Gay Scene Cut From UK Torchwood

ShadowsofHope

Outsider
Nov 1, 2009
2,623
0
0
viranimus said:
Good?

Because Starz has gotten downright ridiculous in forcing sex into things that it honestly should not even be present in. Seriously, they in effect ruined the spartacus franchise by turning it into soft core porn.

So perhaps they can use that extra time in focusing on making the plot a little less comically ridiculous.
How was Spartacus "ruined" with uncensored nudity and sexuality? The Roman culture of those days was very liberal with both heterosexual and homosexual relations, both private and public. Orgies, extra-marital sex, an emphasis on sexual prowess = veracity of gender, etc were all considered simply pleasurable acts of socialization and celebration. Western society under the influence of Judeo-Christian values might condemn such now, but white-washing history to fit that influence is simply wrong. If the producers and writers found such content applicable to the plot of the series, then they had every right to do so, neverminding the occasional prude that might watch it just to be "offended".

And yes, I have watched the entire Spartacus series so far.
 

Deathninja19

New member
Dec 7, 2009
341
0
0
Hamster at Dawn said:
Isn't 9pm the watershed? Or is it 10? Either way, I'm annoyed that they're cutting anything from the show regardless of how relevant it is. If the creators decided to put that scene in the show then they must have had a damn good reason. If the watershed is 10 then why the hell are they showing it before 10 in the first place? Hell, why did the BBC even let it be filmed if they weren't going to show it? The BBC are a serious bunch of trolls with this and their seasons that end just as you're getting into the show and then give no hint as to whether or not the show will return at all until 2 years later when they release another 4 episodes. They don't even have that many good shows.
It's generally seen that 9pm is the watershed and 10pm is for harder stuff. Some channels are a bit different like channel 4 which is far more open about sex and sexuality, recently it aired a sex education program at 8pm and that had a load of wobbly bits in it but that was educational so it can get away with it.

I guess they're protecting the children, oh wait we have the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe yay morals.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,907
1,774
118
Country
United Kingdom
Mandalore_15 said:
For the BBC, that's the average TV license payer, and I'm pretty sure the average TV license payer doesn't enjoy watching gay sex (the people that do are a tiny minority). Hell, Torchwood as a spin-off of Dr. Who still has part of the latter show's image, and many parents wouldn't want their (admittedly older) children watching stuff like that. The fact of the matter is, if the audience isn't ready for it, it makes sense not to show it, especially in this case where the audience has actually PAID for the production of the show.
Again, not the point.

There have been some incredibly graphic straight sex scenes in Torchwood. The issue is not that children might be harmed by watching it unless you assume that watching graphic scenes of gay sex would harm them more, in which case evidence please.

This is not about pleasing the license payer, this is about avoiding complaints. What proportion of viewers watching that scene do you think would complain? Consider that the viewership of the show is about 2.3 million, and the total complains issued to the BSC is about 6000 total per year. The average viewer would not complain. The average viewer would not see a problem. A small minority of homophobes, and perhaps a few stupid parents who didn't realize from the last series that graphic sex scenes are pretty standard Torchwood fare, would be offended enough to complain.

If the responsibility of the BBC is to the average license payer, then they have a responsibility not to bow to pressure from a few hundred people who clearly have their own issues and motivations.

Mandalore_15 said:
"Homophobia" implies a fear or hatred of gay people, which a) I don't have, and b) isn't in dispute in those circumstances.
Well done. Aren't you special.

The point is that noone should care what you, random individual, don't want to see. You are capable of turning your television on and off or changing channel. If I had the great desire to watch Torchwood, which I don't, I would have to sit through many scenes of graphic heterosexual sex and unless I had lived under a rock I would know when I started watching that I might see such a thing. Presumably that's not an issue because you personally don't mind it, but if it was for me, and it's not, the BBC would not have any responsibility to pander to my needs. The only reason to make such decisions is on the basis of genuine and legally accepted obscenity, not because a small minority of people think buttsecks is too icky to watch.

The BBC caters to minority audiences all the time, because if you cater to the same audience all the time then eventually that audience will be saturated, they can't spend all day every day watching television.

What's being proved in this case is that BBC doesn't have the balls to stand up to a small barrage of complaints for the sake of that principle, and contrary to your stereotypically heterosexual grumbling, it's precisely because gay people don't complain that often that it becomes an acceptable decision. What is funny is watching people like you ***** about minorities demanding rights while asserting your right not to have to see the slightest hint of anything gay, because it's not enough for you to have remote control, the corporation itself has to pander to you as well.

Cry me a river, seriously.
 

jigilojoe

New member
Mar 4, 2009
310
0
0
Seeing as there's shows coming out recently in the UK (Sirens on C4 is the first one that comes to mind) which show the stigma of gay people and have gay scenes in, it kinda annoys me that the beeb would say something like that. Everyone knows Torchwood is the randy man's Dr Who, like what Game of Thrones is to Lord of the Rings.

Although there is a kid fanbase of Torchwood, watched it since I was 12, since it's a Who spinoff, and Dr Who is more of a niche thing over there so I can kind of understand.

I don't usually post videos, but I think the Dead Ringers Torchwood spoof is appropriate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqFFFgdo1Zc

EDIT: It is the Sun, bear in mind they'll take any story at the moment that doesn't involve journalists being evil so it may not be true, any of you Yanks seen this sex scene to prove it?
 

Doclector

New member
Aug 22, 2009
5,010
0
0
What the hell? I thought we were past this crap! I ain't even gay but intolerance really, really pisses me off. Are we in britain that backward that a gay dudes ass would bring hellish backlash upon any broadcaster showing it?

I just don't even man. So glamourising a load of useless superficial f***s in "the only way is Essex" is acceptable and considered not to be damaging to society, but suggesting an "action hero" character could also be a sexually active homosexual therefore breaking the stereotype of homosexuals in fiction is considered wrong? What next!? Is this to go further? Will BBC 1's luthur get cancelled because the British audience are considered so backwards that the thought of a black detective would blow our tiny intolerant minds!?

God I hope they're not right. I really hope this is just the bbc over estimating how bigoted and easily offended their audience is, because if this country is really that moronic, well, I don't want to live on this island anymore [/farnsworthparaphrasing]
 

viranimus

Thread killer
Nov 20, 2009
4,952
0
0
ShadowsofHope said:
How was Spartacus "ruined" with uncensored nudity and sexuality? The Roman culture of those days was very liberal with both heterosexual and homosexual relations, both private and public. Orgies, extra-marital sex, an emphasis on sexual prowess = veracity of gender, etc were all considered simply pleasurable acts of socialization and celebration. Western society under the influence of Judeo-Christian values might condemn such now, but white-washing history to fit that influence is simply wrong. If the producers and writers found such content applicable to the plot of the series, then they had every right to do so, neverminding the occasional prude that might watch it just to be "offended".

And yes, I have watched the entire Spartacus series so far.
Really? Ok.

Its because there was entirely too much of it and really there was no need for it at all. The constant ever present sexuality took an otherwise above average tv show with a decent degree of intrigue and transformed it into a guilty pleasure type tv show because of the constant parade of sexual context that added nothing to the narrative and is really only there for the sake of trying to be progressive, or out "dirty" HBO's offerings and really thats the only reason it is there. Not because its "historically accurate"


That is entirely too much reliance on sex for any show. So yeah in my opinion having a show where there was that much focus on sex kept me from being able to recommend the show to anyone else, and also resulted in having to be more cautious in watching it depending on who was around at the time, cause there is nothing like trying to explain why you are watching porn, when your not even actually watching porn.

I mean dont get me wrong. I am not offended personally my the show, or the shows of sex. That really does not bother me. But I am highly offended on hiding behind sex when youve basically got no better content to fill in the blanks especially when it serves no real purpose and does nothing to benefit the show. Much as to why I am happy to see a scene that clearly would have no real bearing on the plot and little more than a gratuitous attention grab being omitted from the episode of Torchwood.

Simply put... had they reduced Spartacus duration to a 30 minute show and limited (not removed) the excessive and gratuitous sex, the show would have been much better for it. However as it stands, all your really left with is a show that is too porn-y for regular TV, and too much plot for cinemax late night. So yes, in effect(or in other words, Almost or might as well have been), ruined and thats my opinion of it, no more no less.
 

GoodEyeSniper

New member
Sep 9, 2008
82
0
0
BOOM! Just wan to point out that THE GAY SCENE IS NOT BEING CUT FROM THE BRITISH VIEWING! However, the scene has been edited to omit shots of Barrowman's naked arse (from hereon to be referred to as "Barrowbum").

Either way I wasn't particularly concerned by The Beeb's censorship decision. The channel that is hosting the American showing is Starz, whose last hit was Spartacus: Blood and Sand, which makes it obvious that they don't care about having a reputation of sexy violence and violent sex. The BBC however are the epitome of mainstream, by-the-books, television. I don't think it's fair that they should be forced to uphold the standards of a completely different network because the showrunners defected.
 

WolfThomas

Man must have a code.
Dec 21, 2007
5,292
0
0
I've always been a bit disappointed about how the majority of Jack's sex scenes in Torchwood were gay. Not because they were gay of course, but because it was a narrowing of his original character, a 51st century pan-sexual. He should have been trying to have sex with every sentient animal, mineral and vegetable (which is the Wwhoverse is possible). A great example was Captain John Hart (played by the amazing James Marsters) who walked into a bar and started picking out who he found attractive, both male and female, and later upon sighting a poodle declared how sexy it was.

Future sex and sexuality should be interesting and strange to a contemporary human, but they never really explored that.
 

Hipsy_Gypsy

New member
Jun 2, 2011
329
0
0
Being after the watershed I honestly don't see the problem. Really only just seeing his bare behind from what I've gathered thus far so all the more: big deal.
I don't actually watch Torchwood (or Doctor Who for that matter. I really don't understand the hype) so I honestly haven't the foggiest how explicit it ever gets. Or what time/channel it's on prior to looking at this, hah.

Mandalore_15 said:
Not a big deal. Stuff like that is almost completely unnecessary in a sci-fi show, and seeing as gay people are in the minority, it makes sense to go with what the majority audience would want.
Ditto. Plus if they want naked men, there's always True Blood. Which, er, again I don't watch but I've seen more of it than Torchwood and Doctor Who put together which is only an episode and a snippet.


x
 

Riobux

New member
Apr 15, 2009
1,955
0
0
TimeLord said:
While the BBC maintain that this doesn't change the story in the slightest, I am rather offended that the show has to be toned down for us British. The sad thing is, if it was aired in the UK then there probably would be complaints.
I'm sorry to pull this move but: Called it.
 

ShadowsofHope

Outsider
Nov 1, 2009
2,623
0
0
viranimus said:
ShadowsofHope said:
How was Spartacus "ruined" with uncensored nudity and sexuality? The Roman culture of those days was very liberal with both heterosexual and homosexual relations, both private and public. Orgies, extra-marital sex, an emphasis on sexual prowess = veracity of gender, etc were all considered simply pleasurable acts of socialization and celebration. Western society under the influence of Judeo-Christian values might condemn such now, but white-washing history to fit that influence is simply wrong. If the producers and writers found such content applicable to the plot of the series, then they had every right to do so, neverminding the occasional prude that might watch it just to be "offended".

And yes, I have watched the entire Spartacus series so far.
Really? Ok.

Its because there was entirely too much of it and really there was no need for it at all. The constant ever present sexuality took an otherwise above average tv show with a decent degree of intrigue and transformed it into a guilty pleasure type tv show because of the constant parade of sexual context that added nothing to the narrative and is really only there for the sake of trying to be progressive, or out "dirty" HBO's offerings and really thats the only reason it is there. Not because its "historically accurate"


That is entirely too much reliance on sex for any show. So yeah in my opinion having a show where there was that much focus on sex kept me from being able to recommend the show to anyone else, and also resulted in having to be more cautious in watching it depending on who was around at the time, cause there is nothing like trying to explain why you are watching porn, when your not even actually watching porn.

I mean dont get me wrong. I am not offended personally my the show, or the shows of sex. That really does not bother me. But I am highly offended on hiding behind sex when youve basically got no better content to fill in the blanks especially when it serves no real purpose and does nothing to benefit the show. Much as to why I am happy to see a scene that clearly would have no real bearing on the plot and little more than a gratuitous attention grab being omitted from the episode of Torchwood.

Simply put... had they reduced Spartacus duration to a 30 minute show and limited (not removed) the excessive and gratuitous sex, the show would have been much better for it. However as it stands, all your really left with is a show that is too porn-y for regular TV, and too much plot for cinemax late night. So yes, in effect(or in other words, Almost or might as well have been), ruined and thats my opinion of it, no more no less.
Very well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I felt both plot and sexual content were in equal measure of one another in my opinion, and complimented each other in relevancy to the culture portrayed in the series. But apparently, you do not share anywhere near the same thoughts. We'll leave it at this.
 

BlackWidower

New member
Nov 16, 2009
783
0
0
Alucard788 said:
BlackWidower said:
Two things: The uncut version is airing on Starz? So not only do the Yanks get the show nearly a week earlier, they also get extra bonus scenes? Fucking BBC! It's origianlly a British drama! The Americans shouldn't be getting preferental treatment, you should!

Also, the third episode hasn't aired yet...in either country. Not until this coming Friday.
I'm...kinda amazed, and actually really impressed, that mano a mano uncensored is on US shores. Times really are changing. That's a good thing!

Bravo to Starz! ^_^
Not for the Brits. That's the problem here. But yes, this is good for America, though it is on Starz, a premium cable channel, not a semi-public-funded network. Maybe that's why it's not airing on the BBC.
 

Mandalore_15

New member
Aug 12, 2009
741
0
0
evilthecat said:
Mandalore_15 said:
For the BBC, that's the average TV license payer, and I'm pretty sure the average TV license payer doesn't enjoy watching gay sex (the people that do are a tiny minority). Hell, Torchwood as a spin-off of Dr. Who still has part of the latter show's image, and many parents wouldn't want their (admittedly older) children watching stuff like that. The fact of the matter is, if the audience isn't ready for it, it makes sense not to show it, especially in this case where the audience has actually PAID for the production of the show.
Again, not the point.

There have been some incredibly graphic straight sex scenes in Torchwood. The issue is not that children might be harmed by watching it unless you assume that watching graphic scenes of gay sex would harm them more, in which case evidence please.

This is not about pleasing the license payer, this is about avoiding complaints. What proportion of viewers watching that scene do you think would complain? Consider that the viewership of the show is about 2.3 million, and the total complains issued to the BSC is about 6000 total per year. The average viewer would not complain. The average viewer would not see a problem. A small minority of homophobes, and perhaps a few stupid parents who didn't realize from the last series that graphic sex scenes are pretty standard Torchwood fare, would be offended enough to complain.

If the responsibility of the BBC is to the average license payer, then they have a responsibility not to bow to pressure from a few hundred people who clearly have their own issues and motivations.
Oh OK, so because I don't agree with you I'm clearly missing the point? Save your condescension for someone who gives a damn. The fact of the matter is this: straight sex scenes are considered more acceptable by the public at large in the UK than gay ones. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but that's just the way it is.

Do you really think the BBC would make a decision like this based purely on the possibility they'd get a few hundred obscenity complaints? No, I doubt it. The BBC has been actively trying to promote the inclusion of sexual minorities throughout a lot of its broadcasting (see the 2010 consultation paper at http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/pdf/diversity_consultation_300910.pdf ). If they made a decision to cut it from Torchwood, it's because they don't feel the show's audience is ready for it or wants to see it. Besides, if there is already so much "implied" gay sex in the show, then what are you bitching about? Toning down a sex scene for the sake of an audience has happened thousands of times before, and will continue to happen.

evilthecat said:
Mandalore_15 said:
"Homophobia" implies a fear or hatred of gay people, which a) I don't have, and b) isn't in dispute in those circumstances.
Well done. Aren't you special.

The point is that noone should care what you, random individual, don't want to see. You are capable of turning your television on and off or changing channel. If I had the great desire to watch Torchwood, which I don't, I would have to sit through many scenes of graphic heterosexual sex and unless I had lived under a rock I would know when I started watching that I might see such a thing. Presumably that's not an issue because you personally don't mind it, but if it was for me, and it's not, the BBC would not have any responsibility to pander to my needs. The only reason to make such decisions is on the basis of genuine and legally accepted obscenity, not because a small minority of people think buttsecks is too icky to watch.

The BBC caters to minority audiences all the time, because if you cater to the same audience all the time then eventually that audience will be saturated, they can't spend all day every day watching television.

What's being proved in this case is that BBC doesn't have the balls to stand up to a small barrage of complaints for the sake of that principle, and contrary to your stereotypically heterosexual grumbling, it's precisely because gay people don't complain that often that it becomes an acceptable decision. What is funny is watching people like you ***** about minorities demanding rights while asserting your right not to have to see the slightest hint of anything gay, because it's not enough for you to have remote control, the corporation itself has to pander to you as well.

Cry me a river, seriously.
I've never heard so much bollocks in my entire life. Do you honestly think that when producing a show a production company like the BBC think "oh, well if people don't like it they can just turn it off". Come on... EVERY decision they make is designed for the audience. Sure, they target sectors of the public for audience, but if there is as much heterosexual sex in Torchwood as you claim, then they aren't mainly aiming for the gay market, are they? And in that case, they're going to tailor their content for the largest audience. It's a little principle called utilitarianism; perhaps you could read a book and learn about it.

Also, congrats on the not-so-subtle implication that I'm a homophobe, despite me not asserting in any way that I would object to seeing the scene. This leads me to believe that you're either an overly-reactionary, self-entitled homosexual, or an uppity, bored middle-class youth with nothing better to do with his time than to fight other people's battles just to feel like he has something to do.

If it's the former: get over it. There's a world outside you, and the vast, vast majority of it doesn't care. If it's the latter, the UAF has your number. I look forward to seeing you bricking Jews in the street by next week.

Crawl out of your own arse, seriously.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,907
1,774
118
Country
United Kingdom
Mandalore_15 said:
Oh OK, so because I don't agree with you I'm clearly missing the point? Save your condescension for someone who gives a damn.
Go back to the original post again, and then maybe read some journalism about the decision. Do you see the very clear words 'complains from viewers'.

So yes, you're missing the point by talking about aiming at a statistical majority of viewers. They say it's about complaints, and unless they're lying, then the decision was taken on the basis of complains. So yes, you're missing the point.

Mandalore_15 said:
Sure, they target sectors of the public for audience, but if there is as much heterosexual sex in Torchwood as you claim, then they aren't mainly aiming for the gay market, are they? And in that case, they're going to tailor their content for the largest audience. It's a little principle called utilitarianism; perhaps you could read a book and learn about it.
Jeremy Bentham just facepalmed. Check what words mean before you use them. Double check if you're going to imply that other people don't know the meaning of them. Utilitarianism is a concept in moral philosophy, not a concept in marketing. In which book did you read that utilitarianism can be used in that sense?

What's actually offensive, and the reason I'm perfectly comfortable 'implying' that you're a homophobe despite your little hissy fit about it, is your insistence on discrepancy. You assume that there's a 'gay market' who only want to see gay things and are entirely separate from most people. That is frankly bollocks and shows you know nothing about gay culture or the gay community. Maybe you should look at the world outside of yourself, oh that's right.. you don't think you should have to. After all, you're the majority right?

Then there's your implication that the vast majority doesn't care about gay rights issues or representation issues. Well, maybe that's true to a degree, but it's not nearly as true as you seem to think. If you personally don't care, that's your problem. It makes you remarkably privileged and self-entitled and I have no qualms about pointing that out, but it's within your rights.

I actually don't mind so much that the thing was pulled. As many others have pointed out, there's a pretty good case for making this season less explicit than the last based on the earlier timeslot. What I do mind is bigoted people (for want of a better word) talking about how it's right to pull gay content in particular because the population isn't ready for it. Sorry, but you can all get ready for it. The rest of the world has to watch heterosexual content all the time. We don't mind, we don't complain, we understand that there are other people with different sexual preferences and that, shockingly, you have sex and sometimes that appears in narratives and films. You seem to have a problem with that, and that's my issue with you.

Also, since you've made this so fucking personal. I'm bisexual, I have no issue with heterosexual sex because I do it quite a lot. I have no issue with most heterosexual people. What I do have an issue with is people who expect privileged treatment because that's 'just the way things are'. Stop being one of those people.

Also, I'm pretty close to reporting you for that last post. Don't be offensive.
 

Mandalore_15

New member
Aug 12, 2009
741
0
0
evilthecat said:
Mandalore_15 said:
Oh OK, so because I don't agree with you I'm clearly missing the point? Save your condescension for someone who gives a damn.
Go back to the original post again, and then maybe read some journalism about the decision. Do you see the very clear words 'complains from viewers'.

So yes, you're missing the point by talking about aiming at a statistical majority of viewers. They say it's about complaints, and unless they're lying, then the decision was taken on the basis of complains. So yes, you're missing the point.
You seriously think that a decision not to show something to avoid complaints is made purely on the basis of the complaints themselves? If the BBC got 200 complaints but could be secure in the knowledge that the rest of the 2.3 million people were perfectly happy to watch the scene, there would be nothing to be done about it. The point is what those 200 complaints would represent. An organisation like the BBC knows that for every one person that complains, there are likely to be a thousand people who won't, despite feeling aggrieved. However, the chances of that 1000 people tuning in to the show next week just got a whole lot slimmer. TV broadcasters have whole logistics departments whose job it is to work this kind of shit out. It's all about the ratings. No-one cares about 200 people in 2.3 million.

evilthecat said:
Mandalore_15 said:
Sure, they target sectors of the public for audience, but if there is as much heterosexual sex in Torchwood as you claim, then they aren't mainly aiming for the gay market, are they? And in that case, they're going to tailor their content for the largest audience. It's a little principle called utilitarianism; perhaps you could read a book and learn about it.
Jeremy Bentham just facepalmed. Check what words mean before you use them. Double check if you're going to imply that other people don't know the meaning of them. Utilitarianism is a concept in moral philosophy, not a concept in marketing. In which book did you read that utilitarianism can be used in that sense?
Congrats on wikipedia use, feel free to help yourself to "+1 internet" or whatever...

"Utilitarianism": the idea that the greatest good should be done for the greatest number. How can this not be applied to marketing? Political philosophy doesn't exist in a vacuum you know. Philosophy is continually adapted to other situations (I would know, I did it for practically my entire masters degree). In the case of maximising the enjoyment of the biggest number of your viewers, this is utilitarianism TV-style. I don't see an issue here.

evilthecat said:
What's actually offensive, and the reason I'm perfectly comfortable 'implying' that you're a homophobe despite your little hissy fit about it, is your insistence on discrepancy. You assume that there's a 'gay market' who only want to see gay things and are entirely separate from most people. That is frankly bollocks and shows you know nothing about gay culture or the gay community. Maybe you should look at the world outside of yourself, oh that's right.. you don't think you should have to. After all, you're the majority right?
You're taking my point far too literally here. I never said the gay market only wants to see gay things. I said there is a gay market which, y'know, consists of gay people. A gay scene in a film or TV show is clearly aimed to appeal to this market, because frankly no-one else is going to get the kind of enjoyment out of it that such a scene is designed to illicit.

As for knowing nothing about "gay culture" or "the gay community", what is there to know? Some guys grow up wanting to fuck women and some guys grow up wanting to fuck other guys. This is only a big deal if you want it to be, and frankly to me it seems that more often than not it's gay people that make a big deal out of it (John Barrowman being a prime example). I thought the whole idea of gaining equality was to become one with the rest of society, not to segregate yourselves, flaunt your differences and wave them in other people's faces. To me, this is what the idea of a "gay community" represents: a non-integrationist community by itself, self-defeating and somewhat pathetic. One of my best friends and band-mates is gay and feels the same way. I'm sure a lot of gay people do. If you want to win, the best thing to do is to put forward the idea that you're really just normal people with different sleeping habits.

evilthecat said:
Then there's your implication that the vast majority doesn't care about gay rights issues or representation issues. Well, maybe that's true to a degree, but it's not nearly as true as you seem to think. If you personally don't care, that's your problem. It makes you remarkably privileged and self-entitled and I have no qualms about pointing that out, but it's within your rights.
Gay rights issues? Last time I checked you had the same civil liberties as everyone else (the only exception I can think of being adoption, but there are strong reasons for prohibiting this). It might be time to let that one go...

Representation might be a whole other ball game, but I'm finding it difficult to see what you're trying to achieve here. We've already discussed that homosexuality has been shown frequently in Torchwood and that most of its audience is accepting of this. But if most of the audience is straight, putting in a gratuitous gay sex scene does very little other than going too far in proving a point.

The problem with "equal representation" is that it has been taken over the years to mean that a straight person should be able to watch two guys having sex with each other without finding it distasteful, or he's a homophobe. This is abject rubbish. I find Greek food revolting; doesn't mean I hate people that enjoy it. Forgive the simplistic metaphor, but it's pretty much the same with homosexuality. You can find the idea of gay sex distasteful without harbouring any ill will towards those that don't.

evilthecat said:
I actually don't mind so much that the thing was pulled. As many others have pointed out, there's a pretty good case for making this season less explicit than the last based on the earlier timeslot. What I do mind is bigoted people (for want of a better word) talking about how it's right to pull gay content in particular because the population isn't ready for it. Sorry, but you can all get ready for it. The rest of the world has to watch heterosexual content all the time. We don't mind, we don't complain, we understand that there are other people with different sexual preferences and that, shockingly, you have sex and sometimes that appears in narratives and films. You seem to have a problem with that, and that's my issue with you.

Also, since you've made this so fucking personal. I'm bisexual, I have no issue with heterosexual sex because I do it quite a lot. I have no issue with most heterosexual people. What I do have an issue with is people who expect privileged treatment because that's 'just the way things are'. Stop being one of those people.

Also, I'm pretty close to reporting you for that last post. Don't be offensive.
Again, you're assigning points from my argument about society as a whole me. Of course I don't think gay sex should never appear in narratives and films. All I ever said was I understood the BBC's standpoint in toning down a gay sex scene based on what it viewed the majority of its viewers' standpoint to be. Your issue with me is, sadly, not an issue at all.

As for the rest of the world watching heterosexual content all the time, I'm afraid it's just one of those sad truths you'll have to get used to. Gay films will always be niche because they'll always be a minority. That's the way the world works: supply and demand. Railing against it won't do you any good, just accept it and move on. No-one's going to stop you watching gay films on DVD or whatever.

Oh, and you made it personal when you (by your own admission) said I was a homophobe. I'm not. I'm just a person who feels that minorities shouldn't get a bigger voice than everyone else simply by virtue of being a minority, and gays are hardly alone in this category. Political correctness brought this country to its knees. Let's stop throwing fuel on the fire, eh?
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,907
1,774
118
Country
United Kingdom
Mandalore_15 said:
An organisation like the BBC knows that for every one person that complains, there are likely to be a thousand people who won't, despite feeling aggrieved. However, the chances of that 1000 people tuning in to the show next week just got a whole lot slimmer. TV broadcasters have whole logistics departments whose job it is to work this kind of shit out. It's all about the ratings. No-one cares about 200 people in 2.3 million.
I see the point you're making, and perhaps if we were talking about a commercially funded broadcasting cooperation in an entirely unregulated world, I would take the point. However, it doesn't change the principle, which is that the obscenity or otherwise of a scene should not be subject to the sexual orientation of those involved. It's one thing to pull a scene on the basis of clear and universally applicable guidelines regarding obscenity and age-appropriateness (which the BBC has) and another to pull a scene because you fear the public might not like that it has gay stuff in it.

The programme has been made already. The BBC funded and approved it. If what the BBC bosses have done is, as many others have suggested, to remove that scene along with others due to revised timeslot and a general removal of adult content from the show as a whole, that's fine. If, as you suggest, they've specifically removed content which depicts gay sex because, although it doesn't fit any guidelines for obscenity they worry the public will react badly to having gay sex on TV is prejudicial and contrary to the principles on which the BBC is meant to operate. The BBC is license funded precisely to ensure that it is able to represent the principles on which the UK as a society functions and not the commercial interests of its shareholders. Catering to the prejudice of a minority is despicable, and whether it results in higher ratings is only important in terms of demonstrating the cost/efficiency of the license fee system.

I say meant to operate, and I have no great faith that anything in this world operates as it should when it comes to sexuality issues, but we should expect better than that. To simply suggest that this is how it is and we should get used to it is not a helpful attitude.

I'm not really going to engage with the argument about how significant the numbers of UK gay license payers are because I don't think it's terribly important, but it's not the insignificant minority you seem to think.

Mandalore_15 said:
Congrats on wikipedia use, feel free to help yourself to "+1 internet" or whatever...

"Utilitarianism": the idea that the greatest good should be done for the greatest number. How can this not be applied to marketing? Political philosophy doesn't exist in a vacuum you know. Philosophy is continually adapted to other situations (I would know, I did it for practically my entire masters degree). In the case of maximising the enjoyment of the biggest number of your viewers, this is utilitarianism TV-style. I don't see an issue here.
I didn't use Wikipedia, dear. You aren't the only one with a masters degree.

I have some serious problems with utilitarianism as an idea, but leaving those aside for now. For all the adaptability of philosophy, you cannot transpose terms out of their discursive environment. What does moral good mean in terms of broadcasting? How do you define it in that context, and more importantly how would you measure it in the outcome? Simply equating 'more ratings' with 'good' is not utilitarianism. In order to take a utilitarian position you need to establish a moral good which can be observed in the outcome of the situation. You do not determine good by looking at how effectively something functions, you determine it by looking at the outcome produced.

The wider problem with utilitarianism is that it predicates itself on a liberal assumption that human needs and thus moral good can be quantitatively measured from an objective standpoint because all human beings and their happiness is substitutable for one another. It's not possible to establish that objective standpoint because ultimately, we have no way of measuring other people's pleasure or happiness or the fulfilment of their desire. I don't think it's possible to seriously uphold utilitarianism as a viable concept in the wake of psychoanalysis, we can't keep pretending that people are all the same and all have the same quantifiable and equal needs. It doesn't work.

Mandalore_15 said:
You're taking my point far too literally here. I never said the gay market only wants to see gay things. I said there is a gay market which, y'know, consists of gay people. A gay scene in a film or TV show is clearly aimed to appeal to this market, because frankly no-one else is going to get the kind of enjoyment out of it that such a scene is designed to illicit.
I disagree..

I have a lesbian friend whose favourite film is 'In the Realm of the Senses'. If you've seen that film, it's basically 2 hours of constant unsimulated sex scenes. Is my friend aroused by the sex scenes. No, because she's a lesbian. Is she moved by the emotional context in which it all takes place. Yes, very much so. The film has a massive effect on her despite being incredibly sexual and incredibly heterosexual.

Something most gay people learn quickly is that very little visual media is aimed as them. That is starting to change, and certainly in fields like advertising you can see the ambiguity creeping in, but in cinema and in visual media generally. No, it's still absent. Most gay people never watch queer cinema, some do and find it a bit stylistically annoying.

If a normal film has a sex scene, the purpose is not generally to give you something to masturbate to. It's to illustrate something about the characters and/or their relationship. That meaning transcends sexual orientation. You don't need a specific sexual orientation to enjoy that, and if you genuinely find that you can't enjoy such a scene because it isn't specifically gay/straight/furry/whatever then you're either taking it on the wrong level and assuming you should be able to masturbate to everything on television or you just have a wider problem.

Mandalore_15 said:
I thought the whole idea of gaining equality was to become one with the rest of society, not to segregate yourselves, flaunt your differences and wave them in other people's faces.
Tried (it was called the homophile movement). Failed. Guess why?

'Becoming one with the rest of society' requires society to make some accommodation. You can't expect gay people to assimilate perfectly into a society which is still remarkably homophobic and at the very least heterocentric, because that's just effectively asking them to shut up because society should only be catering to the needs of heterosexuals and everyone else should just accept that they're not important to the grand scheme of things and live miserable closeted lives. It's a terrible thing you're asking.

Seriously, it's clear you know nothing about sexuality issues or ideological history in this area, so maybe don't be quite so strong in your opinion. It makes you sound.. more than a little judgemental.

Mandalore_15 said:
Gay rights issues? Last time I checked you had the same civil liberties as everyone else (the only exception I can think of being adoption, but there are strong reasons for prohibiting this). It might be time to let that one go...
I'll let this one go, but only because if I argue with you about it I'm going to get myself banned. Needless to say, you know nothing. You clearly have no specific knowledge, no relevant experience and very little understanding of what I'm talking about.

Mandalore_15 said:
Oh, and you made it personal when you (by your own admission) said I was a homophobe. I'm not. I'm just a person who feels that minorities shouldn't get a bigger voice than everyone else simply by virtue of being a minority, and gays are hardly alone in this category. Political correctness brought this country to its knees. Let's stop throwing fuel on the fire, eh?
No, that's the person you think you are.

What you are far more likely to be is a person who has become so used to have everything around you exist to cater specifically to you that as soon as anything disrupts that contented little bubble by, you know, daring to shift the spotlight to someone else or provide something someone else wants you feel you're being prejudiced against.

Really, I could say that almost everyone who has ever used the term 'political correctness', because nothing displays such a complete ignorance of real minority issues than wheeling out that completely meaningless Daily-Mail-ism.
 

Mr. 47

New member
May 25, 2011
435
0
0
I have a temptation to say 'bollocks' about this...
I wouldn't expect that in the UK, I would expect it in North America, but not in the UK.