So.. this is pissing me off quite a bit. I just saw the newest episode of Black Sails SPOILER ALERT and it turns out Flint is gay (Or at least bi since he still sleeps with Miranda) It explains why he had uneasy relations with Miranda and never went out whoring. So, for me, it ties in well with the main story and the character's actions and wants/needs. I'm very glad the writers planned this since the beginning of the show and never let his sexuality BE his personality. And out of nowhere, or the woodworks, homophobes are popping out all over the internet bitching about how "cliche/passe" it is to have a gay character, pushing the gay agenda, how it wasn't "necessary", but they never made a damn peep about the lesbian scenes since episode one season one... Like, they'll stop watching the show, after admitting that they loved Flint, but somehow his sexuality now changes everything? Like he isn't the same murdering borderline-psychotic character we all fell in love with... "We get it, there are gays out there. Stop shoving it down our throats." like F'ing seriously?! It's a F'ing story and the character just so happens to be gay. Bigots and homophobes, the lot of you! /rage
... I would edit the title to have a question mark at the end showing that you're baffled by the perspective: I thought you were sharing your own.
You will always get a few vocal neckbeards on the internet; the problem is that people pay them far too much attention.
But, to address the initial point being made.... I've never seen the show, but I am left to wonder if perhaps the show created an initial zone of safety for male viewers who, without said zone, might not have watched to begin with had they felt that boy+boy bow-chica-wow-wow might happen? I understand that Walking Dead also just had a gay male moment (another show I don't watch), but that the comics also had this element as part of the story-line, so this would not have been news to hardcore fans, but instead an expected moment. No zone of safety there for boys who can't deal.
There's just so much of it! My mind just can't comprehend it. Apparently it's a prequel to Treasure Island by Robert Stevenson. As far as I know, Flint had already died and his sexuality was never mentioned. So, I guess everyone felt "safe" watching it and tricked by the sexy lesbian scenes that never foreshadows a gay kiss It's just redunk people have an actual issue with it. If it was just completely random, out of character, and he suddenly starts talking with a lisp and shit...
Ok, well then it might be about viewer expectation. Richard K. Morgan, a good looking British chap, who, amongst a number of other series he's written, wrote a sword and sorcery series that MCs a gay male character that starts with The Steel Remains. The series is up front from the start as to the MC's sexuality, and there is also plenty of pretty graphic sex in the book where lots of boobs are present, and then there are the scenes with the MC, his mighty member, and the right good rogering he gives to a few different fellah's in the book. No punches pulled, cock in ass, shuh-plap, shuh-plap, shuh-plap. Go to Goodreads and peruse the reviews. Lots of people saying things to the tune of "I'm not a homophobe, really, but so much buttsex! Cripes!" And little-to-no mention of all the other sex that does happen all over the novel. *shrug* I'm used to it, man. If the book/series/show/whatever draws an audience for reasons other than LGBT interest, and there's some boy-smooch, or heaven forbid, one boy checking the other for airtightness, there will always be detractors.
@Wreybies Checking for airtightness? ... gross lol I guess I knew I shouldn't read the comments in the TV cast interviews about the subject.. I just really thought, stupidly, that people would have good things to say.
I don't know if this is appropriate or not, but I'll throw it out there. I think you hit the nail on the head here. I've never had anything knob-sized in my arse, and honestly, the thought of it is quite unpleasant. Trying to reconcile an intimate, sexual scene with graphic buttsex is something I would always find a little difficult.
It's one thing to have a hard time understanding why/how gay sex feels good and to outright condemn a work of fiction and stop reading/watching it based on such a small aspect of it. If it was a harlequin novel or something by Faust where the sex is center stage, then yeah, hate away. It's like saying you can't watch Game of Thrones anymore because you say the twenty second gay scene between Loras and... the other minor character. Somehow, the presence of "the gay" makes everything else in the series moot and unwatchable >.>
What do you mean gross, man? I check my hubby for airtightness on the regular. And I don't blame, in the least. But you don't strike me as someone who would chose not to read the book knowing there was gay sex, and also knowing it was well written. I read books with straight sex, and though it's not my preference, this wouldn't stop me from reading a book. I realize the comparison is unfairly weighted to one side since str8 sex is everywhere and gay male sex may seem like it's everywhere lately, to some, but its presence is perceived that way at the moment because of the centuries of its absence. I don't expect str8 boys who aren't comfy with the idea to suddenly be ok with it. These things take time. The fact that you and I can have (and are having) a civilized conversation about this in open forum, in digital public, is proof positive of positive change.
I've heard of this type of thing before; it seems especially prominent at the moment surrounding gaming, but it applies to most every other medium. Generally speaking, there is a certain perception and double standard about these types of things. If a character is gay, it's pandering to gays. If a character is hetro, it's targeted marketing. If a character is female, it's pandering to women. If a character is male, it's targeted marketing. If the cast is predominantly minority ethnicity, then it's pandering to minorities. If the cast is predominantly white, then it's targeted marketing. If a someone creates a story with the straightest, whitest and manliest character ever, it's because they wanted to. If a someone creates a story with other combinations thrown in, they didn't actually want to, they were just pressured by political correctness.
There was a time, within the last decade, when posting my WIP's in writing forums invariably evinced critiques to the tune of: You need a good reason for this character to be gay otherwise it's not a good idea. Not. A. Good. Idea. Those very words at least once that I remember. Or they would interrogate me as to my reasoning for the gay character. I would usually not answer because the answer I wanted to give - Because I want you to know what it feels like when I bend you over the kitchen table at your request, matie. - would likely have gotten me banned.
I really, really dislike those passive aggressive "well, it's not that I'm racist/sexist/homophobic, it's just that you need a reason to put minorities in your writing"-type comments. Why? Why do you need to justify their inclusion? They exist, don't they?
Generally, the amount of scrutiny received for a relationship in fiction is inversely proportional to how conventional it is.
Straight White Males (SWM for short) are just used to living in a SWM world. The idea that it's not all about being a SWM is abnormal because everything up to that point has been about being a SWM in any sort of fiction. It's the problem with having too many "whites" around and not enough minorities. SWM wrote a book about this or that, and the MC was a SWM. And then someone else wrote another one and another one until we finally had Archie comics... Even most of the first superheroes kids have are SWM... It kinda makes sense a culture filled with SWM would produce that but you'd think with all the immigration we have going on, there'd be more diversity that is blatant rather than "hidden gems"
Marketing appears significantly more cynical when you're not the target. But, to be fair, this isn't just true of bigots. For example, as unbiased as I would like to think I am, I would probably be more critical of the blatancy of the theological messages in literature with Christian messages, than one's with atheistic messages. It's the same with politics. Left wing people will be far more perceptive of bias in right wing media, but blind to their own. And this obviously goes the other way.
And we - those who are not "defaults" - bare the responsibility and accountability for changing this. If we cave to being told "not a good idea" or shrink from writing our stories, or stories that simply star us for no other reason than we EXIST, then we've no one else to blame but ourselves. I genuinely do not think its SWM's responsibility or accountability to do it. I don't think you think that either, just putting that out there.
It's not about not putting it out there ourselves. We often spout "write what you know" so I was simply saying that ideal probably holds true for the most part. People will write what they know best and it's not surprising that their characters live and think in a way that resembles the SWM way, right? I'm not saying they can't think of new things and ways, but in general, a culture will produce things that are simpatico to itself, no?
Unfortunately you'll get this in ridiculous extremes everywhere. Especially with the most asexual stories you can imagine - the most sex-less story suddenly must have some subversive sexual tinge to it or some people can't be happy it seems. I remember reading a piece of academic criticism that said Bilbo Baggins from The Hobbit was clearly Tolkien's repressed homosexuality because he was a loner who went off for an adventure with a load of taller, tough & strong men. Leaving aside the fact this is an entirely 1D way of looking at the story ... it's a freaking children's book. And a boy's adventure at that.
