This show makes me feel ashamed to be gay.
Why did straight Britain in 1999 put up with a series about a 15 year old boy moving out of home to get sodomised by 30 year old men? Why did the BBC elect the Russell T. Davies to revive the UK's prime cultural television legacy, Doctor Who?
>spoilers
I get that it's meant to show the nitty gritty of the gay lifestyle, in all its excess, but it revels in it. Apart from a few passing moments of self-awareness, like when Stuart's mother visits Hazel's place to come to terms with her son's homosexuality, and is distraught when she learns that he fucked a school-aged boy, there's no consequences or redemption for the awfulness of the main characters. The "happy" ending is just Vince and Stuart traveling the world, apparently abandoning baby Alfred, and pointing guns at le evil dumb rednecks for being homophobic, and Nathan continues to just live a life of empty sex and indulgence on Canal Street.
It's fine, we'll get less of blackface as we become mainstream.
See, Weekend, Xavier Dolan's movies, even The Perfect Wedding. Such a cheesy movie, but as long as we get more "normal" people, the leather clad sauna chained people will die out.
>>6556409
Watch Looking.
Looking surpasses it in just about every way,
and has this qt
>>6556409
>Why did straight Britain in 1999 put up with a series about a 15 year old boy moving out of home to get sodomised by 30 year old men? Why did the BBC elect the Russell T. Davies to revive the UK's prime cultural television legacy, Doctor Who?
>>6556409
Doesn't all of the straight parents reject or outright kick out all of the main gay characters. Isn't that how the young boy winds up staying with an older man? You know, that's how it often works in real life. Straight people refuse to treat gay children like humans, but other gay people help those gay children. It's not at all uncommon for one gay homeless person to take up with one slightly more well off in exchange for sex. Straight people have that too, it's called Jesus Christ marriage.
I don't know how you could look at that show and take away from it the idea that gay people are bad, since the gay ones are the only ones with hearts in the entire series, out of every one of it's episodes. Kind of like real life. If was you, the straight one, that was worthless all along. You can make your straight rules about how gay men can't act all gay, but they're still gonna act really gay because they're not interested in listening to you. Ever. They don't care what you think or want, same as any other thinking, sane person.
>>6556409
Are you retarded?
Why wouldn't you want to CIA finessing all the time?
It's a cheesy comedy, it isn't intended to be realistic, just like Jeeves and Wooster isn't an accurate portrayal of British upper class life.
Lighten the fuck up. Television doesn't need to further some retarded social agenda.
>>6556539
Except that that's why straight people invented TV, to further their agendas, and now you're just upset when others do it.
>>6556432
Yeah, I liked Weekend. One of the better contemporary movies on the topic.
>>6556468
The kid runs out before any family troubles, because his mum finds out he's gay, even though she acts really fucking well about it. The first time we see the dad, he rams his car into Stuart's because he sees him, a 30 year old man, making love to his 15 year old son. Not really out of line.
>later we find out the dad ends up moving out of home and the parents get a divorce
Felt bad for him more than anyone else in the show.
>>It's not at all uncommon for one gay homeless person to take up with one slightly more well off in exchange for sex. Straight people have that too, it's called Jesus Christ marriage.
Homeless people being exploited for sex is equivalent to marriage? Fucking kids is "helping"?
>I don't know how you could look at that show and take away from it the idea that gay people are bad, since the gay ones are the only ones with hearts in the entire series, out of every one of it's episodes. Kind of like real life. If was you, the straight one, that was worthless all along. You can make your straight rules about how gay men can't act all gay, but they're still gonna act really gay because they're not interested in listening to you. Ever. They don't care what you think or want, same as any other thinking, sane person.
Upset? I said I'm gay, anon, but I guess you're too full of resentment to care.
>Queer as Folk is the primary vehicle for his social commentary of homosexuality and advocation of greater acceptance. He used the series to challenge the "primal ... gut instinct" of homophobia by introducing homosexual imagery in contrast to the heterosexual "fundamental image of life, of family, of childhood, [and] of survival".
He failed in making it look like anything more than perversion.
>>6556484
>implying Davies didn't have an agenda
>this was one of the first mainstream depictions of gay people on major television
>THIS is what people saw
just lighten up bro
>>6556546
>feeling bad for a straight person
>telling more shit eating lies
Shut the fuck up.
>>6556552
I don't give a fuck about their orientation. I hope you don't expect me to care about the story behind your prejudiced attitude, while being unforgiving toward straight people with negative opinions of gays.
>>6556546
It's just a caricature. It isn't trying to be smart.
There isn't really much to learn from debating the merits of the actions of the show's various characters when those characters are quite shallow, and actions either obvious or totally unexplained.
>>6556570
Yeah, I do expect that, and if you choose to do otherwise, you're dog shit, regardless of how tall your high horse is.
>>6556584
Why?
>>6556580
Have you even watched it? Like even one episode? Every single point you made is 100% false. Not to mention extremely generalized. You could say that about any show and pretend like you actually watch it when you don't.
>>6556588
Because I'm right and you're wrong, as you well know you shit. It's entirely right to hate those that choose to be shit such as Christian straights, and it's entirely wrong for you to forgive the unforgivable.
>>6556603
>It's entirely right to hate those that choose to be shit such as Christian straights, and it's entirely wrong for you to forgive the unforgivable.
Objections:
1. In what way are Christian straights 'shit'?
2. Who is 'unforgivable'? According to who, you?
I don't know if you're right or wrong anon, but nothing will save you from having shit reasoning.
>>6556596
I've watched the entire show, maybe about years ago.
I watched the show several years ago, when I was 14 or 15, but I can still remember the mediocrity of the show. None the less I still enjoyed it.
Things were clearly geared to punchline writing, and cheesy drama.
Like when Vince is finally going to hook-up with a guy, but then sees him gagging trying to brush his teeth and leaves.
Or who can forget when Stuart lists off all the euphemisms for being a fag?
Or when Nathan jerks off that "straight" kid in the locker room.
Not to mention the ending. Some of the cheesiest writing I've seen in my life.
Or
>>6556603
Did you get molested by a priest or something buddy?
They aren't all bad, and I don't see anything unforgivable with the religion itself, other than it being a religion for pushovers who love adopting Africans.
>>6556621
I don't give a shit about your objections you worthless shit, I'm not even going to read them you worthless shit.
>>6556640
You seem upset.
Go drink some warm milk or something friend.
>>6556622
Most of that was in series 2 when it really dropped the ball. Series 1 had much more - comparatively - subtle writing. I think if you rewatched it you might see that it's a bit more multifaceted than just pure cheese. Watching series 1 I could barely tell that it was written by the guy who did Doctor Who, but in series 2 I could see all his hallmarks.
>>6556632
>>6556640
Why is it shit? I'm gay and I am inching more and more toward becoming a Christian, am I shit? Why even have this conversation? What are you trying to say my friend
>>6556645
When I get upset at your kind I treat your kind the way everybody should treat your kind. That's the healthy way to deal with this problem.
>>6556657
That sounds like a stereotypical homophobic comment. Are you meme-ing us?
>>6556673
>I think the case is rather the opposite here.
That's the thing. t's just the complete inverse. Has to be ironic.
>>6556684
I hope you're correct.
The alternative is quite a bit worse than an some kid trolling.
>>6556684
No. Just because straight people are evil for hurting gays does not mean that gay people should not hurt straight. You know that, you know you deserve unspeakable pain.
>>6556701
Majority of gays probably disagree with you, anon. Do they all deserve unspeakable pain
>>6556701
ayyyy
It's all gonna be alright bud.
>>6556714
The ones who disagree with me? Absolutely. Anyone that would forgive the unforgivable and cavort with the worthless willingly are just as bad as straight people.
>>6556751
wow a gay Pharisee?
>>6556766
I don't have the bible memorized well enough to remember what that means, but I do know that since you're pretending the bible is worth using as a moral guideline, you're worthless much less than nothing.
Treating pure evil kindly is evil. This is not rocket science. Whichever piece of shit that said advanced societies should treat their prisoners well was full of shit. He was just a coward, scared of imagining himself in the place of the executioner, getting stared at by the prisoners with their scary eyes. Good people have a responsibility to destroy evil people.
>>6556786
how will your straight-less society survive?
>>6556794
Happily.
>>6556409
is THAT what the show was about? i thought it was just queer drama, this sounds hot
>>6556409
I prefer Aidan Gillen's more recent work.
>Why did straight Britain in 1999 put up with a series about a 15 year old boy moving out of home to get sodomised by 30 year old men?
It was portrayal of British urban gay scene in the age of Thatcherism, when Section 28 was still a thing and partying & drugs got more common. They needed a school boy who has bad relationship with family for that. He starts as naive and insecure guy and after being influenced by this "party scene" and getting seduced by adult man he becomes narcissistic, selfish slut.
>>6556409
Well what did you expect from gay characters written by straight people?
Quality?
A realistic portrayal?
HA!
These people write what they know.
and all they know is utter disgust and contempt for gay people, which is why they suck at writing gay characters.
>and Nathan continues to just live a life of empty sex and indulgence on Canal Street.
What else is Britain about? He does that because that's what those guys ended up doing.
>>6558731
Russell T Davies is gay though
>>6558747
>Russell T Davies is gay though
No he's not.
>>6558767
Yeah, he just happens to be married to a man. But totally heterosexual way.
>>6558798
>he just happens to be married to a man.
>because people don't pretend to belong to a minority
I remember this black activist who was literally pretending to be black.
If you're gay and you write shitty gay characters, you're either simply not gay, or you can't write for shit.
And in this case it's both.
>>6556409
Because that's what being gay means. Homosexuality is inherently degenerate and no matter how you try to awkwardly force it as something acceptable it never is
>>6556546
The premise seems pretty messed up, word.
>>6558870
>Homosexuality is inherently degenerate
What's next, it caused the fall of the roman empire?
>>6558878
It is literally a mental disorder
You can't prove that wrong
Back in the 90s when gay was still same thing as AIDS, we didn't have internet social justice warriors telling everything about homosexuality(aside AOL chat rooms) and since it wasn't common or even allowed to talk about it in public either, where do you think we got experience and information?
>>6556786
So no tolerance of intolerance?
>>6558882
You can't prove that right either. You just say it is in the same way creationists say "YOU CAN'T PROVE US WRONG".
That's technically true, but in the same breath you tossed any self-awareness in the bin and don't even try to look past the edge of your plate.
It takes effort to not be an asshole, and we're not entitled to your respect, but wouldn't it be a better place if we shared the notion that everyone is decent until proven otherwise?
>>6558882
>It is literally a mental disorder
>No I don't care that the APA and every other organisation of respectable psychologists, psychiatrists and neorological experts disagree with my statement even though they're the people who decide what constitutes a mental disorder, I'm right because REASONS
Now watch how you're gonna pull out the slippery slope, the 'appeal to nature' fallacy directly followed by the "just because it's natural doesn't mean it's right" card, then try to finish me off with empty rhetoric of alt right buzzwords, all the while ignoring that you're simply plain wrong.
>>6558910
That's not how you convince people they are wrong. That's how you get a half-assed insult attempting to be an argument because that person couldn't be bothered to answer you otherwise, since you're gonna be a dick about it.
>>6558904
You have higher rates of std's, other mental disorders like depression, higher rates of pedophilia, cheating, relationship abuse, etc. there's nothing positive about homosexuality
>>6558933
You are ignoring social circumstance and the influence of class. Also, you're mixing correlation with causality, which has no logical ground.
Wanting to have sex with men is not the reason we as humans have higher rates of std's and clinical mental diseases.
Relationship abuse also almost only applies to lesbian relationships, so there is an obvious factor of sex you didn't count in to that point.
There are no empirical statistics on "cheating". Unless you have some. Then do add them in.
Pedophilia, again is a correlation, not a causality. In that same logic I could argue that there is nothing positive about being a priest because they have much higher rates of pedophilia than non-priests. Despite being a priest having nothing to do with driving these people to pedophilia.
There are obviously a lot of issues in the lifestyle a lot of homosexuals choose to pursue, but arguing that their sexuality is the sole, or even primary factor for all of the problems the homosexual portion of the American populace have, is flat out irrational and slanderous. I urge to rethink your position.
>>6558966
>muh correlation not causation
So you're telling me it's illogical to say that pursuing one degeneracy will often cause some to pursue others?
>>6558997
Wanting to have sex with people of the same biological sex is not objectively degenerate. You are using your subjective moral view on homosexuality to argue against it.
Which you can. But it doesn't make you right. It just makes you against homosexuality because of your feelings. Not because of facts.
>>6559029
>implying im using morality to argue
I'm just pointing out some unpleasant facts to you. Where there are homosexuals, there is drug addiction, pedophilia, rape, std's, etc
>>6559043
That's people. Of every discernible orientation, race, social standing and disposition.
Accepting that it is one specific group you can make out to be the boogeyman of society is the truly unpleasant fact.
>"Bad writing makes me ashamed to be gay!"
Uh, okay?
If you're referring to stereotypes, then who gives a shit. Anyone who's going to assume all gay men are lispy, effeminate letches because that's what they see on TV probably has a double-digit IQ to begin with. More to the point, they would probably cherry-pick any reason to hate gay men, whether or not the media portrayed us in the most "normative" light possible. Why do you care what such people think?
>>6559141
>that's people
And it's more common amongst gay people
>>6559211
The pedophilia thing isn't true, /pol/. Try not bringing up junk science if you're trying to make a point.
>Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..."
>>6558925
>That's not how you convince people they are wrong.
People who are wrong can't be convinced of their wrongness.
Especially when they're smug about it.
The world would be a far better place if people weren't so stubborn.
>>6558997
>muh correlation not causation
Cuz approaching evidence with a proper code of scientific conduct is just for losers with no agenda, right?
>>6559738
And yet it stays within the realm of conjecture until you can find a direct cause.
>>6559738
Learn to FUCKING READ YOU RETARDED /pol/ FAGGOT, they found ZERO pedophiles who are primarily attracted to adult males in that study.
The fact that a ton of pedophiles target male children doesn't mean shit. You're railing on gay men, ergo, men who are attracted to adult men, as being deviant. However, men who are primary attracted to adult men have almost NO cases of pedophilia, referencing that study you're quoting.
Take your head out of your ass and think five seconds about the stupid fucking stormfront propaganda you shit out of your mouth
>>6556546
You're pathetic. Keep looking out for straight people that hate you. See how well that works out.
Now, about Queers of Folk: the age of consent in Britain is 16, though during that time it was 18 for homosexuals. Yes there was controversy about it, or maybe more because it had gay sex, but it had same kind of shock value as South Park did.
Reviews from 1999:
The Pink Paper
>WHAT'S UNEXPECTED about the programme is the sheer strength of the writing, the depth of the characters, the fact that Queer as Folk shows gay men caught with their trousers down - a warts-and-all gay drama with the emphasis firmly on the drama. Shocking? Yes, but shocking because it's normal, everyday. Being gay is not the drama here, it's the starting-point. And it's about time that was shown on the box. (Toby Sawyer)
Daily Mail:
>QUEER AS FOLK proves that we need censorship. Year by year, the boundaries of what is deemed permissible are pushed wider and wider apart. Certainly we shouldn't be at liberty to watch naked actors having relentless homosexual sex. Any nation which allows this without any voices raised in dissent is lacking in both wisdom and self-respect. It's hell-bent on destruction. (Lynda Lee Potter)
The Times:
>IF IT didn't have the novelty of gay sex, would anyone have made a fuss about it? Or got excited about it in a positive way, rather than because of its depiction of under-age man-boy sex? Its cynicism could just be a stab at chic metropolitan knowingness, but you can imagine it leaving a nasty taste in many viewers' mouths.
The Mirror
>CALL ME old-fashioned but I think sex is best carried out in private between two consulting adults of the opposite sex. It appears to be something of a rarity these days. On television, people are at it all over the place with all sorts. If the opening episode of Queer as Folk was anything to go by, the bare bum count is heading for an all-time record. (Tony Purnell)
>>6556436
Can confirm looking is a good show. I just wish there was more tv focused on fags.
>>6560753
Why would you copy/paste a thousand words some worthless straight people said?
>>6556409
When Queer s of was released there was still a lot of people involved in the Outrage! Consent at 14 campaign, which wanted to equalize the age of consent at 14 rather than 16. At the time this was a relatively mainstream view among gays. Having a 15 year old boy consenting to sex was only seen as mildly subversive, much less so than it would be today.
>>6556409
Hon Race super and transparent make me ashamed of being a tranny
