Question about Homosexuality & Television

[Rooster71]

This post best fits in this category, mainly because there is not a category especially for modern culture or society.

Yesterday I saw some commercial on TV (some cable channel on DirecTV) about an upcoming special presentation on gay-related shows. I wasn't actively watching the TV at the time, so I wasn't paying complete attention. But the jist of this commercial was to explore what they called the "gay explosion" in TV. They listed quite a few shows that are gay-related (Will & Grace, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, etc.). The purpose of this post is to explore the following questions:
<ul type="square"> 1) Why the hell is this stuff even on TV? I guess there must be a market for this crap because many of these shows are into their 2nd and 3rd+ seasons. But still, who watches these shows? I don't consider myself naive, but I have a very hard time believing that there are enough interested viewers to keep some of these shows in production.

2) Why do advertisers buy time on these shows? I don't know what companies do buy advertising on this type of show, but I can't see why alot of major companies would. Furthermore, I can't see how the remaining companies (the ones that actually do want to be associated with this "gay is OK" attitude) could purchase enough to keep these shows in production.

3) For those of you who have kids, do you let your kids watch these shows? If so, why?

4) Are these shows really indicative of modern TV viewership? Or is this some sort of passing fad? [/list]
I made this post because I am baffled by this subject. I can see how one or two shows would garner enough viewers to make them feasible, but I don't see how we wound up with so many of these "gay is OK" type shows. A few days ago I saw a preview for "Queer as Folk" and I was disgusted by it. If anyone can provide insight into any or all of the above three questions, I would greatly appreciate it.

[PhatTBoll]

I think it's indicative of gay culture's emerging acceptance by mainstream society. I'm not sure what else you're trying to figure out here.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

1) Why the hell is this stuff even on TV?

Because there's a market for it

2) Why do advertisers buy time on these shows?

Because there's a market for it, and those people buy products.

3) For those of you who have kids, do you let your kids watch these shows? If so, why?

Of course. Homosexuality is a reality. I want my kids (well, now grandkids) to learn the truth about life, not some fake June Cleaver misconception.

4) Are these shows really indicative of modern TV viewership? Or is this some sort of passing fad?

My guess is both.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Why the hell is this stuff even on TV? I guess there must be a market for this crap because many of these shows are into their 2nd and 3rd+ seasons. But still, who watches these shows? I don't consider myself naive, but I have a very hard time believing that there are enough interested viewers to keep some of these shows in production.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard to tell whether naive or homophobic is the word you should be looking for with which to describe yourself. Probably a bit of both.

People watch these shows because they aren't "crap," or at least they aren't less appealing than most TV. Will and Grace is a very successful sitcom, and its audience mostly consists of straight people.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Why do advertisers buy time on these shows? I don't know what companies do buy advertising on this type of show, but I can't see why alot of major companies would. Furthermore, I can't see how the remaining companies (the ones that actually do want to be associated with this "gay is OK" attitude) could purchase enough to keep these shows in production.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well they obviously do, so there must be some reason behind it. For a lot of companies, their target market does not mainly consist of people like yourself who are so obviously bigoted that they would consider boycotting a product because it seemed to be supporting the "gay is ok" attitude.

[ QUOTE ]
3) For those of you who have kids, do you let your kids watch these shows? If so, why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have kids, but I certainly would not be opposed to them watching these shows, for two main reasons: 1) Watching these shows, or listening to show tunes or whatever other stereotypical gay behavior, will have zero effect on their sexuality. 2) Watching these shows may, however, teach them the important lesson that gay people are to be respected and that homosexuality is normal and not shameful. With people like you out there, I think its quite important to teach kids about the ugliness of bigotry at an early age.

[ QUOTE ]

4) Are these shows really indicative of modern TV viewership? Or is this some sort of passing fad?


[/ QUOTE ]

These shows are indicative of trends in post-war American culture, in which slowly but surely bigotry and ignorance have been receding for about 40 years and marginalized groups like gays are becoming more accepted by the mainstream. You're on the wrong side of a losing battle, but I trust you'll do your best to lash out and make things as ugly as possible.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Why the hell is this stuff even on TV? I guess there must be a market for this crap because many of these shows are into their 2nd and 3rd+ seasons. But still, who watches these shows? I don't consider myself naive, but I have a very hard time believing that there are enough interested viewers to keep some of these shows in production.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard to tell whether naive or homophobic is the word you should be looking for with which to describe yourself. Probably a bit of both.

People watch these shows because they aren't "crap," or at least they aren't less appealing than most TV. Will and Grace is a very successful sitcom, and its audience mostly consists of straight people.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Why do advertisers buy time on these shows? I don't know what companies do buy advertising on this type of show, but I can't see why alot of major companies would. Furthermore, I can't see how the remaining companies (the ones that actually do want to be associated with this "gay is OK" attitude) could purchase enough to keep these shows in production.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well they obviously do, so there must be some reason behind it. For a lot of companies, their target market does not mainly consist of people like yourself who are so obviously bigoted that they would consider boycotting a product because it seemed to be supporting the "gay is ok" attitude.

[ QUOTE ]
3) For those of you who have kids, do you let your kids watch these shows? If so, why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have kids, but I certainly would not be opposed to them watching these shows, for two main reasons: 1) Watching these shows, or listening to show tunes or whatever other stereotypical gay behavior, will have zero effect on their sexuality. 2) Watching these shows may, however, teach them the important lesson that gay people are to be respected and that homosexuality is normal and not shameful. With people like you out there, I think its quite important to teach kids about the ugliness of bigotry at an early age.

[ QUOTE ]

4) Are these shows really indicative of modern TV viewership? Or is this some sort of passing fad?


[/ QUOTE ]

These shows are indicative of trends in post-war American culture, in which slowly but surely bigotry and ignorance have been receding for about 40 years and marginalized groups like gays are becoming more accepted by the mainstream. You're on the wrong side of a losing battle, but I trust you'll do your best to lash out and make things as ugly as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]
You guys can call me a bigot (homophobe or whatever) all you want if it makes you feel better. But that misses the point I am trying to learn. I find it interesting that some of you can't answer my post without resorting to name-calling, yet you seem to consider yourself a representative of fairness (what a joke!).

If you read my post again without your prejudice of viewing me as a homophobe (simply because I asked a question you didn't like), you will see that I am simply trying to find the answers to my questions. Kurn was able to answer the questions without alot of namecalling, I don't know why you can't. Maybe you aren't quite as fair and open-minded as you think you are.

If that is the market, then that is the reality. I accept that. I guess what I am trying to figure out is whether or not homosexuality is as much a part of American culture as current trends in TV depict.

But if it makes you feel tough, sensitive, fair-minded or whatever, then bring on the name-calling. I am an adult, I can take it.

[sam h]

Referencing your homophobia isn't so much name-calling as simply pointing out the objective truth. If somebody were to say "the KKK are racists," would we consider that person a name-caller?

Sorry to burst your little righteous bubble, but your post was not a simple inquiry into the popularity of media with gay content. It was seething with indignation and bigotry, what with all of the disbelief about shows with the "gay is ok" message and the references to these shows being "crap."

As Bill Parcells used to like to say, you are what you are. And you're a bigot.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's indicative of gay culture's emerging acceptance by mainstream society. I'm not sure what else you're trying to figure out here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the response. From my observation, it seems to me that the number of gay-related shows is disproportionate when compared to how people vote.

I think that the quality of all TV programming gets worse every year, so my questions are not based solely on the gay factor. There are plenty of non-gay shows that suck.

[slickpoppa]

"How come these faggots always have to rub it in your face? How can they be so shameless?"
"That's the whole thing dad, they don't feel that it's anything to be ashamed of."

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Referencing your homophobia isn't so much name-calling as simply pointing out the objective truth. If somebody were to say "the KKK are racists," would we consider that person a name-caller?

[/ QUOTE ]
I did not know that I was a member of an anti-gay organization. So much for "objective truth".

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to burst your little righteous bubble, but your post was not a simple inquiry into the popularity of media with gay content. It was seething with indignation and bigotry, what with all of the disbelief about shows with the "gay is ok" message and the references to these shows being "crap."

[/ QUOTE ]
My statement about the "gay is OK" message is the truth. My reference to these shows being "crap" was purely subjective, please forgive me for that.

[ QUOTE ]
As Bill Parcells used to like to say, you are what you are. And you're a bigot.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL. I'm glad to see that you're such a great judge of character given such a small amount of information. People like you love to point out what they think is fair and right, regardless of whether they themselves fit the description. If I question the usefulness of Affirmative Action then I would be a racist, right?

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
I did not know that I was a member of an anti-gay organization. So much for "objective truth".

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on. The comparison did not rest at all on whether or not you were part of an organization of homophobes.

Should I spell it out for you?

KKK --&gt; white supremacists = racists.

YOU --&gt; blatant distaste for "gay is ok" message and ignorant fear-mongering concerning effect of gay culture on kids = homophobe.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm glad to see that you're such a great judge of character given such a small amount of information. People like you love to point out what they think is fair and right, regardless of whether they themselves fit the description. If I question the usefulness of Affirmative Action then I would be a racist, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you might avail yourself of a dictionary and look up the words bigot and homophobe. Then you might see why I find it reasonable to label you as such.

If you're going to be a homophobe then just accept that's what you are. Didn't you say you were an adult?

[Cyrus]

Here's my answer, in brief:

Homosexuals are no longer considered a moral threat by mainstream TV (what a relief! so our heterosexual marriages are safe?) and they take their place among other, harmless-rendered minorities that can entertain and cause excitement to the audience. Almost all racial and sexual minorities (along with some social minorities) are making such inroads.

Let's face it, a series about a happily married, perfectly functional married couple no longer gets the ratings. Beaver is dead and buried. We want gangsters, criminals, dysfunctional people and families, social anomalies and all sorts of such stuff to excite us. Gays are taking their place among those supposedly dangerous but finally harmless entertainers as the Soprano family or the Sex and The City girls.

The advertising comes not from the (small minority anyway of) gays, of course, but from the huge majority of straight people that tune in to watch gays or criminals --if there's nothing going down with Jessica Parker.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

the huge majority of straight people that tune in to watch gays or criminals

Or you can watch The Wire and see a gay criminal (Omar) /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I did not know that I was a member of an anti-gay organization. So much for "objective truth".

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on. The comparison did not rest at all on whether or not you were part of an organization of homophobes.

Should I spell it out for you?

KKK --&gt; white supremacists = racists.

YOU --&gt; blatant distaste for "gay is ok" message and ignorant fear-mongering concerning effect of gay culture on kids = homophobe.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm glad to see that you're such a great judge of character given such a small amount of information. People like you love to point out what they think is fair and right, regardless of whether they themselves fit the description. If I question the usefulness of Affirmative Action then I would be a racist, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you might avail yourself of a dictionary and look up the words bigot and homophobe. Then you might see why I find it reasonable to label you as such.

If you're going to be a homophobe then just accept that's what you are. Didn't you say you were an adult?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm through with this discussion as far as you're concerned. Namecalling is NOT a valid means of discussion. You haven't said anything other than trying to label me as a homophobe and bigot. If you had any sense you could defend your position without resorting to namecalling.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's my answer, in brief:

Homosexuals are no longer considered a moral threat by mainstream TV (what a relief! so our heterosexual marriages are safe?) and they take their place among other, harmless-rendered minorities that can entertain and cause excitement to the audience. Almost all racial and sexual minorities (along with some social minorities) are making such inroads.

Let's face it, a series about a happily married, perfectly functional married couple no longer gets the ratings. Beaver is dead and buried. We want gangsters, criminals, dysfunctional people and families, social anomalies and all sorts of such stuff to excite us. Gays are taking their place among those supposedly dangerous but finally harmless entertainers as the Soprano family or the Sex and The City girls.

The advertising comes not from the (small minority anyway of) gays, of course, but from the huge majority of straight people that tune in to watch gays or criminals --if there's nothing going down with Jessica Parker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the response Cyrus. That is basically similar to what I was thinking.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
the huge majority of straight people that tune in to watch gays or criminals

Or you can watch The Wire and see a gay criminal (Omar) /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
What is "The Wire"?

[ACPlayer]

Both Will and Grace and Queer eye for the straight guy are better TV than Jerry Springer, As the world turns, and Ricky Lake.

IMO gay shows are more OK than the midget father and son who both want to marry the same filipino amazon.

They all exists because we watch them and advertisers know that we watch them.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Both Will and Grace and Queer eye for the straight guy are better TV than Jerry Springer, As the world turns, and Ricky Lake.

IMO gay shows are more OK than the midget father and son who both want to marry the same filipino amazon.

They all exists because we watch them and advertisers know that we watch them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good point about Jerry Springer-type shows. Do you think that most of the freaks that appear on Jerry Springer are for real? I don't know, but I have suspected many of them are set-ups. Not that it matters, just a point of curiousity.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

What is "The Wire"?

Great HBO series about cops &amp; gangs in Baltimore. The HBO site gives a lot of details.

[KJS]

I don't think there's a big correlation between what people watch and how they vote. Desperate Housewives gets 24m viewers a week, from all over the country. Certainly a lot of those people voted GOP. Doesn't mean they don't like T&amp;A, apparently.

KJS

[CORed]

I don't have a problem with shows that promote an acceptance of gay people as ordinary human beings. OTOH, I could never stand Will and Grace. To me, the show is not funny, the plots are lame, and the dialogue even lamer. I don't understand why it has won so many awards, or gotten such good ratings. I don't like the show, not because it has a gay character, but because I think it sucks as entertainment. Of course, in this regard, it doesn't differ from 95% of what's on television.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Both Will and Grace and Queer eye for the straight guy are better TV than Jerry Springer, As the world turns, and Ricky Lake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not much of reccomendation if you asked me. Though I will confess that I used to watch Ricky Lake occasionaly. It had a sort of horrid fascination, like a bad car wreck. Watching it made me sad for humankind, but thankful that I am neither as stupid nor as morally degenerate as her guests.

[mikech]

[ QUOTE ]
A few days ago I saw a preview for "Queer as Folk" and I was disgusted by it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This comment doesn't belie your homophobia? As a heads-up, you'll probably wanna avoid seeing "Alexander," cuz he was gay, or bi, or whatever (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1297979&amp;page=0&amp;view=colla psed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;vc=1)--you'd be disgusted by him too.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have a problem with shows that promote an acceptance of gay people as ordinary human beings. OTOH, I could never stand Will and Grace. To me, the show is not funny, the plots are lame, and the dialogue even lamer. I don't understand why it has won so many awards, or gotten such good ratings. I don't like the show, not because it has a gay character, but because I think it sucks as entertainment. Of course, in this regard, it doesn't differ from 95% of what's on television.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yea, the quality of TV programming seems to go downhill every single year. I have watched Will &amp; Grace and I thought it sucked. From what I saw, the Will &amp; Grace show didn't really revolve around sexuality, so I probably shouldn't have even mentioned it in my original post.

When I watch sitcoms on TV, I constantly find myself watching TV Land. I used to think it was cool for nostalgic reasons I guess. But now I think it is mainly due to the fact that modern TV just sucks.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A few days ago I saw a preview for "Queer as Folk" and I was disgusted by it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This comment doesn't belie your homophobia? As a heads-up, you'll probably wanna avoid seeing "Alexander," cuz he was gay, or bi, or whatever (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=1297979&amp;page=0&amp;view=colla psed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;vc=1)--you'd be disgusted by him too.

[/ QUOTE ]
If it was a straight show, I probably still wouldn't like it. Those types of shows seem to me to be sort of a gay soap opera. I'm sure people will watch it and if enough people continue to watch, it will stay in production. Which is fine. I think the current rush of gay shows has something to do with the waning popularity of reality-based programming. Who knows what the next big thing will be.

[ACPlayer]

I used to suspect a setup but after being involved in this forum I realize that there are plenty of freaks out there. So perhaps I was too quick in my judgement. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
From my observation, it seems to me that the number of gay-related shows is disproportionate when compared to how people vote.



[/ QUOTE ]

True enough. There are also a ton of poker shows compared to what the average person supposedly thinks about poker. And lots of shows about sex and violence.

A recent media study found that voters in the 'bible belt' are just as likely (read: pretty likely) to watch shows featuring sex, violence, etc.

At my decidedly homophobic job (among residents, anyway) I recently walked in and found several guys watching "Will and Grace" and apparently enjoying it. I just kind of shrugged.

NT

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
I used to suspect a setup but after being involved in this forum I realize that there are plenty of freaks out there. So perhaps I was too quick in my judgement. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Point well taken.

I'll never forget an episode of Jerry Springer I once saw. It started out as the typical "my spouse been cheatin' on me with my sister" story. But it wound up with the cameras following the spouse into the trailer (at the trailer park) to find the spouse in bed with the sister (or best friend, I can't remember). Well it got really funny when the husband (a large man of about 400 lbs wearing only American flag underwear) jumps out of a window (it was a tight fit) and runs down the street. Being morbidly obese, he couldn't outrun the cameramen so he tries to hide under another trailer. The problem was that he got stuck half way under the trailer, with his big fat ass sticking out from the side of the trailer. That was damned funny, but seemed too funny to be true.

[ACPlayer]

About 20 years ago there was a decent show called I think - Love, Sydney with Tony Randall which was killed probably by homophobic advertisers and network execs. Of course progress is inevitable it would do very well now - as they could openly advertise his gayness.

Love Sydney from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love%2C_Sidney)

[MMMMMM]

Tony Randall was gay?

The linked article referred to the lead (fictional) character in the show being gay, but your post seemed to be referring to Randall, so I'm just asking.

[ACPlayer]

as i recall tony randall was playing a gay man in the show. i dont know if he was gay in real life.