receiving AIDS was a first priority for many AIDS organizations, including the Gay Men's Health Crisis, but to say that was the cause and reason the intensity of the epidemic is quite a statement.
But anyway, it doesn't matter that much, I just finished a paper on the Gay Men's Health Crisis so I just have that abundance of knowledge on the AIDS illness. In a word, stop arguing, we were doing so well with not having arguments on this thread!
Not to bring up arguments again, but I have a question for you all.
Do you believe sexual sanctity ever truly existed or was it an invention of the 20th century? Humans are naturally animal and have animal instincts when it comes to sex and reproduction. I believe sexual promiscuity is more natural than sexual sanctity. Though, that's not to say I believe it's right to go out and screw with people's emotions but if two people are willing to be promiscuous with each other I don't think that harms anything.
As for sexuality in media, that's an entirely different story. As we came out of the 20th century sex became what sold and that's been rapidly evolving ever since to a point where it's so wrongly portrayed, especially in an LGBT standpoint, that it warps people's opinions on what sex actually is.
Do you believe sexual sanctity ever truly existed or was it an invention of the 20th century? Humans are naturally animal and have animal instincts when it comes to sex and reproduction. I believe sexual promiscuity is more natural than sexual sanctity. Though, that's not to say I believe it's right to go out and screw with people's emotions but if two people are willing to be promiscuous with each other I don't think that harms anything.
As for sexuality in media, that's an entirely different story. As we came out of the 20th century sex became what sold and that's been rapidly evolving ever since to a point where it's so wrongly portrayed, especially in an LGBT standpoint, that it warps people's opinions on what sex actually is.
I think humans are animals and our instincts are no different than any other mammal on this earth. I do not believe in sexual sanctity personally. As soon as I had the urge I went for it and glad I did.
It really depends on culture. Cultures that really didn't adapt to the Catholicism standpoint tended to be more open about sexuality. It was more of a need to procreate and ensure survival. I doubt you'll really ever find something that points anywhere different from Greece, Rome, Africa, or most of Asia. Interesting stuff.
There was probably some basic 'guideline' of what is and isn't morally wrong, but it all came from the same place, jealousy and how you lived. In that case, other cultures really wouldn't be that effected if they remained separate.
As for the moral judgement on my part, I don't think promiscuity is really right. Basically, I see it as an insult if you're doing it behind someone's back. However, it's not unheard of for people to just go with it and let it take them where it will. I think it's more of a self-guilt issue.
Edit: I just realized you said sanctity. Eh, same response, culture. Though it's been there for a while. I like to call it the "got mine" philosophy.
It really is interesting how cultures differ so widely, and a large part being because of religion even from the non-religious parties in those cultures.
I don't think being promiscuous as standard entails going behind other people's backs, that's an entirely different thing. I agree that it's more of a personal issue though and other people's morals shouldn't play a role in it. For me personally it goes against my morals but for others maybe not so much, and I think that's fine. The vast differences and diversity is what makes the human race so awesome.
- Status
Similar threads
