DarkMistressSophia
|
Lesbian ratingsWhy is it that in any show or movie, lesbian scenes or characters automatically up the rating higher than straight relationships of the same magnitude? I mean, it's a relationship, period. Why is it that there's some apparent paranoia towards lesbian content? "Oh, if kids see it, it'll make them gay." "Oh, those dirty dykes are recruiting our innocent little babies!" "They're flaunting their sexuality. For shame." it pisses me off... I want to know what you think about it?
|
Sierra
|
I was curious as to what you meant. I assumed you were talking about ratings as in the popularity of television content, in which case the answer would have been that there seems to be a perverse cultural fascination with lesbians which tends to make people in a patriarchal culture love lesbian content. (I say perverse, because this same "fascination" coexists with a hypocritical sexism and homophobia.)
Realizing that you mean ratings as in those produced by the film industry and the ESRB, I am wholly against those rating systems, because I am against censorship, and because there does seem to be a double standard as you have rightly pointed out. Heterosexual content seems to have become so normalized that it takes something else to get a movie above a rating of PG-13 (and even then, it's usually the violence, rather than the sexual content, that brings things to that point). Meanwhile, movies like Brokeback Mountain get rated R because of their (homo)sexual content. (And yes, I was under 17 when I saw it.) It seems to smack of a very deep-seated homophobia and sexism (which underlies all homophobia). But that is not what concerns me the most. What concerns me is that this kind of censorship and repression results in a society that is more violent and chauvinistic.
It's sort of like how all the Christian Right talks about is sex in some form or another: gay marriage, abortion, premarital sex. And we are led to believe that rather than their obvious preoccupation with guilt and renunciation about sexuality, they are somehow involved in a noble crusade for "values."
I resent it too.
|
DarkMistressSophia
|
phsh, the crusades were a joke, a power-hungry genocide raid with a cover as a "Holy War." I'm also jaded against Christians... but, whatever... I find that if we promoted the homosexuality as well as heterosexuality, it'd increase acceptance rather than the occurrence of it...
|
Sierra
|
I agree with you, but I would expand that to religion in general, not just Christianity.
Actually, I take a different view on acceptance. I don't think that more "acceptance" or "tolerance" needs to take place, because that's like saying "yes, continue to disdain who I am, just kindly shut up about it." On the contrary, I think we need a different kind of social order, altogether: one in which sexuality is celebrated, and in which all people, regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity can feel protected by structures of power. This, I think, is quite different from "tolerance." In fact, what is needed is precisely the opposite of tolerance. We need active intolerance for views which are stupid; namely, Judeo-Christian mores that are poisoning society, turning otherwise fun and life-affirming sexuality into a thing to be ashamed of and renounced.
|
DarkMistressSophia
|
as said by Pink Floyd: "By the cold and religious, we're taken in hand. Shown how to feel good, then told to feel bad..." lol, I love that quote... but, yeah... I would ask to hear the other side's view, but I'll predict that it'll be along the lines of "Homosexuality is bad and immoral, and we don't need you dykes recruiting our children. Now stop flaunting it at us and go back to wearing your camo." or "STFU nwebs yoo r stoopid les is stoopid go fk a gy nd gt ovr it." My bet is on the latter...
|
Sierra
|
Luckily for us, there aren't really any nonreligious arguments against the queer community. That is , there don't seem to be rational arguments against it. Just arguments based on religions that are plainly made up.
|
DarkMistressSophia
|
here's my view... make there be Marriage, as a religious thing, then Legal Partnership, which gives the same legal and financial coverage as marriage with a nonreligious backing.
|
Jude
|
What disgusts me about movie ratings is that heterosexual rape, degradation, sexual violence, etc. is often considered PG-13 whereas a lesbian romance is R, and even the slightest homosexual attraction seems to be PG-13. 
Jude
|
minit
|
| Sierra wrote: | I agree with you, but I would expand that to religion in general, not just Christianity.
Actually, I take a different view on acceptance. I don't think that more "acceptance" or "tolerance" needs to take place, because that's like saying "yes, continue to disdain who I am, just kindly shut up about it." On the contrary, I think we need a different kind of social order, altogether: one in which sexuality is celebrated, and in which all people, regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity can feel protected by structures of power. This, I think, is quite different from "tolerance." In fact, what is needed is precisely the opposite of tolerance. We need active intolerance for views which are stupid; namely, Judeo-Christian mores that are poisoning society, turning otherwise fun and life-affirming sexuality into a thing to be ashamed of and renounced. |
Right ON!! I know I am sick of "tolerance".
|
masteroftheclaw
|
| DarkMistressSophia wrote: | | here's my view... make there be Marriage, as a religious thing, then Legal Partnership, which gives the same legal and financial coverage as marriage with a nonreligious backing. |
That makes sense and would hopefully quiet down the religious people who say no to gay marriage. But for me, I mean, doesn't "marriage" have a more romantic connotation than something like "civil union" or "legal partnerships"? They sound like a business deal. But if civil unions came with ALL the benefits of marriage, that would definitely be nice (granted that they were not illegal in many places).
And to the topic at hand... yes, it seems that t here is allowed to be very heavy hetero sexuality present in PG-13 films and nobody says a thing about it. But as soon as it is a homosexual relationship portrayed instead, R! I don't think this is necessary at all. And for the parents who would say something like "you're just trying to make my kid gay" well if you let them watch the sexually fueled but straight movie, then couldn't you be saying "My kid will get into sexual relationships too early in life, but at least they're not gay!" (Exaggerations of course, but hey)
|
Sierra
|
No, it's not an exaggeration at all. What you've hit on is a very important point: as soon as we start applying so-called "standards" for censorship, where does it stop? Somewhere before it reduces to absurdity?
|
Margali
|
The thing that bothers me the most is the underlying assumption, that sexuality, gay or straight, is more dangerous to children then violence. Of course implied on top of that is that homosexuality is more dangerous then really horrific graphic violence.
From the earliest age we teach our children that its more acceptable to hate then to love, then we have the gall to act surprised when a teenager shoots up a highschool cafeteria.
Later we hear how the kid had been mercilessly bullied for years by other kids who called him "Fag", But try to enact policies to stop that bullying and the xtians, the followers of the god of unconditional love, go ape shit.
I could go on, but I think you all know what I'm talking about.
I'd better just quit now or I'll end up feeling disgusted and depressed and it won't change a damn thing.
sigh.
|
minit
|
I of course voted NO! 
| DarkMistressSophia wrote: | | here's my view... make there be Marriage, as a religious thing, then Legal Partnership, which gives the same legal and financial coverage as marriage with a nonreligious backing. |
Consider that the current marriage license that heterosexuals can get down at city hall is not a religious document. It is already a civil document. A male/female couple get there blood test and marriage license and if they choose, they may go and get a church wedding.
When straights refer to their spouse almost anywhere on the planet it is automatically understood what this means. It is universal and powerful and no one messes with it. It is absolutely not on the same level as calling your commitment a civil union. This is not semantics. People view this as a second class relationship second to marriage and a pale joke in comparison. It is riding the bus in the back, drinking from a fountain that is labeled queer. No other word carries the same power regarding a committed relationship as marriage.
In Vermont we have civil unions. Nice because this is advancement for sure, however it is NOT real equality. I don't want to seem that I am trivializing the civil union. It came via two queer couples suing for this right. It is a huge step in the right direction. It is just not yet full equality.
By the way, if Howard Dean had not signed the civil union bill, the court in Vermont would of turned and ruled for marriage in response. He was the governor of Vermont when the civil union law was passed.
I have been with my spouse for 20 years. We just have not gotten a civil union yet. I might explain why it happens to be that way later. My point is that even if we did, I would not be able to get on her insurance at work because the insurance company does not provide coverage for civil union couples. You have to be married. In my last job my company also chose to sign up with an insurance company that would refuse to grant CU partner coverage. This is one example. There is nothing to stop continued insult and exclusion just because you have a civil union. No one is making these people treat those with a civil union the same as a married couple. You know why? It is because it is not the same.
Marriage is not for everyone, but if it is what you want then that is what it should be called. That is the protection that we should have on every level including "shudder" from the federal government. Societies must change and they are all over the world with what seems like excruciating slowness. I want to say that things have improved tremendously just in my lifetime so take heart! It is because of all the queers before us who have fought so very hard. In fact, the fairies and butches took the brunt of it just cause they can't help but be visible. Love and accept all queers!
What has helped the most is queers coming out. It is important on so many levels that every single one of us live as open and honest a life as we can. Sometimes it is not possible in every area of life. We have to eat after all. This is changing the world, the same world that gets just a little smaller every day.
I wish the internet was available when I was young! Not fair, not fair!
As far as a religious or spiritual component that should be up to the couple to choose to have, or not. Of course, good luck having some traditional church do a wedding for you if you want that. Not holding my breath for changes soon there.
Anyway, I think it comes down to that many straights can not, and do not want to view two gay guys life commitment as being on the same level as their own. They feel superior. The other fear is that allowing queers to marry will in fact legitimize queer existence. This would be the antithesis of the constant pressure to make all queers invisible and insignificant. Huuuraah!
In Vermont there is a state task force studying the issue of now including queers in marriage. I don't like when they call it "gay marriage". Screw that! It is just marriage and we should simply be included. It will happen here and I don't think it will be more than a couple years from now!
OK that was more than I thought I was going to say! Thanks for reading.
|
Sierra
|
Wow, that really puts the distinction in bold relief for me. Everytime I think of marriage equality, it really pisses me off, though.
|
FyreHawk711
|
D.E.B.S. features beautifully rendered lesbian kissing and sex scenes... and is pleasantly rated PG-13.
ahhh that brilliant pairing of Jordana Brewster and Sara Foster.
>< nice ><
things are slowly changing.
don't forget about 'The N's' South Of Nowhere series for the teens. *cough* not that i ever watched it *cough*
|
Seiitsu
|
From reading all the before posts, I will have to agree with you ladies.
Marriage is something that should be equal for everyone. Gay guys have been around since Greek, and it's around our time that there's a major issue about it. Religion doesn't help it either. I'm a non-Christian lesbian at my high school, and people treat me differently because I'm not a Christian yet there are three other lesbians (from what I heard) in the school. They didn't treat me different before I said I was (a former) bisexual.
Religion and sexual preferences are people's opinion, and should not be judged against. It's stupid just like being sexist and racist. It's human stupidity that effects most people, and can't see past a simple thing. Just as the Hippies began the movement for differences, we should fight for the same rights as everyone else has that should have been granted, but because of certain people's point of views of the matter it won't be granted until whenever.
|
|