• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

The LGBT Club

Status
Not open for further replies.
Man I didn't mean to start a serious debate here xD I was simply annoyed at being forced to watch sex constantly and wanted to vent.

I really can't empathize with any of what you've illustrated, Butterchu. I'll accept that other people feel that way but I don't care for seeing characters 'get together' romantically or otherwise, so. That said, I do think that often has to do with the writing; very often the writing for romance is just goddamn terrible. So it's probably a mix of my not caring for romance to begin with, and then there not being any interest in the characters or their interactions. For example (one of very few)... I loved Pam and Jim from The Office (US version). I was one of those who, once they got together, was paranoid they'd have troubles and break up. They're a perfect couple, I love them both as individuals and I love seeing them together, and perhaps as a bonus I barely ever have to see them kissing.

Mostly though I just don't care. :[ I don't expect others to feel like this. I was just venting and I know I'm weird.

Anyhow! Dannichu! I have to disagree regarding Sherlock - I'm really, really glad they stuck to just subtext because it leaves Sherlock as an ace! :D Which is so much better because there are practically no aces on tv. Way less represented than gays, sry.

I'll never understand how a Glee fan can be homophobic... The thing is, it extends so deep and into smaller things they do, that they don't even realize are homophobic. Like how Kurt's behavior is creepy but Rachel's and Will's are normal. I've actually heard people say that. :[ What? I don't try to defend Kurt's lesser moments, but what?
 
Funny you should say that; I really liked Dawn and Tim's relationship in the UK version of The Office. I don't want to ruin it if you've not seen it (if you haven't, I recommend it - it's two series of six half-hour episodes, so you can see the whole thing in an afternoon, with the adorableness that is Martin Freeman offsetting the annoyance that is Ricky Gervais), but the final episode was utterly wonderful.

Oh no, I'm glad that they left everything ambiguous in Sherlock; I don't think they could make them get together without some serious change of characterization; that sort of stuff's much better left to fandom.
But there's a trend on TV, epecially in recent years, of having 'bromances' rather than anything exploring the possibility of two guys actually having a romantic relationship, and that, I feel, is a shame.

God, I remember when JKR said Dumbledore was gay and suddenly a ton of people went "Who knows what he and Harry got up to in his office, ho-ho!". Which really just makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
Pentimento said:
I really can't empathize with any of what you've illustrated, Butterchu. I'll accept that other people feel that way but I don't care for seeing characters 'get together' romantically or otherwise, so. That said, I do think that often has to do with the writing; very often the writing for romance is just goddamn terrible. So it's probably a mix of my not caring for romance to begin with, and then there not being any interest in the characters or their interactions. For example (one of very few)... I loved Pam and Jim from The Office (US version). I was one of those who, once they got together, was paranoid they'd have troubles and break up. They're a perfect couple, I love them both as individuals and I love seeing them together, and perhaps as a bonus I barely ever have to see them kissing.

Mostly though I just don't care. :[ I don't expect others to feel like this. I was just venting and I know I'm weird.
Click to expand...
Oh, I completely understand - again, we all have different preferences in what we like to watch, and that's why I specifically said most people. It was just a response to this paragraph:

Which leads me to this question: why? Why is tv so full of sex? Can writers not think of anything else to write? Anything else to draw people in? Are people really so sex-obsessed they can’t watch anything that isn’t littered with sex sex sex constantly? If there is a show or movie that has no romance in it at all, are people worried no one will watch it because that’s all anyone ever thinks about? Or do people write it all the time in their shows /because/ that’s all they think about? They can’t write anything else because they can’t think of anything else to write?
Click to expand...
My point was simply that there can be reasons why the writers would want to include sex that aren't "they can't think of anything else to write or draw people in". You seemed to be implying that the very presence of sex on television was utterly baffling to you, so I was just attempting to unbaffle it (that is totally a word). No debate intended.

Though I forgot to directly address the "why isn't there anything with no romance in it at all" bit, which I completely agree with. Most works don't need romance to begin with and, as I mentioned, have it just get in the way of the plot we're actually watching for.

*waves "Sherlock is asexual" banner* :D Gay relationships are great and there do need to be more of them, but I love my bromances.

God, I remember when JKR said Dumbledore was gay and suddenly a ton of people went "Who knows what he and Harry got up to in his office, ho-ho!". Which really just makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Lolwhut. Imagine that happening if JKR confirmed McGonagall was straight.
 
One of the things that angered me the most about the new film was Holmes' sex life (on top of his hobo looks). He's asexual goddamn youuu and he's a mysoginist :( gdi get it right.

Is Sherlock that good, then? I'm asking because I usually have an intense hatred for modern adaptations of old stuff (and nowadays book-to-film stuff has been horrendously disappointing), i.e. I almost literally cried at the 2004 Dorian Gray film (and the 2009 one but for different reasons HELLO BLOWJOB HEY I DON'T SEEM TO REMEMBER YOU).
 
Aaaaaahhhh it is so good :D

It's a modern updating, but it's done by people who clearly absolutely adore the source material and rather than make a film with lots of sex and explosions, want to do justice to the things that Sherlock Holmes has always been about, and without the trappings of hansom cabs and pipes, it's actually a lot more true to the source material than many of the 'classic' interpretations. Sherlock is the only SH adapation I've seen where Watson is the Watson of the books (a doctor and a soldier, and intelligent enough for Sherlock to want to keep him around) and not some doddering fool.
That which has been changed (and it's not nearly as much as you'd imagine) is done with fans of the original in mind - Sherlock talking about knowledge of the solar system using up memory on his mental hard drive is an amusing metaphor for those new to all things Holmesian, but it's ten times more brilliant if you know it's an update of Holmes telling Watson about unnessesary things taking up space in his "mental attic".

And the subtext. It's glorious. It's everything slashy about House and Wilson cranked up to eleven. :D
 
Bachuru said:
Though I forgot to directly address the "why isn't there anything with no romance in it at all" bit, which I completely agree with. Most works don't need romance to begin with and, as I mentioned, have it just get in the way of the plot we're actually watching for.

*waves "Sherlock is asexual" banner* :D Gay relationships are great and there do need to be more of them, but I love my bromances.
Click to expand...

Uhg, yes. I sort of see romance as a plot point that shouldn't be added unless it adds something in itself to the story (because isn't that why everything is added?), and most romance doesn't do that at all. Weirdly though, I tend to enjoy gay relationships in tv more than straight ones. I think I'm biased though. :P

Also, er, I probably was implying that and it's often how I feel. Mostly because I have to suffer through it so often and it adds absolutely nothing to the story, so I get just so sick of it. But you know, it's hard to sympathize with something you can't... really experience or understand yourself. :\ (Which is why I enjoy the serial killers so much! Ahahaha okay.)

Lolwhut. Imagine that happening if JKR confirmed McGonagall was straight.
Click to expand...

cannot unsee *bleaches eyes*

Dannichu said:
Funny you should say that; I really liked Dawn and Tim's relationship in the UK version of The Office. I don't want to ruin it if you've not seen it (if you haven't, I recommend it - it's two series of six half-hour episodes, so you can see the whole thing in an afternoon, with the adorableness that is Martin Freeman offsetting the annoyance that is Ricky Gervais), but the final episode was utterly wonderful.

Oh no, I'm glad that they left everything ambiguous in Sherlock; I don't think they could make them get together without some serious change of characterization; that sort of stuff's much better left to fandom.
But there's a trend on TV, epecially in recent years, of having 'bromances' rather than anything exploring the possibility of two guys actually having a romantic relationship, and that, I feel, is a shame.

God, I remember when JKR said Dumbledore was gay and suddenly a ton of people went "Who knows what he and Harry got up to in his office, ho-ho!". Which really just makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Of course I saw the UK version! Don't you know me by now? :P While I did like it, I admit to preferring the US version. I'm not sure what exactly I like more about it... the humour was very different even though the writing was very similar, and there was a lot more of the *glances at camera* from Jim, and, I don't know. Also, I really hate the actress who plays Dawn. I don't know why, either. The way she talks or something... uhg.

As long as you agree with me about Sherlock I can agree with you. :D Ahaha no I really do though. The few shows that really show gay kissing go too far for me, like Queer As Folk, which I tried to watch and just couldn't. A really good should though, is Six Feet Under, which gives completely equal coverage to the gay and straight characters (and is also a super awesome show). Oh, and Oz, also awesome.

... I am super glad I don't get so deep into HP fandom. :|

Also yes Sherlock = one of the best shows I have ever seen and everyone should watch it.
 
Six Feet Under is the best show I've ever seen and I really do reccommend it for a million reasons, but relevant for this thread: I love the way David and Keith's relationship is portrayed, and I'm really pleased to see a show that handled everything so well re:David's homosexuality. There's a big focus on it, but at the same time, it's not ridiculous or annoying and is actually pretty subtle while successfully putting the point across.
But the entire show is amazing and pff the ending ;__; oh god

Haha, I watched all of Oz in like three days, basically. It's good even though it's got its moments (Beecher's nail-killing is hilarious).

I'll make sure to check out Sherlock, and to keep an open mind. I'm just so awful when it comes to accepting updates, haha. I'm pretty conservative in that respect.
 
Vladimir Putin's LJ said:
Six Feet Under is the best show I've ever seen and I really do reccommend it for a million reasons, but relevant for this thread: I love the way David and Keith's relationship is portrayed, and I'm really pleased to see a show that handled everything so well re:David's homosexuality. There's a big focus on it, but at the same time, it's not ridiculous or annoying and is actually pretty subtle while successfully putting the point across.
But the entire show is amazing and pff the ending ;__; oh god

Haha, I watched all of Oz in like three days, basically. It's good even though it's got its moments (Beecher's nail-killing is hilarious).
Click to expand...

So much agreement! I love David and Keith's relationship. Honestly I love every single character from SFU. Such a good show. And I watched all the seasons in around a week, speaking of crazy-speed-watching, since I was sick at the time and literally couldn't get off the couch. And hell yeah at the ending, possibly the best ending to a show I have ever seen. So good.

Oz can be super-narm but it's still one of the best shows ever, ever. And Beecher is awesome don't deny it.

(This is totally on-topic I swear.)
 
Brothers & Sisters totally has gay romance! It's aaaaawesome! Scotty/Kevin otp ; ; it's so adorable. The best thing? They gay stuff is treated no differently to the straight stuff! Kevin and Scotty are basically just two more characters who have lives and stories, it's awesome.

And adorable. <3
 
Harlequin said:
Brothers & Sisters totally has gay romance! It's aaaaawesome! Scotty/Kevin otp ; ; it's so adorable. The best thing? They gay stuff is treated no differently to the straight stuff! Kevin and Scotty are basically just two more characters who have lives and stories, it's awesome.

And adorable. <3
Click to expand...
And why have I not heard of this before? I must see this show. The boldface stands out for me. <3
 
On the topic of too much sex on television, I am inclined to agree for different reasons, especially for comedic shows.

I just find sex, so, utterly boring. If it is a comedy based around sex (which is, oh, all of them on every damn channel today), it is really, really dull. I mean it is like:

TV: A-ha. We just made a sly reference to copulation. Aren't we clever?
Me: Not after the 67th time, no.

Its like a dead horse, bludgeoned to death by other dead horses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom