Hollyoaks, yes I agree. Not seen any of the others except for Six Feet Under.

quote:

Hollyoaks
Brothers & Sisters
Skins
ER
Six Feet Under

That really is such a good point. Seriously. It just goes to reinforce my belief that people balling their eyes out must have quite a few personal issues and acceptance issues. Then pick on a DRAMA because it didn't represent their interest (too which i say, get over yourself).

It was over-done, melodramatic and extreme in places, but that doesn't mean that its a bad drama because a few people felt it didn't represent them. What it did do, for me at least was too pose alot of thought provoking questions on a number of different aspects of being gay/bi at different stages in your life and that thereis as much diversity of sexuality as there was character.

Why does everyone want "whiter-than-white" depictions of gay/bi men on TV? There's plenty of variety on TV, where gay characters are portrayed much more realistically then this drama. Thats to say that, just because it was gritty and bleak doesn't mean it should be slammed.

I'll say it once more just for posterity.

I have no problem with a variety of depictions of gay men. I am not intolerant. I just have a problem with a heavily advertised show which according to the press junket offered a 'snapshot' of gay mens lives, giving a completely unrepresentative sample.

Not for me, but (for example) the 13/14 yr old gay guy who might be in the closet, maybe living with extremely homophobic families who talk only about stereotypes of the type shown, watching this and seeing no other role models that he can relate to or who seemed to have a 'hapy' life. As for the watershed, it never stopped me watching queer as folkband i doubt it did anyone else.

Beyond that, including paedophillia in a drama about gay men is reckless. The myth of association between the two is stil strong, regardless of what some gay men here think (who do not mix with the large numbers of homophobic people still out there.) It was completely unnecessary, the story would've worked just as well had he been 18. The issue is further confused by using a 22/23 yr old actor (according to IMDB).

I think many gay men quickly forget what its like to be young and gay in a hostile environment. It would of detratced from the story to have someone to give those people hope.

It won't let me edit posts, obviosuly i meant to put it would NOT of detracted from the story.

you have totally missed the point, haven't you? The inclusion of the storyline with the 14 year old and the 'paedophile' (or 'pedo' as so many posters on this site so tolerantly describe the man) was this:
40 years ago any sex between any males was a crime and seen as vile.
Then any sex with a man under 21 was a crime and vile.
Then it was under 18.
Now it's under 16.
It's depressing to hear clueless gay men behaving just how homophobes do/did in the past. Why shouldn't a 14 year have sex if he wants sex? Why is it OK at 16 (though it wasn't until recently) but a terrible thing at 15??
How many of us broke these arbitary, faintly ridiculous and ever changing age of consent laws?
I'm sure Kevin Elyot included this storyline to highlight the hypocrisy of it all and show that gay men can be just as blinkered and intolerant as the heterosexuals that condemn our sexuality.

It's not a fair assumption to state that people are complaining because we don't want a negative aspect shown at all. There are negative aspects of every section of any society.

What we are arguing against is the self-indulgeant, stereotypical, shock-horror efforts of a broadcaster.
Channel 4 and the writer of this drama have produced something to deliberately shock, stereotype and insult thousands of people, there was no merit or bravery to it, no "challenge" (such a convenient word to hide behind when something is so clearly without substance).

I have no doubt that it was originally intended to shock all the heterosexual viewers, thereby gaining channel 4 and the writer national publicity in the tabloids.

I really do feel that this drama was a pathetic attempt to gain headlines, nothing more.

It's quite sad that after forty years those with an opportunity to show gay culture to the rest of the country choose to do so by displaying a bizarre freak show of extreme characters.

quote:

Originally posted by Sixu:

quote:

Hollyoaks
Brothers & Sisters
Skins
ER
Six Feet Under

That really is such a good point. Seriously. It just goes to reinforce my belief that people balling their eyes out must have quite a few personal issues and acceptance issues. Then pick on a DRAMA because it didn't represent their interest (too which i say, get over yourself).

It was over-done, melodramatic and extreme in places, but that doesn't mean that its a bad drama because a few people felt it didn't represent them. What it did do, for me at least was too pose alot of thought provoking questions on a number of different aspects of being gay/bi at different stages in your life and that thereis as much diversity of sexuality as there was character.

Why does everyone want "whiter-than-white" depictions of gay/bi men on TV? There's plenty of variety on TV, where gay characters are portrayed much more realistically then this drama. Thats to say that, just because it was gritty and bleak doesn't mean it should be slammed.

Agreed Sixu.

It also made me think of several extreme issues in another light, together with humanitarian ones. Unfortunately some have chosen not to see past the 'scandal'!

quote:

Why does everyone want "whiter-than-white" depictions of gay/bi men on TV?

Who's saying they do?? Most people on here are annoyed by the complete lack of balance in Clapham Junction and it's obsession with negative stereotypes. BALANCE does not equate with 'whiter-than-white'.

"an opportunity to show gay culture to the rest of the country"????????

Clapham Junction was an investigation into intolerance and prejudice, not an PR exercise in selling gay life to a heterosexual public.

and as for demands for 'more balance'... I guess you'd want more balance in Macbeth or The Godfather! Since when did dramatists have to be straightjacketed by a requirement to be 'balanced'??

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del_Mar:

quote:

Why does everyone want "whiter-than-white" depictions of gay/bi men on TV?

Who's saying they do?? Most people on here are annoyed by the complete lack of balance in Clapham Junction and it's obsession with negative stereotypes. BALANCE does not equate with 'whiter-than-white'.

Look balance with what? To me it looks like you buy into straight morality well if he is in the park what should he expect. What is it you want to have seen taking the boyfriend home to meet mummy.
You should have been watching Dawson’s creek mate I think jack is more your cup of tea.

quote:

Originally posted by Charlie-bois:
I was actually glad to be off work today because I had this horrible fear that people might bring it up at work. I'm sure most people I know will watch that and think that represents my life. If I was a young person coming out and my family saw that, or even if they did now, it would do nothing but reaffirm every cliche, concern and stereotype.

Much of the negative reaction about this film does seem to stem from viewers who object to the representation of the characters. They say things like 'thats not me!' but fail to realise it might be someone else. They fear, or are angered by, the risk that the image portrayed on tv will be projected on to them by others around them.

This goes back to differing life stages.. when you have fully accepted yourself, you know it doesnt matter if a character on tv is nothing like you.

This makes me realise, there are an awful lot of gay guys out there who are still not quite comfortable with themselves yet!

I do worry about how we have got to the stage where many gay guys are open about not liking camp-acting men. They say they are 'straight-acting'. Not realising such a statement is entirely subjective, as they wave their limp wrist about.

It's still racism if you are only comfortable around choco latté folk and not the dark black ones!

Homophobia is still rife, as the film has shown. And certainly the gay scene itself has never been more rife with camp-hating queens...

We still haven't accepted ourselves fully and completely, so how can we expect others to accept us too.

quote:

Originally posted by fabster:

quote:

Originally posted by Charlie-bois:
I was actually glad to be off work today because I had this horrible fear that people might bring it up at work. I'm sure most people I know will watch that and think that represents my life. If I was a young person coming out and my family saw that, or even if they did now, it would do nothing but reaffirm every cliche, concern and stereotype.

Much of the negative reaction about this film does seem to stem from viewers who object to the representation of the characters. They say things like 'thats not me!' but fail to realise it might be someone else. They fear, or are angered by, the risk that the image portrayed on tv will be projected on to them by others around them.

This goes back to differing life stages.. when you have fully accepted yourself, you know it doesnt matter if a character on tv is nothing like you.

This makes me realise, there are an awful lot of gay guys out there who are still not quite comfortable with themselves yet!

I do worry about how we have got to the stage where many gay guys are open about not liking camp-acting men. They say they are 'straight-acting'. Not realising such a statement is entirely subjective, as they wave their limp wrist about.

It's still racism if you are only comfortable around choco latté folk and not the dark black ones!

Homophobia is still rife, as the film has shown. And certainly the gay scene itself has never been more rife with camp-hating queens...

We still haven't accepted ourselves fully and completely, so how can we expect others to accept us too.

Mate aye don’t get this ant-camp thing and it has been growing I agree with you to me its dangers stuff. Six feet under, shows gay’s who hold a Christian conviction, now I personal can’t relate to that, in fact I my self hold some strong ant-religion views, plus I could claim that it miss represents the gay community phone demand a apology as Christians in the main where responsible for the modern ant-gay laws it would be as valid if not more so than the puritan gays attack on this drama.

Hey, if you wanna make your complaint more official, go here:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/progs/

quote:

Originally posted by Dann89:
Hey, if you wanna make your complaint more official, go here:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/progs/

not in this life time

This will be the last post I make because I get the impression people only see the bits you write that they want to read.

As I said before, my concern is not for gay men like myself. I am totally secure and don't mind watching any depiction of gay men, its cool with me.

I think only of the much younger gay people struggling with their sexuality who saw this and think this might be whats in store for them. That would be a real shame. For that reason, I didnt want the show to be entirely 'balanced' but just have maybe one character that showed them they had something to look forward 2. If you put out a show and bill it as something that gives a snapshot of gay life then it should be. This wasn't.

As for the paedophile thing. Thats beyond arguing. Anyone who thinks its ok for 30yr old man to sleep with a 14yr old boy is not going to be persuaded otherwise by a forum post.

quote:

Originally posted by ugm2kjm:

As for the paedophile thing. Thats beyond arguing. Anyone who thinks its ok for 30yr old man to sleep with a 14yr old boy is not going to be persuaded otherwise by a forum post.

I don't know that anybody is suggesting that it's okay, simply that this particular scene had a lot of value.

I just have just complained i know its late but better late than never.