The erasure of "gay" content

[glantern954]

Anyone else think it's unusual that they are complaining about the "gay" content being erased from the bisexual character in The Matador? I know what they are trying to say, but it felt like they forgot he was a bisexual character partially through the article. Isn't there a better movie example they could use for their point?

Title: How The Matador's Bisexual Hit Man Missed the Gay Target
Author:James Hillis
Date: August 8, 2006
Source: Afterellen.com
Link: http://www.afterelton.com/movies/2006/8/matador.html

A selected quote:
Shepard may be right, and he is clearly sympathetic to concerns
about gay visibility, but explanations such as "it's better if you
imagine things" echo the explanations for why many films with gay
content do not include any explicit gay sexuality.

[Azrael]

That is kind of strange. While I do understand the reasoning of keeping things "in good taste" the question remains whose. Perhaps Brosnan was afraid of being a cult figure.

[ScifiBiJen]

From the article: When asked about the still taboo status of homosexual content in Hollywood films, Shepard sees it as a broader issue. " Anything honest about sex is taboo in Hollywood," he says.

I don't think that's true at all. It seems like you can't make an action movie recently without including a topless, or nearly so, hot girl or some thinly veiled hetero sex. Honest sex or not, hetero sex gets a lot of screen time. Meanwhile, if a movie tries to touch on bi or homosexual sex scenes or relationships in just about any context, up go the MPAA ratings til it can't reach an audience where that kind of exposure would make any difference. Yes there are exceptions either way but it's still a pretty strong double standard.

[Driver 8]

Anyone else think it's unusual that they are complaining about the "gay" content being erased from the bisexual character in The Matador? I know what they are trying to say, but it felt like they forgot he was a bisexual character partially through the article. Isn't there a better movie example they could use for their point?
I think maybe films like this, and Alexander, get picked because the bisexuality of the characters means you can contrast the very explicit straight sex with the MM sex that is, uh, "better left to your imagination".

I was recently reading an interview with the creator of Dead Like Me and Wonderfalls. In Dead Like Me, a character who was set up to be gay became straight after a change in the creative team; and in Wonderfalls - maybe I should just quote -

"But for the most part the studio let us do the show we wanted to except for the lesbian stuff [...] They told us, “Take that shit out!” It was odd because they are fine with chicks kissing on reality shows or Fastlane but when it came to having a respectable lesbian mature relationship that wasn’t being played for jokes or exploitation they had a problem with it. We would get all these letters from the studio that said, under no circumstances could these women’s lips touch."

So women can kiss, so long as it's clear the main point is turning guys on, I guess. Here's the whole interview. (http://suicidegirls.com/interviews/Bryan+Fuller/)

Jen says:

It seems like you can't make an action movie recently without including a topless, or nearly so, hot girl or some thinly veiled hetero sex.
I wouldn't count the obligatory nudity you get in most films as honest sex myself.

[jedinudist]

From the article: When asked about the still taboo status of homosexual content in Hollywood films, Shepard sees it as a broader issue. " Anything honest about sex is taboo in Hollywood," he says.

I don't think that's true at all. It seems like you can't make an action movie recently without including a topless, or nearly so, hot girl or some thinly veiled hetero sex. Honest sex or not, hetero sex gets a lot of screen time. Meanwhile, if a movie tries to touch on bi or homosexual sex scenes or relationships in just about any context, up go the MPAA ratings til it can't reach an audience where that kind of exposure would make any difference. Yes there are exceptions either way but it's still a pretty strong double standard.

I agree. It's a HUGE double standard. Look at how long full female nudity has been perfectly acceptable, but male nudity = TABOO. Even male nudity from behind has been avoided more often than not. It's like the penis is considered evil or something :( (It's NOT)

And like others have said, it seems FF sex or sex play is perfectly fine as long as it is intended to excite a guy. But a mature same sex relationship that is not there to provide comic relief or make a MF relationship look good by comparison is rare indeed. And that's without any sex scenes.

But then again, look at our country. Look at some of the groups out there who say marriage is a sacred holy thing that MUST be only between a man and a women. They rally around this B.S. idea and try to pass an ammendment to our constitution (funny, they ignore the constitution whenever they disagree with it, but they really want to make sure this ammendment gets made to it). Oddly enough, they don't seem to feel it's all that holy when it comes time to cheat on their spouses, or when they just don't want to make it work anymore and call the divorce lawyer.

Look at the ones literally trying in small steps to remove SCIENCE from our classrooms and replace evolution with creationism. First they want them taught side by side, then they want the evolution "lies" as they call them removed all together.

I could go on and on, but I know most of you hear what I'm ranting about :)

Is it any surprise that these same people have such an influence over the MPAA and movie industry?

A movie's "bankability" can be made or broken based on it's rating. Although many directors are willing, far too few studios are willing to risk any potential profit, so they give the old heave-ho to any thing they see as a threat to the bottom line. And since the MPAA will up the rating simply because two guys are kissing or two girls have a mature relationship in a non comic relief way, the studios prohibit it to protect their multi-million $ investment.

I think the saddest and scariest thing is that according to MPAA ratings, it's perfectly cool to show our children extremely violent and gory content, as long as there is no sex. How the hell did sex in any form become more upsetting, dangerous, and unnacceptable than showing explicit violence??

[Avocado]

Reading that was very moving. Gays get a lot of bad press for being bi-phobic and excluding us from the queer movement, but articles like that make you think again (not to mention the fact that gays don't do people in for being bi or straight, or try to stop bis/straights from marrying, seeing their biological children, not being in prison, etc). I've not once been shunned from a chatroom or messageboard with the name being specifically gay because I'm bi either.

[glantern954]

I think maybe films like this, and Alexander, get picked because the bisexuality of the characters means you can contrast the very explicit straight sex with the MM sex that is, uh, "better left to your imagination".

Excellent observation.

[glantern954]

I agree. It's a HUGE double standard. Look at how long full female nudity has been perfectly acceptable, but male nudity = TABOO. Even male nudity from behind has been avoided more often than not. It's like the penis is considered evil or something (It's NOT)

The BBC America channel is very different. I think I seemore man bits on that channel than women bits.

[Driver 8]

Sometimes you can also see that erasure effect when there's one gay or lesbian character (it rarely seems to be a bi character) and several straight characters. When one of the characters on Buffy the Vampire Slayer became a lesbian, there was a lot of comment on how little physical affection of any kind was shown between her and her girlfriend; meanwhile, Buffy and her boyfriend were having so much sex it caused supernatural problems, another character was shown making explicit hand gestures to her boyfriend, et cetera. And when the two lesbians finally kissed, it was (1) offscreen, as part of (2) a dream sequence for a straight male character, who is (3) shown gawking at them. Oh, and they were (4) dressed up and made up like sluts, unlike their usual costuming. I'm sure that the network had cold feet about showing women together, but the way they finally kissed was just annoying all around.

You know, I'm trying to think of mainstream movies that do show same-sex sex, and I'm coming up somewhat blank. The two that are coming to mind are Mulholland Drive and Bound. (The Wachowski Brothers even hired a lesbian sex columnist to make sure the lesbian scenes in Bound looked like real FF sex.) In both films, though, at least one of the women isn't lesbian-identified at least before that point ... I wonder if this is another example of how it's somehow more okay if you can say they're experimenting?

[Long Duck Dong]

* snorts *

F**K me 10 ways from sunday.....what is it with people..... a bisexual male needs to be shown kissing another guy in order to be bisexual ??... thats used as GAY exposure in tv and movies.. cos many people would automatically see the person as GAY, not bi... and if you showed a male kissing a male, then having sex with a female, then people would see him as heterosexual with a single M/M kiss as a sign of endearment or something

hell i watch movies with the italians kissing on the cheek, or somebody kissing the popes ring..... the ONE ON HIS HAND :tong: :tong: :tong:
it doesn't make them anymore bi or gay than the next man its represented as a term of endearment etc

if we want to stir up the shit we need to see a male being mounted by another man with a female helping out then riding the bottom males penis...... and yeah i know.... thats in the porn section of the local video store

the trouble is the world doesn't see bi's as abnormal / queens in drag / feminine fashion freaks etc etc and so its harder to protray mr / miss bisexual in a movie or tv without directly addressing what makes a bisexual, a bisexual

the world follows double standards in everything... two females in public, kissing is hot... a ladies breasts can be hot... a lady breastfeeding is NOT, to a lot of people..... but if we look at the male penis... the greatest issue about showing the male penis comes down to two things.......jealous feelings.....most males would not handle the idea of a male shown on scene that is larger than the average male or their own penis....and the other thing is my favourite...showing off a penis that is not big enuf...lol... what guy would happily stand on stage showing off a 3 inch penis ?????
and before you quote that bit, I know a lot of us bi males wouldn't care about seeing a penis on screen, we would most likely admire it and enjoy the movie or tv program more.... or heaven forbid, the 3rd truth.... that some males may admire and like it and realise that they are closet bis/ gays

personally I don't care about penises on tv or in movies.....cos that penis is on a screen and a damm sight harder to play with than mine

[Azrael]

I agree. It's a HUGE double standard. Look at how long full female nudity has been perfectly acceptable, but male nudity = TABOO. Even male nudity from behind has been avoided more often than not. It's like the penis is considered evil or something :( (It's NOT)
Yes, that does seem to be the case.


And like others have said, it seems FF sex or sex play is perfectly fine as long as it is intended to excite a guy. But a mature same sex relationship that is not there to provide comic relief or make a MF relationship look good by comparison is rare indeed. And that's without any sex scenes.

But then again, look at our country. Look at some of the groups out there who say marriage is a sacred holy thing that MUST be only between a man and a women. They rally around this B.S. idea and try to pass an ammendment to our constitution (funny, they ignore the constitution whenever they disagree with it, but they really want to make sure this ammendment gets made to it). Oddly enough, they don't seem to feel it's all that holy when it comes time to cheat on their spouses, or when they just don't want to make it work anymore and call the divorce lawyer.
That's what seems to be the reality we're neck deep in. Nothing to validate "the lifestyle of the sodomites" or whatever their latest buzz-word is. As for the constitution, I don't see what power it has to regulate human relationships given that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" clause.


Look at the ones literally trying in small steps to remove SCIENCE from our classrooms and replace evolution with creationism. First they want them taught side by side, then they want the evolution "lies" as they call them removed all together.

I could go on and on, but I know most of you hear what I'm ranting about :)

Is it any surprise that these same people have such an influence over the MPAA and movie industry?
Not really. This guy Donald Wildman made a stink and got Pepsi to pull out of a commercial with Madonna. Here's one of his latest campaigns to rid the world of perversion. Pretty standard fare from the James Dobsons of the world: http://forums.families.com/national-education-association-wants-to-endorse-homosexual-marriage,t3696


A movie's "bankability" can be made or broken based on it's rating. Although many directors are willing, far too few studios are willing to risk any potential profit, so they give the old heave-ho to any thing they see as a threat to the bottom line. And since the MPAA will up the rating simply because two guys are kissing or two girls have a mature relationship in a non comic relief way, the studios prohibit it to protect their multi-million $ investment.

I think the saddest and scariest thing is that according to MPAA ratings, it's perfectly cool to show our children extremely violent and gory content, as long as there is no sex. How the hell did sex in any form become more upsetting, dangerous, and unnacceptable than showing explicit violence??
Business as usual. I often wonder myself about all the depictions of violence. I'm a death-metalhead, and a rather morbid one at that, but I don't watch horror films where sex scenes are interrupted by impalements or whatever and think to myself, yeah, this is much better. Perhaps if less people spent their lives glued to the tube we could, ah screw it, I'm ranting. Point is I do think there is some merit to the desentization argument. Also to all this media having a significant hand in all this guilt which people tear themselves apart over. I don't hate my body, but there are many who would like you and I to.