The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Prime-time TV not gay enough: study

OMG they need to stop. Prime time does not need to be any gayer than it is right now. I would love to see more gay stuff, but it's studies like this that make homphobic pricks thank there is a "dangerous" gay agenda out there.
 
^
Yeah, because as long as nobody talks about gay people, maybe they're not real...

Really, these people that are "not ready for it" can suck it.
 
maybe instead of making it gayer by having an endless number of gay characters, they can just add more shirtless guys on tv shows. and during a love scene, focus more on the guy than the girl. i think that would make the gay rights group happy and the rest of us too.
 
^
Yeah, because as long as nobody talks about gay people, maybe they're not real...

Really, these people that are "not ready for it" can suck it.
everybody knows about gay people. and there is no way to get past it. but this is a stupid study and does nothing but fuel the homophobes even further. i mean what was the point of doing this study? i would hate to see my favorite shows feel forced to add a gay character because of this study.

as much as I would like Dean (Supernatural) to suddenly confess his love for men, it would piss me off at the same time.
 
everybody knows about gay people. and there is no way to get past it. but this is a stupid study and does nothing but fuel the homophobes even further. i mean what was the point of doing this study? i would hate to see my favorite shows feel forced to add a gay character because of this study.
Should we really have to walk on eggshells when discussing any gay issue though?

Who cares if the study is pointless? There are tons of pointless studies about everything. We shouldn't have worry about some major backlash over everything that might make an idiot homophobe uncomfortable.
 
everybody knows about gay people. and there is no way to get past it. but this is a stupid study and does nothing but fuel the homophobes even further.

Go ahead and be afraid of idiot homophobes if you feel like. I choose not to be.

i mean what was the point of doing this study?

Maybe it will be good if screen writers use this study as a primer to actually write some good new series for LOGO that aren't in the Queer As Folk mold, for starters.

i would hate to see my favorite shows feel forced to add a gay character because of this study.

No one can make anyone feel "forced" to do anything. They can point it out -- that's about all. If I could force anyone to do anything, I'd start by forcing homophobes to go to therapy and figure out why they're so threatened by gay characters, and while I'm at it, figuring out why people who post on message boards with banner ads of gay porn feel the need to advocate for their position. But neither I nor the study can do that (but don't I wish!). People, gay and straight, can keep on spouting their weird fear of having more gay characters on TV... just as blacks could spout a fear of having more black characters on TV and Jews could fear having more Jewish characters on TV.

as much as I would like Dean (Supernatural) to suddenly confess his love for men, it would piss me off at the same time.

Then it seems like you're seriously conflicted. Maybe it's not just the homophobes that have their share of issues...
 
No I have no issues. I dont want to see Dean go gay at all. But it is my dream that he would and we would get it on all of a sudden.

I am not afraid of homphobes, I just hate that they did this study and that it fuels homophobes (especially the powerful ones) and will be brought up a lot now by them.

This study wont help Logo change how they do business, and this study wasnt for Logo, they cant be nothing but gay, this is for prime time shows on basic television. I am not afraid to have more gay people on television. If you read what I wrote (which I doubt you did past the post you chopped up) you'd see I say I have no problem with it. Just that we didn't need a study to say that.

As a black person, I don't care if there are more black people in prime time television. And I would be equally as pissed if there was a study saying we needed more black people on television. It makes people think that the television executives are secretly racist when they are not.

I dont see the banner ads. I have Adblock +. (not that I need to, i watch enough porn)
 
I am not afraid of homphobes, I just hate that they did this study and that it fuels homophobes (especially the powerful ones) and will be brought up a lot now by them.
Maybe if we're real quiet those powerful homophobes might just be able to ignore us.

Then everyone wins...oh wait...no

If this study never existed, they would find another reason to fuel their hate. So GLAAD should feel free to do what they want and let those idiots be idiots.
 
If this study never existed, they would find another reason to fuel their hate.

EXACTLY! It simply makes me do a double-take when people are so braindead that they can't see that. It reminds me of this sick weirdo I met in a chat room. It was a black guy (and a Libertarian, to boot) who said that affirmative action and hate crimes laws are the real reason for hate crimes against blacks. As if the entire history of slavery and lynchings, which happened long before there were any hate crimes laws was just some mass conspiracy we thought up or something.

And I hate to break it to you, but if you're telling people that are studying how many gay characters a teenage gay kid who's getting harassed and bullied daily in school gets to see when he gets home after a day of hell, and maybe see some small sliver of hope in his life that what they're doing is "pointless" (according to whom, exactly, besides you?), then yes, you're *VERY* afraid of homophobes. These studies need to go on and on *AND* on until idiotic homophobes realize that they have a right to whatever fucked up opinion they want to have, but it's not going to make people put their head down and not "rock the boat" because we are supposed to cater to their every single bigoted whim, and people like you don't suggest to us that we should put the homophobes at the top of our "Who's Important To Us" list any more...
 
well i cant argue with any of you. my brain simply isnt in it. I dont agree with half of what you say, but I can't argue cause more people will go for what you say than I will ever. So it is pointless to try.

I still think the study was stupid and pointless and caters to homophobes fear. This study will not make them go "oh maybe we should accept the homos now." it make them act more stupid and angry and go after that teenage kid in high school who gets beat up or called names for being gay.

i am not VERY afraid of homophobes. i am not afraid of them at all. I have never had a problem with homophobic people and probably never will on some large scale. If one did want to beat my brains in than I would be ready to go to jail for homocide in a minute, cause I would definately fight back, and I can't garuntee he will be alive if I pick up a weapon (not a gun).

As for the libertarian. He is right. This isnt about all the hundreds of years of slavery and racism, this is about people feeling they are getting a free ride just because of something that happened in the past, that they wernt apart of (college bound students) and have apoligized for many times, even though it was never their fault. It was their ancestors fault.

Your right, homophobic people will find something else to use agaisnt us, but they have this.
 
well i cant argue with any of you. my brain simply isnt in it. I dont agree with half of what you say, but I can't argue cause more people will go for what you say than I will ever. So it is pointless to try.

That's the whole point. It was pointless for you to try; I have met plenty of people who are gay or bisexual, and don't care either way if there are gay characters in media. I don't agree with them, obviously but I respect the fact that, although it's the way they feel, they don't seek out places to air their not-quite-as-self-loathing-as-some opinion and only express it if they're specifically asked. It's when people actually go as far as to tell GLAAD and other groups who are looking out for your safety and self-esteem (whether or not you realize it) by making sure that you are represented in the media and other people will have enough understanding of your orientation so that your life isn't confronted by ten times as much adversity as everyone who is LGBT in the world currently deals with now because of that representation *NOT* to do what they do, that I am simply in awe of the counterproductive nature of where people like yourself direct your energies. But if you admit that you don't have the energy or "brain" power to continue, and you're finally quitting this insane line of arguments on this particular thread, then all I can say is I'm thankful for small favors.

What I don't even understand is why some of you guys bother to seek out a gay site with gay people; why not just post on a regular entertainment site where you can hide your sexuality and homoaffectionality (like you seem to want the media to do across the board) and proceed? You could easily discuss your favorite shows there and since you prefer to want to be around people who oppose having more gay characters on media, I'm sure you would have that kind of environment on more 'mainstream' sites. I remember in 1999, when there was a grand total of 4 or 5 (if you included both Will & Jack as two instances of gay characters) gay characters/shows out of 40, and people on 'mainstream' sites were asking if "every" show had to have a gay character. I'm sure you would agree with those kinds of completely specious, fact-ignoring, bias-promoting 'questions', so I don't understand why you seek sites where the entire premise seems to run counter to your whole rationales.


As for the libertarian. He is right.

You have major issues. This proves it right there.


You*'*r*e* right, homophobic people will find something else to use against us, but they have this.

Let them "have" it. If this is their idea of ammo, then they're pretty damn desperate. Meanwhile, I will point to all the pathetic studies they do about the "liberal media" and how hostile it is to them, and how victimized they feel, and how it makes them vote for someone like Bush, and what those kinds of "spiteful-in-your-face" tactics result in for the country, and it'll make everyone see just how irrational and completely wingnutty they are. I know which side will win in the end, and *ONLY* because of people who have the strength and courage to brave the backlashes that all hateful people have historically subjected every group fighting for civil rights to until equality finally arrives. Change is incremental, and everything must be done strategically. I have never encouraged people to demand gay marriage in Utah, Idaho, and Alabama, nor have I demanded that they have gay porn orgies with full-frontal and everything on Sesame Street, and for the latter I (*gasp*) never will. From the looks of it, that what's some of you seem to be implying that GLAAD is asking for when they conduct these studies, and it makes me wonder just how repressed some people are, and just how much daily exposure to homophobic sentiments and religious hatred people have to deal with. All I can say is, I pray for the day that this bullshit ends so people can move on with their lives and find something to do other than worry about how haters will react to every single thing in the world.
 
Quote:
As for the libertarian. He is right.
You have major issues. This proves it right there.
I love how you ignored the arguement in your reply. Which completely explained why I think he is right. It's just funny that you chose to ignore it. Instead you say I have problems because I think he is right. Your a politicians dream truely.

As for GLAAD. I love GLAAD, they do good work and really commend those people who do have gay characters in the media. I am not trying to backstep the progress. I hope it keeps going, I just think the study is stupid and well useless, and gets us no where.

You*'*r*e*
I dont understand why you did that though? Oh, I just realized it. I made a error in the punctuation. I am usually so on that to. I guess I was too busy watching Rescue Me lol.


I actually found this board looking for the Garnier Fructise commercial and loved it. I wouldnt have so much fun on a straight board seeing how they are straight and well. I dont like talking about girls being hot.

You make so many broad generalizations about me because I dislike this study which is stupid on your part. I dont support any of that shit, and never watched Will and Grace. I did watch Queer As Folk and love Bravo for what they are doing. You know absolutely nothing about me, yet think I am a homophobe in quiet trying to backstep all the advancements that have happened over the years.

I actually find a lot of studies stupid. Like all the crazy shit that causes cancer. All the stupid things people seem to think should happen to advance their agenda.

I always thought this site was meant so people could have their own opinions. I would love to see what you think of all the gay republicans out there. You must have so many conclusions to their personalities for even thinking of being a republican.
 
Oh for God sakes. There doesn't have to be a gay person in a TV show for me to enjoy it. It's just silly that people feel the need to whine about stupid things.
 
The study assigned grades of "excellent," "good," "fair" or "failing" based on the number of "impressions," or occurrences, of gay characters, discussions or themes counted during 4,693 hours of programming examined from June 2006 through May 2007.
](*,)](*,)](*,)
Why am I not surprised to find that GLAAD is only interested in Quantity - not Quality.

By their standards, we should "applaud" the creation of any new character who is openly gay - even if that character is a child-molester, a mass-murderer or another crude "Sissy-boy" stereotype...

GLAAD can keep it's numbers game and continue to fade away into perpetual irrelevance.
I'll reserve my applause for Positive portrayals of the LGBT Community, thank you very much...
pride:
 
By their standards, we should "applaud" the creation of any new character who is openly gay - even if that character is a child-molester, a mass-murderer or another crude "Sissy-boy" stereotype...
Actually, the report did slam CBS for exactly that reason...At the same time, I am somewhat amused that UPN got good marks for having America's Next Top Model; I think that demonstrates its irrelevancy more than anything else...

At the same time, should they include gay characters just to include them? That would seem silly and ultimately counter-productive, especially as the networks have been slammed for doing so in the past...

RG
 
Your right, homophobic people will find something else to use agaisnt us, but they have this.
...and every single other study/article that supports homosexuality in any way.

I don't see this helping or hurting the gay community. I haven't even heard it mentioned anywhere but here.
 
...and every single other study/article that supports homosexuality in any way.

I don't see this helping or hurting the gay community. I haven't even heard it mentioned anywhere but here.
probably wont be either.
 
OMG they need to stop. Prime time does not need to be any gayer than it is right now. I would love to see more gay stuff, but it's studies like this that make homphobic pricks thank there is a "dangerous" gay agenda out there.

I agree. Not every show has to have a gay character on in every episode. If it fits the show, like Ugly Betty, then yeah, go for it.

I'm actually sometimes glad there aren't more gays on primetime TV. Because almost every one is a stereotype (all prissy and sneaky and fem) or the butt of homophobic jokes.

I am looking forward to Desperate Housewives new gay couple. I hope Marc Cherry writes them as real people, and not cartoons (like Vern, Gabbys gaysian)
 
Back
Top