"This could be your last chance." "It's why I came back."

[greenie_breizh]

Gay extravaganza!
Part 2!

Careful! This post is going to contain spoilers for the one but last episode of Torchwood.

I can't remember precise instances, but I remember some of my straight friends complaining gayness was showing up everywhere. And that everybody always got so excited about it. The realm of LJ and fandom in general takes that and blows it out of proportion - slash pairings seem to beat other pairings in the interest they raise by miles, and I mean by miles. But most of the fans getting intense about these gay couples potrayed (or not) on TV aren't gay themselves. So this isn't some big surge of love for TV finally potraying "our" relationships on screen (I'm not denying a lot of straight people permanently have two thumbs up for gay couples and it's very couple, I'm just saying it's not blind "they're like us so they're cool" love).

So the question is, is it really cooler to be a same-sex couple on TV?

Truth is, I really started wondering about this after Torchwood's Captain Jack Harkness. This episode is good on so many levels, and the relationship between Jack and Jack is just so powerful. Part of what made it so powerful, I think, was its uncertainty. Very early on in the episode, it became clear Jack and Jack were strongly drawn to each other - not to say plainly attracted to each other. Yet because of the time period, the circumstances, and the fact that Jack was wrapped up in his own angst, it was very unclear whether anything would actually happen between the two. In the end, they did nothing but hold hands and kiss, yet both were charged with so much meaning, and that kiss is one of the most intense and desperate kiss I've seen portrayed on screen.

And I couldn't help but think, it just wouldn't have been as powerful with a woman.

It's probably untrue - in certain circumstances, with a certain storyline, the same tension could probably be recreated. Same-sex couples aren't the only kind of couples that have been looked down on throughout the centuries. (Though I can't help wondering if the visceral disgust of male gay couples that usually has to do with the thought of anal sex has its equivalent in other condemned relationships.) But in this day and age, in our Western society, I feel like these stories of gay couples still carry an additional weight, maybe because the bias is still so present - so that the story on screen doesn't just resonate with a sense of history but with our very reality. We know, we understand why gay couples can't be, shouldn't be, better than we can understand the situation with, for example, a birracial couple, because homophobia has not become the overall unacceptable behavior that racism has (even though we have failed to prevail over racism).

It almost results that the story between a man and a man (or, obviously, between a woman and a woman, but the bias is more violently strong against a man and a man) - it follows that a gay relationship gains in its strength in its unacceptability - with every stolen shared look, with every thing that remains unsaid, with every gesture that they can't show, with every word of Jack/James that encourages Jack to go to his woman (what is expected of him), Jack and Jack's potential relationship gains in intensity.

When same-sex relationships will have become entirely acceptable, will this disappear? Will we stop understand what it meant to try and establish eye contact with another man, in a society that put you to jail for it, will a story between a man and a man be no different than a story between a man and a woman? Will the stories of gay couples lose this "extra edge"? (I've actually gone away from my first paragraph because even if all of this turned out to be true, I still think slash would be prevalent on the internet, in a way just like "lesbians" will continue to clog up straight porn no matter how lesbians are regarded by society).

As someone who's pretty active in the LGBT community and who does her best to try and fight homophobia, it's interesting to think that in a way, being part of a group that's discriminated against is not just a disadvantage and a burden - it's also a strength. I actually believe it's a strength (or, more exactly, that you can make it one) in a lot of ways, but I'd never really thought of it in terms of story-telling. Becoming "common" will mean losing this power of fiction - and isn't that unfortunate? Living in this decade, being very aware of LGBT issues, it really feels like we're making progress - like it could be possible that by the end of my lifetime, society will be completely accepting. And I ache for the day where gay people won't have to suffer through the loneliness and rejection that often weighs on them because of the thoughtless heterocentric society we live in. I live to see the day where it'll seem strange and silly to think that, when you realize you're gay (or bisexual, obviously), you're often scared to death to tell your parents.

And yet when that day comes, our myriad of stories will lose their strength.

Funny that it seems there's always a price to pay for acceptance.



Up next, and probably tomorrow (since it's two in the morning)...
Gender roles and (male) gay couples : is it really easier to be reduced to doing the dishes because you live with another man?

Comments

[roniabirk.livejournal.com]

A quick answer for me would be all the 'straight' stories have been told. We're [the viewing audience] tired of the same old, same old, so when something new comes along, we get very excited. Most often, that new is a different kind of relationship. That is my first instinct.

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

You're very right - in a way all the straight stories have been told. What's interesting to me is that what really makes a difference between a straight and a gay love story is the cultural bias against the gay story - so when that disappears, will the gay stories just lose their interest? Or will they just become "same old, same old" too, sometime soon? Tune in on MSNBC tonight at 10 to find out. ;)

[queenspanky.livejournal.com]

I think it has something to do with the thrill of the illicit, that you are watching something considered 'taboo'. Straight viewers become rule breakers themselves when they watch slash - but they can do so safely, without fear of recrimination. In fanfic, I think a lot of straight females write slash because it's double the genitalia and therefore double the fun. I find that very few straight (like, purely straight) women write femslash. When I asked one of my friends why, she wrinkled her nose and said it was icky. But gay anal sex wasn't. I think there are double standards inherent within the slash phenomenon.

I've been thinking about this a lot recently, as we have had another gay male join our small PR company, and the rest of company (who are all female) have been non-plussed by it - it's totally accepted and they think nothing of it. However, if I ever came out as bisexual to all of them, they would look at me really weirdly and it would change the dynamic. So I feel women are a lot more accepting of male slash and relationships than femslash and relationships, and as mainstream TV is made for a predominantly female audience, it reflects that. Of course, this doesn't explain the myriad lesbian relationships in things like Buffy. Hmmm. Maybe it's a British/American thing? I have a further think about that.

Oh, and hi! *waves* It's me. We're hopefully gonna see each other in about two months, so I probably should have introduced myself before I launched into that ramble above. Sorry about that.

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

Okay, so people who are bothered by one sort of gay relationship but not the other just totally makes me want to headwall. Probably because it makes you sound accepting when you're everything but? Ah, I don't know. But it annoys me greatly.

From experience on the field (and out of fandoms ^^), though, it's very often the opposite that's the case - girls are more easily non-plussed by the thought of gay couples in general (lesbians do bother a bit more than gay guys, but not by much as long as the lesbians stay away from them) whereas with guys it's extremely common that they see nothing wrong with two girls getting it on but two guys together gets a very violent and repulsed reaction.

It's all about how it relates to you, I guess. As long as you don't feel personally threatened by it, it's okay, but if it gets a bit too close... sort of like people who say they're cool with it, but go ballistic the day their son brings a boyfriend home. For the women you're talking about at work, sounds exactly like that - gay guys are cool because they're hip and fun and nonthreatening to them. But bi/lesbian girls? Good gods! You could hit on them! Try to rape them in the toilets! (*tries hard not to facepalm*)

For the British/American thing, I'd say overall Britain is more accepting of same-sex relationships - and definitely has less issues portraying them on TV. With the Civil Partnership, also seems British society in general is just ahead of the US on the topic. I've not been struck by a gay/lesbian divide between British and American media though.


...hello. *g*

And it's totally cool to ramble. Especially about this topic. Best kind of introduction. So, erm, yeah, I'm a total nerd. Anywayyy. Really looking forward to meeting you (so you'd better be coming!), Fan' keeps talking about you!

[queenspanky.livejournal.com]

I join you in the nerdiness. Very much. And I am defintely coming and will take you both out for drinks/dinner/whatever, and gosh, I really hope that it's good things that she's saying and not 'my crazy British friend is coming over, just nod and smile and back away slowly'.

[firko.livejournal.com]

I think that Torchwood has, from the beginning, worn it's open stance on sexuality on it's sleeve. Some put that down to RTD's gay agenda, but to me it is just making the point that people are people and any combination is okay.

'Captain Jack Harkness' was a beautiful love story. The fact that it was two men falling in love and finding a deep connection was really incidental. Perhaps there is some truth in the comment that we haven't seen too many similar stories told, but in a way it also plays as a homage to many wartime movies showing romances starting during extreme circumstances.

I hope that Torchwood helps in it's small way to broaden the outlook of TV executives and viewers at large with regard to same sex relationships. Anything that helps stop marginalisation of people for any reason has to be a good thing.

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

It really has - to the point where it's almost funny, actually. Everybody's had their little "same-sex" moment in the course of a first season, that's got to be a world record. *G*

The idea of a "gay agenda" makes me laugh. It's called tolerance, people. One day you'll come around understanding that strange concept.

Anyway. You're right, that episode was a beautiful love story, and it was all the better done that it was done over 45 minutes with absolutely no sort of open love declaration. Truly amazing. These well-written examples of men (or women) falling in love always makes me wonder how would people who object to same-sex relationships react if they bothered to watch something like this.

[noneofyours.livejournal.com]

I have to say, watching that kiss made me cry. It was the most beautiful kiss I have ever seen on television, in any country, any format, I was just amazed. The power that those two actors excuded in their characters, the way that the feelings seemed to bounce around each other. I don't think I'm saying this right. I just was so in love with that kiss.

That said, I am glad that Torchwood is being so open about sexuality. I thinks it's refreshing to see that on the screen. I read yesterday that ABC has bought rights to air Torchwood here, that it wants to. I have to admit, I'm curious to see what, it anything, will be edited out. I hate to say it, but it's the truth. Americans, we're prudes when it comes to what we show on television, even today. Look at the American version of Coupling, edited to shi and lasted how many episodes?

I love that you post these.

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

That kiss was beautiful in so many ways. Everything made it so - the actors/characters and the intensity they put into it, the inevitable separation, the emotional build-up throughout the episode. It worked perfectly.

I'll be curious to see what might get edited out, yeah. And I don't think it's exactly right that Americans are prude on TV. You guys produce some excellent TV - Nip/Tuck, Dexter, Six Feet Under, Oz, to name just a few, all push back the barriers of what's acceptable or not on TV. What's amazing about the British is that they do it more openly so, and that their public service would finance shows like Torchwood (and it's really not the most daring program British TV has ever made). But then you guys in America always had issues understanding the concept of public service. (No offense, I love the US, but - yeah.)


These? You mean those random rants?

[noneofyours.livejournal.com]

I think you're right, about American television, to a point. I need to clarify myself. Those shows that you named, invisionary as they are, are produced for cable television. To get those channels, you have to purchase either a cable service or a satellite dish. Usually, it's those channels that can push the boundaries a little better and the censors don't jump in as much.

That said, the article in question I was reading was this one. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/tv--radio/now-look-here/2006/12/30/1166895516422.html) Originally, I read it and thought it meant ABC. ABC, here, is one of the local channels that you get for free, so the censors have a much tighter reign. Upon looking at the article again, I saw that it was an Australian ABC, not American. That makes more sense to me, actually. I love the US too, but I think you're right, and I doubt that Torchwood would ever make it on regular, local television.

Hell yeah! They're not just rants, they incite debate and discussion.

[emsana.livejournal.com]

I've been thinking this for a while too. Especially in fictional portrayal. I wrote a story draft a while back, a background girl/boy romance and I was going through it and I got to the end and though 'this is boring'. No longer is basic boy meets girl interesting, it's been done so many times that it's become boring and yet if you turn it round to a same sex relationship and the couple are fighting the prejudices of their choices (as many heterosexuals did a couple of decades back) people find it more interesting.
I think that the fact that society has changed so that most relationships between men and women from any background are savvy that it's fading into the background, relationships aren't as serious as they used to be. Once it was, you meet them, you marry them, and though this isn't globally accepted on a whole there is less of a prejudice. However, gay relationships are still frowned upon and I think that, as society continues to evolve, it eventually will become the norm for all as well. For now though, many people do find these relationships 'cooler' than others.
Such is life.


On a separate note, could I friend you?

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

It sort of makes me wonder what will catch our attention next, in terms of what will be "not the norm". Incestuous relationships already seem to be drawing attention to themselves...

You're most welcome to friend me! May I ask how you got to my journal?

[emsana.livejournal.com]

That's true, where will we go next?!

Sure, basically I'm a huge Firefly/Serenity fan and I was on ff_icons and find you through a post.
Thanks, Me

[greenie-breizh.livejournal.com]

Je suis tout à fait d'accord avec toi. Je pense que fondamentalement ce qui dérange dans un couple homo c'est que ça nous oblige à faire face à une sexualité qui n'a pour but que le plaisir. Bien sûr de nos jours chez les couples hétéros aussi la sexualité n'a (dans la très grande majorité des cas) pas non plus d'autre but que le plaisir - mais quelque part (et inconsciemment) on cache ça derrière la possibilité de procréation. Avec le couple homo, on a plus ce voile et la société est obligée d'accepter la sexualité telle quelle...

Ce qui est intéressant (et ironique) c'est qu'on accuse les homosexuels de mettre en danger la société, de nier ce besoin de procréation, et en même temps les homosexuels qui, justement, ont des enfants, on les accuse de tous les mots et la peur autour de l'homoparentalité est aujourd'hui (dans la société française en tout cas) bien plus grande que celle du couple homosexuel en général (d'où la position de l'UMP qui refuse le mariage entre couples du même sexe pour des simples raisons d'accès à la parentalité - et tant pis pour la réalité de la situation!)...

Bref c'est un peu "à droite je gagne à gauche tu perds!" comme situation...


Et Shortbus il est sur mon disque dur, il attend qu'on pense à lui un soir!! ;)