Gay and Streaming

[Swithin]

Swithin, you're missing my point. The gay Affinity groups for college alumni that you mention are not regressive.
Those kinds of groups provide a feeling of community for gay people.

But, as I stated in my previous post, singling out a sub-forum on a mass media discussion board to discuss so-called "LGBT Films" perpetuates the notion that the wants and desires of gay people are categorically different than those of “regular” people.
That is unequivocally regressive to me and to every other gay person I know personally. You and I will have to agree to disagree about it.

We agree to disagree.

I think you are also missing my point. I just find the gay sub-forum as a convenient catch-all for an increasing number of movies (plays, television shows, etc.) for ALL people to find easily. It's not just about the "wants and desires of gay people" but about convenience for everyone who wants quick access to various threads in a burgeoning thematic field.

Just like I go to the sub-forum here in the "Foreign Film" sub-forum. (My local library, btw, has stopped using the word "foreign" for its former "Foreign Languages Library" and now calls it "World Languages Library," deeming the world "foreign" to be pejorative.)

I understood your point about having that "LGBT Films" sub-forum for "convenience."
But do you think the existence of a "Black Films" sub-forum so that anyone could "conveniently" access threads discussing movies about Black characters would be embraced as a positive addition?
It is extremely unlikely (like not at all likely) that any Black person would ever request such a sub-forum to be added to an existing discussion board.
And if a discussion board's administrators decided on their own to add a "Black Films" sub-forum, members would be crying foul at such a regressive action.

The use of keywords on a streaming platform (like Netflix or Amazon Prime) to help subscribers find movies of interest is a completely different practice than having discussion board sub-forums that single out discussions of media content featuring people from a specific demographic group.

I'm not a fan about "what-about-ism." Kingrat began this thread, for want of a space to discuss "the mainstream portrayal of same-sex anal intercourse on streaming TV shows." A discussion began as to whether it might be a good idea to have a separate LGBT sub-forum. Since I happen to be gay, and have found that sort of forum to be useful on the TCM board, I seized on the topic and proposed the creation of the sub-forum, which we now have. I see it as a curated section of threads related to those LGBT subjects that one might want to post there.

I do find it convenient to go to the "Foreign Films" section here. When posters here write about foreign films, they don't always place it in that section. But the sub-forum is there, and a convenient place if someone wants to browse there. I don't see myself beginning every film that has a gay character in the LGBT section. That's a decision I would make each time I begin a thread. For most of the people here, when a thread percolates to the top, it's probably of no consequence where it resides. If it's interesting to a potential poster, they'll engage, no matter where it resides.

But it's great to be able to go to the LGBT sub-forum, and see what will become a curated list of threads. Having them there may be of no consequence to the majority of posters, but it is helpful and interesting to at least a few of us.

To answer your question specifically: If someone here (of any colour) felt that it might be useful to have a sub-forum related to Black films, that would be up to them to decide and propose. You seem happy to generalize about what Black people might or might not want, (as you have done about young gay people). I would not be so presumptuous.

[I Love Melvin]

I realize that message boards may create those kinds of sub-forum with good intentions. But administrators are misguided if they think these kinds of sub-forums promote inclusivity. Instead, they perpetuate the notion that the wants and desires of gay people are categorically different than those of “regular” people. A movie about a romance between two men is discussed as an “LBGT drama” rather than a “drama.” I imagine if someone had proposed the creation of a sub-form to single out “Ethnic Films” there would have been vigorous protest about how regressive it would be for such a sub-forum to exist.

While this may be “just a message board,” there is nothing out of proportion for a member to voice serious objections to changes made here, regardless of other disturbances going on in the world. My objection may have been emphatic, but it was hardly strident. As others here have alluded to (specifically txfilmfan and jamesjazzguitar), the dissenting opinions among gays here on the need for a “safe place” sub-forum may be a generational thing. Older generations tend to be more concerned about discussing media depictions of gay characters “out in the open” without some sort of warning (by being posted in a “special” sub-forum) lest we risk offending the “regular” folks. Younger generations see these sub-forums as regressive – like being in a closet a with a glass door. I’ve found the posters here at the SSO to be mature and respectable with very few nasty creeps and trolls like we had at the old TCM message boards. I feel comfortable discussing any media content here without the need for posting my comments in a “special” sub-forum. And I sincerely believe that those “special” forums inhibit inclusivity rather than foster it.

I'm sure you're right about a generational aspect to this, and I'm admittedly up there in years, but I think you're off-base assuming that older generations have some ingrained tendency for aversion to risking offending "regular" people. (You were right to put "regular" in quotes the two times you used it, since the word and its twin, "normal", have been buzz words and rallying cries against us since the time when such distinctions weren't even up for debate, well before you were born, I'm assuming.) Gay people didn't get themselves, and you, to this point in history by being shy about their statements and actions and some of us take that acronym very seriously, having seen it being built letter by letter. Good for you for being able to blow off so casually something which (paraphrasing) the younger generations see as regressive, but that goal of exercising such a choice was part of the plan all along. It's great that you're so firm in your convictions, but please have the courtesy to acknowledge where the firmness of the ground you stand on came from and don't characterize us as needing a "safe place" where we wouldn't have to be "out in the open", specifically a "special" sub- forum away from "regular" folks.(I've had eye rolls and shrugs before for making such admonishments, so do what you gotta do.) A "twilight home" for out-of-touch gays isn't what was being asked for. You also used the word "special" three times in one post and I'll do you the courtesy of believing you're too young to realize what a wallop that word has had in gay history, when it was the primary argument against awarding any kind of rights to gay Americans. Oh those gays, they just want to have special rights. Denied. (As in denied in court.)

Forgive me for going off, Holden. It's not personal, just as I believe your post wasn't intended to be personal. The sub-forum is now a thing, however each of us feels about it, and this is a relatively small community, so close encounters are inevitable. I'll see you around and thanks for the input here in this thread, "out in the open".

[Hibi]

Frankly, I don't understand Holden's strident objections to this issue which seem way out of proportion to what's been done. If it bothers him so much, just ignore the sub-forum. It seems we're back to the LIKE button all over again. It's just a message board. There are far more disturbing things going on in the world to get upset about.

Opposition to a “like” button is not the same as being offended by a sub-forum being created to separate discussions of movies about people from an historically marginalized demographic group. With the “like” button someone can simply chose not to use it, but now that the sub-forum is visible, there’s no way for someone who’s offended by it to not see that it exists here.

I realize that message boards may create those kinds of sub-forum with good intentions. But administrators are misguided if they think these kinds of sub-forums promote inclusivity. Instead, they perpetuate the notion that the wants and desires of gay people are categorically different than those of “regular” people. A movie about a romance between two men is discussed as an “LBGT drama” rather than a “drama.” I imagine if someone had proposed the creation of a sub-form to single out “Ethnic Films” there would have been vigorous protest about how regressive it would be for such a sub-forum to exist.

While this may be “just a message board,” there is nothing out of proportion for a member to voice serious objections to changes made here, regardless of other disturbances going on in the world. My objection may have been emphatic, but it was hardly strident. As others here have alluded to (specifically txfilmfan and jamesjazzguitar), the dissenting opinions among gays here on the need for a “safe place” sub-forum may be a generational thing. Older generations tend to be more concerned about discussing media depictions of gay characters “out in the open” without some sort of warning (by being posted in a “special” sub-forum) lest we risk offending the “regular” folks. Younger generations see these sub-forums as regressive – like being in a closet a with a glass door. I’ve found the posters here at the SSO to be mature and respectable with very few nasty creeps and trolls like we had at the old TCM message boards. I feel comfortable discussing any media content here without the need for posting my comments in a “special” sub-forum. And I sincerely believe that those “special” forums inhibit inclusivity rather than foster it.

No, you don't appear strident. That's quite clear!

[HoldenIsHere]

I realize that message boards may create those kinds of sub-forum with good intentions. But administrators are misguided if they think these kinds of sub-forums promote inclusivity. Instead, they perpetuate the notion that the wants and desires of gay people are categorically different than those of “regular” people. A movie about a romance between two men is discussed as an “LBGT drama” rather than a “drama.” I imagine if someone had proposed the creation of a sub-form to single out “Ethnic Films” there would have been vigorous protest about how regressive it would be for such a sub-forum to exist.

While this may be “just a message board,” there is nothing out of proportion for a member to voice serious objections to changes made here, regardless of other disturbances going on in the world. My objection may have been emphatic, but it was hardly strident. As others here have alluded to (specifically txfilmfan and jamesjazzguitar), the dissenting opinions among gays here on the need for a “safe place” sub-forum may be a generational thing. Older generations tend to be more concerned about discussing media depictions of gay characters “out in the open” without some sort of warning (by being posted in a “special” sub-forum) lest we risk offending the “regular” folks. Younger generations see these sub-forums as regressive – like being in a closet a with a glass door. I’ve found the posters here at the SSO to be mature and respectable with very few nasty creeps and trolls like we had at the old TCM message boards. I feel comfortable discussing any media content here without the need for posting my comments in a “special” sub-forum. And I sincerely believe that those “special” forums inhibit inclusivity rather than foster it.

I'm sure you're right about a generational aspect to this, and I'm admittedly up there in years, but I think you're off-base assuming that older generations have some ingrained tendency for aversion to risking offending "regular" people. (You were right to put "regular" in quotes the two times you used it, since the word and its twin, "normal", have been buzz words and rallying cries against us since the time when such distinctions weren't even up for debate, well before you were born, I'm assuming.) Gay people didn't get themselves, and you, to this point in history by being shy about their statements and actions and some of us take that acronym very seriously, having seen it being built letter by letter. Good for you for being able to blow off so casually something which (paraphrasing) the younger generations see as regressive, but that goal of exercising such a choice was part of the plan all along. It's great that you're so firm in your convictions, but please have the courtesy to acknowledge where the firmness of the ground you stand on came from and don't characterize us as needing a "safe place" where we wouldn't have to be "out in the open", specifically a "special" sub- forum away from "regular" folks.(I've had eye rolls and shrugs before for making such admonishments, so do what you gotta do.) A "twilight home" for out-of-touch gays isn't what was being asked for. You also used the word "special" three times in one post and I'll do you the courtesy of believing you're too young to realize what a wallop that word has had in gay history, when it was the primary argument against awarding any kind of rights to gay Americans. Oh those gays, they just want to have special rights. Denied. (As in denied in court.)

Forgive me for going off, Holden. It's not personal, just as I believe your post wasn't intended to be personal. The sub-forum is now a thing, however each of us feels about it, and this is a relatively small community, so close encounters are inevitable. I'll see you around and thanks for the input here in this thread, "out in the open".

I Love Melvin, thank you for thoughtful response. It was appreciated. I did not take your comments personally just as my post was not meant to be personal, just an expression of my convictions. I'm also aware that convictions can shift as we acquire knowledge and experience.

I completely acknowledge all the battles fought to get to the point where I could have the firm ground to state my opinions and convictions and to be able to live an honest life.
If there was an implication that I was anything other than completely grateful for the struggles that came before, I humbly apologize.

I'll just add that my comments about the perception that a "safe place" was needed were related to a post that you made early in this thread.

It's unfortunate that there's no designated LGBTQ+ sub-forum, but I think kingrat made the right decision to just start the discussion in the only way available to him. Yes, even though it's been posted "out of sight", each new posting appears at the top of the Board Index page. It seems like there's been a general show of respect and an agreement to pass over the thread by those who aren't interested or may take offence, so hopefully it's something which can thrive. In the old days on the TCM boards there was a "safe space", but it was added after a complete blow-up in what used to called "Hot Topics", an alternate discussion site to General Discussions, resulting in a lot of snark and more than a little invective. The Hot Topics forum was itself removed in the next board update, the reason given being that it was redundant, which it was, but it was also something which I interpreted as being related to the big dust-up. Forgive me if I'm misreading the room, and my impression is that this room is both respectable and respectful, but I'm just being mindful of what can and has happened when this type is discussion is initiated "out in the open". Once everyone has weighed in on their personal receptivity, hopefully the thread can settle into a pattern of simple back-and-forth discussion.

[I Love Melvin]

I Love Melvin, thank you for thoughtful response. It was appreciated. I did not take your comments personally just as my post was not meant to be personal, just an expression of my convictions. I'm also aware that convictions can shift as we acquire knowledge and experience.

I completely acknowledge all the battles fought to get to the point where I could have the firm ground to state my opinions and convictions and to be able to live an honest life.
If there was an implication that I was anything other than completely grateful for the struggles that came before, I humbly apologize.

I'll just add that my comments about the perception that a "safe place" was needed were related to a post that you made early in this thread.

It's unfortunate that there's no designated LGBTQ+ sub-forum, but I think kingrat made the right decision to just start the discussion in the only way available to him. Yes, even though it's been posted "out of sight", each new posting appears at the top of the Board Index page. It seems like there's been a general show of respect and an agreement to pass over the thread by those who aren't interested or may take offence, so hopefully it's something which can thrive. In the old days on the TCM boards there was a "safe space", but it was added after a complete blow-up in what used to called "Hot Topics", an alternate discussion site to General Discussions, resulting in a lot of snark and more than a little invective. The Hot Topics forum was itself removed in the next board update, the reason given being that it was redundant, which it was, but it was also something which I interpreted as being related to the big dust-up. Forgive me if I'm misreading the room, and my impression is that this room is both respectable and respectful, but I'm just being mindful of what can and has happened when this type is discussion is initiated "out in the open". Once everyone has weighed in on their personal receptivity, hopefully the thread can settle into a pattern of simple back-and-forth discussion.

Think of me in the future when you get your first eye roll from a younger gay man. It's a rite of passage. And I'm aware that playing the" gay ancestor" card like I just did doesn't indemnify me from being an a-hole, so thanks for going with it. The struggles were real but only a fool would enshrine them and not look forward. I believe you're looking forward and I wish you and your generation well. That struggle will be just as real, given current trends, and you'll be making the "rules" as you see fit.

The "safe place" I was referring to on the old TCM site was created, I think, not at my request or the request of anyone I remember, but out of a desire by mods to calm a situation which had gotten pretty rowdy, to put it mildly. I could rehash it as I remember it but I don't think that would be productive. But it turned into a fairly fun place and that accounts for a big part of the appeal of such a place for me personally. Admittedly, it turned into part gay gabfest, but the biggest part was movie-related discussion. I understand your belief in keeping interactions in the mainstream, but there's something valuable which can come out of interactions with strictly like-minded people as well.

[jamesjazzguitar]

Did anyone read the comments Billie Eilish recently made? There are also a few editorials. I found them relevant to the topic being discussed here.

[HoldenIsHere]

Moving back toward my original thoughts: we just watched episode 6 of FELLOW TRAVELERS, where once again the sexual acts showed the status of the relationship between Hawk, now married with children, and Tim, now a seminary student. Hawk realizes that Tim would not be willing to engage in anal sex, but the guys get in bed naked and both men satisfy themselves. This is shown waist up and accurately simulated. As you might expect, Tim feels guilty about this, too.

We also have a scene where Hawk's wife Lucy insists that her husband make love to her. She lowers her panties (this is shot from a sideways angle) and her husband gets on top of her. What we mainly see in the simulated sex is Hawk's bare buttocks. I couldn't help chuckling at the thought that this is how you film heterosexual sex for a mostly gay audience: no breasts, and concentrate on Matt Bomer's posterior.

This reminds me of Franco Zeffirelli's treatment of nudity in his adaptation of ROMEO ABD JULIET.
There's a quite brief shot of Olivia Hussey's bare breasts but a lingering shot of Leonard Whiting's bare tushie.

[Dargo]

This reminds me of Franco Zeffirelli's treatment of nudity in his adaptation of ROMEO ABD JULIET.
There's a quite brief shot of Olivia Hussey's bare breasts but a lingering shot of Leonard Whiting's bare tushie.

Wait a second here, Holden!

IF Romero "abd" Juliet, wouldn't or shouldn't there have been a "lingering shot" of his stomach instead?! Uh-huh, and especially if he was sportin' a six-pack???

(...okay...sorry...I'll quietly leave now...carry on here guys)

[Dargo]

BUT and before I DO, I gotta say I STILL haven't seen ONE THING said about "Lipstick Lesbians" in this thing SINCE I brought this up WEEKS ago!!!

(...okay, and NOW I'll quietly leave here)

LOL

[Masha]

BUT and before I DO, I gotta say I STILL haven't seen ONE THING said about "Lipstick Lesbians" in this thing SINCE I brought this up WEEKS ago!!!

Are you aware that: Lip Service (2010-2012) has been criticized as favoring lipstick lesbians over their butch sisters?

I am sufficiently naïve on the subject that I do not have the eye for distinguishing between them except for the stereotypical gross characterizations but I would agree that the series does tend to provide more focus on those wanting to be thought beautiful than those who seek a string of conquests. I am sure that there are a myriad of subtle differences but I do not know them as it is not a subject which impacts my life in any way.

"Currently you are able to watch the series streaming on Revry or for free with ads on The Roku Channel, Tubi TV, Pluto TV."

There. One thing has been said concerning it. Happy?

[Dargo]

BUT and before I DO, I gotta say I STILL haven't seen ONE THING said about "Lipstick Lesbians" in this thing SINCE I brought this up WEEKS ago!!!

Are you aware that: Lip Service (2010-2012) has been criticized as favoring lipstick lesbians over their butch sisters?

I am sufficiently naïve on the subject that I do not have the eye for distinguishing between them except for the stereotypical gross characterizations but I would agree that the series does tend to provide more focus on those wanting to be thought beautiful than those who seek a string of conquests. I am sure that there are a myriad of subtle differences but I do not know them as it is not a subject which impacts my life in any way.

"Currently you are able to watch the series streaming on Revry or for free with ads on The Roku Channel, Tubi TV, Pluto TV."

There. One thing has been said concerning it. Happy?

LOL

YEAH! Ya know, I think I AM happy NOW, and after this little heads-up of yours here, Masha!

And so we have another case here of "The squeaky wheel (ME) getting the grease", eh?!

See how it sometimes pays to gripe about stuff?! LOL

(...btw, I only vaguely remember this series being on...never watched it...but I do seem to recall hearing or reading about that controversy you mentioned over the whole Lipstick Lesbians vs Butch Lesbians thing back then)

[HoldenIsHere]

This reminds me of Franco Zeffirelli's treatment of nudity in his adaptation of ROMEO ABD JULIET.
There's a quite brief shot of Olivia Hussey's bare breasts but a lingering shot of Leonard Whiting's bare tushie.

Wait a second here, Holden!

IF Romero "abd" Juliet, wouldn't or shouldn't there have been a "lingering shot" of his stomach instead?! Uh-huh, and especially if he was sportin' a six-pmack???

(...okay...sorry...I'll quietly leave now...carry on here guys)

Dargo, your comment reminds me of something I posted in another thread.

Here's hoping crop tops for guys make a comeback.

[jamesjazzguitar]

This reminds me of Franco Zeffirelli's treatment of nudity in his adaptation of ROMEO ABD JULIET.
There's a quite brief shot of Olivia Hussey's bare breasts but a lingering shot of Leonard Whiting's bare tushie.

Wait a second here, Holden!

IF Romero "abd" Juliet, wouldn't or shouldn't there have been a "lingering shot" of his stomach instead?! Uh-huh, and especially if he was sportin' a six-pmack???

(...okay...sorry...I'll quietly leave now...carry on here guys)

Dargo, your comment reminds me of something I posted in another thread.

Here's hoping crop tops for guys make a comeback.

All types of outfits (looks), that work for all types are making a come back and that is a good thing. Less 'this is only for them' and more of 'this can be worn by all'!

21st century here we come!