HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Meaningless off-screen qu...

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 12:32 AM

Meaningless off-screen queering has got to stop

Once upon a time, way back in the nearly forgotten days of 2007, J.K. Rowling dropped a big gay bomb on her adoring fanbase. Albus Dumbledore, beloved patriarch of Hogwarts and guiding weirdo of the Harry Potter franchise, was gay the whole time. People freaked out. It made conservatives uncomfortable. It gave the LGBTQ community a little sliver of hope. It made fanfic writers explode with new works. It cast Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald in a new light.

What it didn’t do was increase queer representation. Not in Harry Potter, and not in the world. A character who is not queer on screen, either by word or deed, does not actually do any of that work. In effect, this is the action of a creator who wants the credit for being inclusive while performing none of the labor and experiencing none of the drawbacks.

This seemed like a one-time thing, and the ongoing conversation about how unfair this deal was should have ensured that we never saw this strange new breed of queerbaiting again.

Narrator voice: It happened again.

more....



The representation of the LGBT is sorely lacking, and there are other issues which gum up the work, but overall, the lack of queer people in movies and TV...SUCKS!

43 replies, 2966 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 43 replies Author Time Post
Reply Meaningless off-screen queering has got to stop (Original post)
Behind the Aegis Jun 2018 OP
TDale313 Jun 2018 #1
caraher Jun 2018 #2
TDale313 Jun 2018 #3
bdtrppr6 Jun 2018 #4
JI7 Jun 2018 #7
oberliner Jun 2018 #34
TheFrenchRazor Jun 2018 #41
Doodley Jun 2018 #5
Behind the Aegis Jun 2018 #8
mr_lebowski Jun 2018 #17
Behind the Aegis Jun 2018 #19
mr_lebowski Jun 2018 #38
Volaris Jun 2018 #6
Behind the Aegis Jun 2018 #9
Ezior Jun 2018 #11
Behind the Aegis Jun 2018 #12
Tipperary Jun 2018 #15
Volaris Jun 2018 #24
cagefreesoylentgreen Jun 2018 #23
msongs Jun 2018 #10
Post removed Jun 2018 #13
we can do it Jun 2018 #14
Hortensis Jun 2018 #16
Behind the Aegis Jun 2018 #18
Hortensis Jun 2018 #20
LanternWaste Jun 2018 #21
Behind the Aegis Jun 2018 #28
Ms. Toad Jun 2018 #29
yardwork Jun 2018 #35
TheFrenchRazor Jun 2018 #40
TheFrenchRazor Jun 2018 #39
yallerdawg Jun 2018 #22
Behind the Aegis Jun 2018 #27
yallerdawg Jun 2018 #33
charlyvi Jun 2018 #25
Behind the Aegis Jun 2018 #31
charlyvi Jun 2018 #32
hunter Jun 2018 #26
Behind the Aegis Jun 2018 #30
Coventina Jun 2018 #36
yallerdawg Jun 2018 #37
Quayblue Jun 2018 #42
dsc Jun 2018 #43

Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 01:34 AM

1. Yes, stop the queer baiting.

Recent YouTube video by one of my favorite YouTube reviewer/pop culture critics on this very topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 01:51 AM

2. I'm most shocked by this

the forthcoming film Bohemian Rhapsody on the life of noted queer and tragic AIDS casualty Freddy Mercury will mention neither his queerness nor the disease that killed him.


WTF? How can one possibly do anything remotely resembling justice to his life story with gaping omissions like that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 01:59 AM

3. I don't know how much the film will address them,

But the most recent trailer only showed him with a female partner. There’s certainly concern over this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 02:02 AM

4. won't be bothering with that one then.

shame, too, i was looking forward to it. why would that not be a central part of the story? I get that they want to focus on the whole group as creative artists deserving of a film, which they are, but not making freddie overtly gay is an atrocity. i was a dumb straight white teen and i knew his gloriousness was true queer. why hide that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 02:36 AM

7. isn't one of the reasons Sacha Baron Cohen ended up not playing FM because they didn't

 

want to include a lot of this stuff ?

and i hear Brian May is one of those which is disappointing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 05:35 PM

34. Bryan Singer is the director of that film

 

Or was until he was fired at the very end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #2)

Fri Jun 8, 2018, 04:02 AM

41. WTF, indeed. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 02:33 AM

5. It is actually good story-telling. Is he/she or isn't he/she? Or characters revealed as being

different to what the reader/audience had thought. These are plot devices that have been used for hundreds of years and transcend sexual preferences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doodley (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 02:44 AM

8. No, it isn't.

First, it is sexual orientation which is being discussed, not sexual preferences. Second, by not being inclusive of GLBT characters, it excludes us from the human narrative. Third, by not having positive portrayals of us, it implies there is something inherently wrong with us, or at least not worthy of discussion. And finally, by "being cagey" it gives people an "out" to dismiss us in any narrative or story, including ones where sexual orientation is central or a major part of the story, such as the example given about Freddie Mercury's upcoming "biography."

Closets are for clothes, not people!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #8)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 01:12 PM

17. I have a question ... is it possible for orientation to differ from preference?

Are there folks who's preference, sex-partner-wise, is with the opposite sex, but their love-affiliation is same-gender?

I ask because I had a gay friend who intimated to me that he actually prefers sex with women at least somewhat over men, but that he clearly didn't develop the same attraction/affection for women that he did for men. He told me this after giving me, his ostensibly straight buddy, the best ... um ... pleasuring ... I think I've ever gotten

Conversely, I'd guess there are probably some people who's love affiliation is towards the opposite sex, but they actually prefer sex with their same gender?

The reason I ask is ... what exactly defines one's 'sexual orientation'? 'Sexual Preference' I 'get', it seems like that's pretty simply defined ... Although I'm sure there's many who are just simply 'bi' and can swing both ways truly equally.

I've always thought one's 'orientation' is 'who they fall in love with' which typically jibes with 'preference', but not necessarily always.

Is the objection to saying 'preference' instead of 'orientation' simply because the latter sounds more like 'a choice' and orientation sounds more 'ingrained/born that way'?

Personally I think both are valid 'words', and they kinda describe two different attractions ... which typically are congruent, but certainly not always. And they can both be 'ingrained' and 'not choice, per se', for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr_lebowski (Reply #17)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 03:09 PM

19. You are kind of all over the place.

Sexual orientation is the "hard wiring". It isn't limited to who one fucks, it is inclusive of other forms of attraction. Sexual preference, however, is more the "programming". It deals more with how one expresses their sexual desires. Yes, there can be "crossover" in some respects, but when talking about GLBT people, "orientation" is usually a better way to express it because it signifies what you said at the end, it isn't a choice to be gay.

I've always thought one's 'orientation' is 'who they fall in love with' which typically jibes with 'preference', but not necessarily always.


It is, but you do realize as a gay man, I am not attracted to all men? That isn't a "preference", it just is. My sexual preference(s) would get my post deleted!

As for what you are describing with your friend, it sounds like he could possibly be bisexual; it happens. As for your BJ, that is a sexual preference, you just didn't care that it came from a man. That is usually called "situational homosexuality". It was more likely an "opportunity" and not something you were seeking, but I don't all the components of the situation.

Sexual orientation is made of many components, and yes, sexual preferences are a part, but they are generally limited to the acts and the types of people involved (i.e. short, tall, black, white, redheaded, thin, hung, heavy, small-waisted, "straight acting", and so on).

I am sorry I don't have more time to explain, but I hope it was enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #19)

Fri Jun 8, 2018, 03:16 AM

38. Thanks mate ...perhaps we can chat more on these matters another time (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 02:35 AM

6. It might not be your cup of tea, but watch Star Trek Discovery.

An EXCELLENT portrayal of a same-sex couple, in a future where everybody has More Important Shit To Worry About.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Volaris (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 02:45 AM

9. Thanks for the suggestion.

I like Star Trek, but I never watched that part of the franchise. Maybe it will be a binge watch this summer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 03:44 AM

11. It's good, but not very Star-Trek-y

At least that's what I think. I loved it, because the Anti-SJW crowd was having meltdowns. Apparently, those snowflakes couldn't stomach the fact that the main character (a woman) uses the name "Michael". Also, there were a couple of romantic gay scenes. That's too much, as they were all up in arms about how Discovery destroyed Star Trek. They didn't want to see a gay kiss and almost had to vomit! (Never mind that Uhura/Kirk kiss in the '60s, that was totally fine because they're Star Trek fans after all!)


BTW, I also liked "The Orville". It's almost like classic Star Trek, but as a parody. Like classic Star Trek, it attempts to discuss an important moral issue in every episode. And it features a species that appears to be 100% gay but suffers from severe misogyny related to women of their own species, though working with women of other species seems to be OK for them. Also, the main character (a man) actually has gay sex in one episode (even though he is usually straight, but that simply doesn't seem to matter a lot in the Orville universe).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ezior (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 05:46 AM

12. I really like "The Orville".

I am glad it got renewed. I can't wait to see where it goes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ezior (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 07:37 AM

15. Lol, I remember Michael Learned. No problems with her name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ezior (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 04:41 PM

24. 'It's not very star-treky.'

My response to that is that I wish it had been set in the timeline AFTER Voyager. As it is, the ONLY justifiable reason that nobody sent the schematic for that engine to Janeway in the Delta Quadrant is that EVERYONE who works at Starlfleet Command is just a dick.

Orville is EXCELLENT. It's an absolute love letter to the core of what Star Trek is at its best, written by a master comic. I think it's brilliant=)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Volaris (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 04:35 PM

23. Also there's LGBT representation in The Expanse

At least six lesbian and gay characters have appeared on that show. Earth’s ambassador to Mars, Frank DeGraaf, and his husband, Anna Volodov and her wife Nono, Admiral Sutherland, and a gay prostitute on Tycho station. The principal character, James Holden, is a full genetic mix from eight people.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 03:04 AM

10. meanwhile adam lambert fronts queen with may's blessing... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)


Response to Post removed (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 07:31 AM

14. I think 4% is a bit low.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to we can do it (Reply #14)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 09:23 AM

16. Likely. These figures are all based on self identification,

and are probably low. At that, 4% is a significant increase over what the last census reported.

It would be a mistake to assume, though, that all who in 2018 still don't self identify want that kind of representation. Although there are conservative LGBTQ groups working for their rights through the Republican Party, by no means all conservative LGBTQS support some or all of the gender freedoms we've been gaining for them.

A friend's middle aged nephew is one of those. He's been "out" apparently forever but chose long ago to live by the precepts he was brought up with and believes in. (On the happy side, he has a large and cohesive family to belong to.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 02:56 PM

18. That's quite the dump you just took.

First, the article (did you read it?) is about GLBT media presence, specially movies, not representation in politics. Second, your screed is so fucking offensive it is hard for me to even compose something without saying what I really want to say to you! So, I will hold my tounge, but I will not let your offensive remarks stand unchallenged.

LGBTQs are @4% of the population, and their representation in government and other influential positions has not only been increasing enormously, but if you check what's happening in some of the primaries and special elections you'll see that is continuing in the Democratic Party.


According to whom has our representation "been increasing enormously"? To you?! To anyone who thinks one gay person is one too many? To those who aren't aware of history? I'd love to know! There are currently 535 members of Congress, SEVEN are queer! And for those who aren't math geeks, no, that isn't 4%. All most all of the GLBT in Congress were elected in the 21st century! Yes, there has been increase in openly GLBT candidates, just as there has been an increase in other minority candidates and women. That should be seen as a GOOD thing. You do realize this country is over 200 years old, right? If so, then it is about damn time we see GLBT people take their place in politics, openly and unashamed.

Very generally many have done well economically too (think educated male partners), and with the constitution and social progression as their assets, their influence on public policy has recently been so large that it outweighed the influence of the much larger group opposed to them. In fact, the enormous, and very fast when they happened, changes effected in spite of this imbalance were a very significant factor in causing the Trump-election backlash.


Ah, yes, the good old trope...gay men are all wealthy. Seriously?! Because some gay men (or rather, gay male couples, usually white) have done well, then representation is somehow not important or needed?! That is certainly your implication, otherwise, the comment needn't have been said. Then, after shitting out that stereotype, you basically blame the current administration on us! WHAT THE EVERLOVING FUCK?! If you didn't mean to blame gay people for the current "president", then say so, because it comes across that way. Frankly, it sounds like people who blame the Obama presidency for the "backlash". No, the backlash is due to bigotry and economics, not the progress of minorities!

Legally extending the rights guaranteed in the constitution to all people is of course very good and necessary, although social equality is still a battle that must continue, but there is a cost to everything. And the current cost includes the reality that LGBTQ interests helped lead to a Republican takeover that will attempt to roll back all their gains. That is their current problem, and of course they lack representation in the Republican Party and are not going to get it. But it's just plain wrong to claim they lack representation.


How sweet. The fact you claim "extending the rights guaranteed in the constitution to all people is of course very good and necessary", your post sure as hell doesn't come across that way! But, you take you galling bigoted remarks even further, not only do you blame us for the current administration, you are "pre-blaming" us for any rights said administration strips! It isn't just "our" problem with our rights are stripped, it is a problem for the entire country! Your post sounds like all those straight people who said marriage equality "wasn't politically expedient", how our wanting to be treated equally, was "too much, too soon", how we were being "whiney and not wanting the best for our country". It was BULLSHIT then and it is BULLSHIT now!

We do lack representation in media, politics, and life in general, and I don't need to be straightsplained on how my equality is an inconvenience to you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #18)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 04:10 PM

20. You're supposedly representing yourself, but

in the wrong place. Don't waste time preaching to the choir. Go represent where it might make a difference. But don't go attacking people. That really, really does not work. Anyway, I disagree. Gays are, if anything, overrepresented population-wise in pop media.

Maybe do a good deed next time you have a useful listener. Talk also about the problems children of African Islamic immigrants have in most of our schools. They don't begin to have your power. Heck, if they're too invisible to get excited about, talk about what Hispanic American children need. They're a minority also, and there are a great many of them. Not everything has to be about you.

Oh, and me? Women heading into their elder years. Jane Fonda played the only character I've personally seen on TV screaming at a service person who kept looking past her to wait on her. We all have that experience, many times over. And that's just when you'd like to buy something. Just imagine, if it's not too much of a stretch, trying to get a decent job a younger gay person could do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #20)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 04:12 PM

21. Biggest, hottest cup of irony I've read today.

"but don't go attacking people. That really, really does not work...."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #20)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 05:07 PM

28. Lots of privileged whataboutism in that post...not surprising!

It is disgusting to put down one group, by using another group, especially when you don't belong to EITHER group! The article posted was ABOUT the GLBT representation, not EVERYONE BUT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #20)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 05:08 PM

29. Wow.



Oh, and me? Women heading into their elder years. Jane Fonda played the only character I've personally seen on TV screaming at a service person who kept looking past her to wait on her. We all have that experience, many times over. And that's just when you'd like to buy something. Just imagine, if it's not too much of a stretch, trying to get a decent job a younger gay person could do.


Not being waited on, even many times over, is so much worse than being fired for being gay (still legal in many states), being denied housing with your spouse (still legal many states), not to mention being beaten, raped, or murdered for being LGBT, not to mention that a good number of us don't survive to adulthood because (among other things) we live in hostile environments (our homes) and don't have visible role models.

And - news flash - even though (as pointed out earlier) not all gay men are wealthy - the same general trends that impact women's ability to earn a wage comparable to men on average hits lesbian families twice as hard, because both heads of the household are women.

I've nearly given up on trying to educate/eliminate the subtle use-gay-as-an-insult drumbeat. But I am dumbfounded to see this series of posts on DU trivializing the discrimination that continues against LGBT individuals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #20)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 08:08 PM

35. As a lesbian - yes, there are female gay people, look it up - I find your post very offensive.

I'm an older lesbian woman. It sounds like you don't know many gay folks, and those few you may know are probably affluent young white men.

Before lecturing gay folks, you might want to broaden your own horizons.

Oh, and the accusation that it's our fault that Trump was elected? That's so 2004.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #20)

Fri Jun 8, 2018, 04:00 AM

40. not. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #18)

Fri Jun 8, 2018, 03:56 AM

39. hear, hear. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 04:22 PM

22. Are you watching "Pose?"

FX’s new drama devotes the kind of attention (and budget) that typically goes to conflicted straight male antiheros to the glittering grunge of New York City’s ballroom scene circa 1987. It centers LGBTQ communities whose ambitions are so much bigger than the infinitesimal spaces society affords them. It weaves stories of triumph and steel will with the creeping terror of the AIDS epidemic that constantly reminded everyone that this one wild night could very well be their last. Its stars are lost queer teens, hopeless romantic sex workers, defiant trans matriarchs.

There’s simply never been a show on TV quite like “Pose” – a fact that “Pose” knows, relishes, and celebrates.

https://variety.com/2018/tv/reviews/pose-fx-review-ryan-murphy-1202824492/


On screen and beautiful! Best family show on television!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Reply #22)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 05:05 PM

27. We have recorded it.

However, we haven't watched it yet. It is a rare exception in a sea of heteronormative programming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #27)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 05:28 PM

33. I'm also watching "Vida" on Starz...

about the passing of a mother who came out years after she threw one of her daughters away after catching her with another girl.

These are all about sharing human experiences each and every one of us has felt - and sharing experiences many of us have no idea of!

We are missing so much in our lives - our real lives! - by not seeing these stories on screen!

This is how we understand we all have much more in common than we ever know!

Great post, BtA!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 04:45 PM

25. The Handmaid's Tale is very good at incorporating gay characters. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to charlyvi (Reply #25)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 05:12 PM

31. Given our current political climate...

...I am having a hard time wanting to see a possible future. Know what I mean? I liked the book. We will probably binge it this summer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #31)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 05:16 PM

32. Yes, it's difficult to watch.

It took a long time before I tackled it, but it's absolutely mesmerizing tv.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 04:57 PM

26. Supergirl's sister Alex and Maggie?

Yeah, I know Lesbian is easy...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #26)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 05:10 PM

30. Berlanti has a few gay characters.

Sara (bi/lesbian) and "The Director" on "Legends", and Mr. Terrific on "Arrow", and they are at least main characters (albeit ensemble ones), just like Alex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 08:19 PM

36. FWIW: I had figured out Dumbledore was gay before Rowling

made it "official".

It was pretty obvious in the later books.

I'm not gonna defend her or the HP franchise, though. I totally agree with the criticism of playing coy with it.
Also, the last book was dreadful and ruined the entire series for me, so I don't consider myself a fan and don't recommend it to others.

On a side note: Do you watch "Instinct"?

I adore Alan Cumming and I love the show, although it's starting to seem like police procedurals are taking over.

But I love the fact that the main character is openly gay and it's not even a "thing" it's just who he is and it's no big deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coventina (Reply #36)

Thu Jun 7, 2018, 09:07 PM

37. You know...

you're right! Not even a 'thing!'

When we don't even notice it anymore, that's when we're getting close to being done with it!

"Instinct" has been renewed, too!

"The series made history as the first broadcast drama with an openly gay lead character."

https://deadline.com/2018/05/instinct-renewed-season-2-cbs-alan-cummings-1202383590/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)

Fri Jun 8, 2018, 04:15 AM

42. I thought about this when it happened

But I'm heterosexual so I didn't think it was my place to say anything.

Thanks for this...food for thought and checking my privilege.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Original post)

Fri Jun 8, 2018, 08:30 AM

43. TV has gotten a bit better but movies seem stuck in amber on this issue

I just can't imagine telling Freddie Mercury's story without mentioning his being gay or his having had AIDS. I had been looking forward to that film but not now. At least TV is starting to get better. the CW alone has been amazing (more gay SCI FY characters than everywhere else combined likely). That said there is room for improvement even on TV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread