The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,650
|
Post by The Ichi on Jan 20, 2013 7:28:42 GMT -5
No defending Glee on this one.
|
|
theryno665
Grimlock
wants a title underneath the stars
Kinda Homeless
Posts: 13,571
|
Post by theryno665 on Jan 20, 2013 11:54:20 GMT -5
People still watch Glee ? I quit after they murdered Don't Stop Believing and hung the corpse out to dry.
|
|
|
Post by darbus alan on Jan 20, 2013 12:05:36 GMT -5
Really? They had the author avatar of Ryan Chucklenuts say bisexuals just don't want to admit that they're gay. Because Ryan is a gigantic dickbag. You have a point but throwing-around a term like hate is overkill. The Westboro church and KKK hate. The Glee creators are overly opinionated and preachy but hateful? I wouldn't go that far. It's still discriminatory and prejudice. You'd think members of a group on the receiving end of so much intolerance and persecution wouldn't pass the buck like that, but they do.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,403
|
Post by Legion on Jan 20, 2013 12:19:38 GMT -5
You have a point but throwing-around a term like hate is overkill. The Westboro church and KKK hate. The Glee creators are overly opinionated and preachy but hateful? I wouldn't go that far. It's still discriminatory and prejudice. You'd think members of a group on the receiving end of so much intolerance and persecution wouldn't pass the buck like that, but they do. I think it's generally down to the fact that most, not all, but most bi people do eventually pick a side, so to speak. Very few people seem to stay bisexual beyond, say, 30. Granted that doesnt excuse it, but there is a reasoning behind why bisexuals are seen in a certain way. Plus, there is the general jealousy of bisexuals, while not having the parades and all the rest, can just pick and choose. If they dont fancy feeling in any way persecuted for liking same sex, then can just go find a straight relationship and avoid the hassle. Again, not right, but again can explain why bisexuality isnt so championed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 16:31:51 GMT -5
It's still discriminatory and prejudice. You'd think members of a group on the receiving end of so much intolerance and persecution wouldn't pass the buck like that, but they do. I think it's generally down to the fact that most, not all, but most bi people do eventually pick a side, so to speak. Very few people seem to stay bisexual beyond, say, 30. Granted that doesnt excuse it, but there is a reasoning behind why bisexuals are seen in a certain way. Plus, there is the general jealousy of bisexuals, while not having the parades and all the rest, can just pick and choose. If they dont fancy feeling in any way persecuted for liking same sex, then can just go find a straight relationship and avoid the hassle. Again, not right, but again can explain why bisexuality isnt so championed. I'm probably going to end up banned for this, but f*** it. This is straight up bulls***, and frankly, biphobia. I'm sick of being told "You'll pick a side" or "Bis just end up gay". It's absolute bollocks. I don't pick who I f***ing date. I didn't end up with the wonderful girl I'm with right now cause I felt like people would question me if I was with a guy. You have NO IDEA how much you've f***ing pissed me off saying that. I'm not looking for my sexuality to be championed, whatever the f*** that means. I'd rather be ACCEPTED AS WHO I AM. Cause f*** y'all if you think I'm changing. I'd love to know where you got that "few bi people stay bi beyond 30" s***. Seriously, back that s*** up. I'm rambling here, so I'm going to stop now.
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 48,465
|
Post by Dub H on Jan 20, 2013 16:35:13 GMT -5
I think it's generally down to the fact that most, not all, but most bi people do eventually pick a side, so to speak. Very few people seem to stay bisexual beyond, say, 30. Granted that doesnt excuse it, but there is a reasoning behind why bisexuals are seen in a certain way. Plus, there is the general jealousy of bisexuals, while not having the parades and all the rest, can just pick and choose. If they dont fancy feeling in any way persecuted for liking same sex, then can just go find a straight relationship and avoid the hassle. Again, not right, but again can explain why bisexuality isnt so championed. I'm probably going to end up banned for this, but f*** it. This is straight up bulls***, and frankly, biphobia. I'm sick of being told "You'll pick a side" or "Bis just end up gay". It's absolute bollocks. I don't pick who I f***ing date. I didn't end up with the wonderful girl I'm with right now cause I felt like people would question me if I was with a guy. You have NO IDEA how much you've f***ing pissed me off saying that. I'm not looking for my sexuality to be championed, whatever the f*** that means. I'd rather be ACCEPTED AS WHO I AM. Cause f*** y'all if you think I'm changing. I'd love to know where you got that "few bi people stay bi beyond 30" s***. Seriously, back that s*** up. I'm rambling here, so I'm going to stop now. But I will say if those are your views, you sir, are a ridiculously close-minded person, and I would like for you to do something anatomically impressive, you fornicator of mothers. That are not his views,he just said what people he met said / view as. It is awful but he is just reporting,it is not his views
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 16:37:45 GMT -5
I'm probably going to end up banned for this, but f*** it. This is straight up bulls***, and frankly, biphobia. I'm sick of being told "You'll pick a side" or "Bis just end up gay". It's absolute bollocks. I don't pick who I f***ing date. I didn't end up with the wonderful girl I'm with right now cause I felt like people would question me if I was with a guy. You have NO IDEA how much you've f***ing pissed me off saying that. I'm not looking for my sexuality to be championed, whatever the f*** that means. I'd rather be ACCEPTED AS WHO I AM. Cause f*** y'all if you think I'm changing. I'd love to know where you got that "few bi people stay bi beyond 30" s***. Seriously, back that s*** up. I'm rambling here, so I'm going to stop now. But I will say if those are your views, you sir, are a ridiculously close-minded person, and I would like for you to do something anatomically impressive, you fornicator of mothers. That are not his views,he just said what people he met said / view as. It is awful but he is just reporting,it is not his views Fair enough, I apologise for the personal insults, and I'll delete them now.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,403
|
Post by Legion on Jan 20, 2013 16:51:29 GMT -5
You do that before I report the post.
I didnt insult you in any way, read what is written next time.
But seen as you asked, Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E., Hunter, J., & Braun, L. (February 2006). Sexual identity development among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: Consistency and change over time. Journal of Sex Research, 43(1), 46–58.
That would be the last major study of bisexuality over time and from where a conclusion indicating the transitional nature of bisexuality for some people can be found to back up the point I was pointing out, rather than generally indicating I believed.
|
|
|
Post by darbus alan on Jan 20, 2013 17:37:02 GMT -5
It's still discriminatory and prejudice. You'd think members of a group on the receiving end of so much intolerance and persecution wouldn't pass the buck like that, but they do. I think it's generally down to the fact that most, not all, but most bi people do eventually pick a side, so to speak. Very few people seem to stay bisexual beyond, say, 30. Granted that doesnt excuse it, but there is a reasoning behind why bisexuals are seen in a certain way. Plus, there is the general jealousy of bisexuals, while not having the parades and all the rest, can just pick and choose. If they dont fancy feeling in any way persecuted for liking same sex, then can just go find a straight relationship and avoid the hassle. Again, not right, but again can explain why bisexuality isnt so championed. This pretty much backs up what I said about some members of the LG having prejudices and misconceptions about the BT. In a lot of ways, it's eerily similar to how certain heterosexuals feel about being able to "get rid of the gay" in homosexuals.
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Jan 20, 2013 17:37:20 GMT -5
Also, the thing about bisexual people beyond 30 is that I presume by this point, most of them have stopped f'n around, settled down and got into a serious relationship, making it seem like they picked a side because they stick to the same partner.
|
|
|
Post by "Trickster Dogg" James Jesse on Jan 20, 2013 19:01:17 GMT -5
You do that before I report the post. I didnt insult you in any way, read what is written next time. But seen as you asked, Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E., Hunter, J., & Braun, L. (February 2006). Sexual identity development among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: Consistency and change over time. Journal of Sex Research, 43(1), 46�58. That would be the last major study of bisexuality over time and from where a conclusion indicating the transitional nature of bisexuality for some people can be found to back up the point I was pointing out, rather than generally indicating I believed. Given that the paper identifies that no real investigation into how gender is socially and historically constructed and understood as such as a construction (namely, how 'gay' is being gay, how 'lesbian' is being lesbian, how 'transgendered' is being transgendered, etc.), it basically essentializes each of these categories and characterizes change between these categories, which, subsequently, means that the authors do not effectively account for how the self-same consistency of identity is realized at the individual level (i.e. within these categories). Plus, because of the suggestion that identity, preference, and behaviour are relatively conflated by virtue of their supposedly indexical relation (homologous to the saying 'where there's smoke, there's fire'), if not moreover because of the reversibility of this relation (by the authors' logic, if you engage with what is deemed to be 'gay sex' then you are likely attracted to [gay] men meaning that your identity position is one of being gay), the authors predetermine a tendency bordering on causation rather than suggesting the existence of a correlation that expects that how people identify themselves will determine their preference and following from this trajectory, their sexual behaviour and practice. For example, self-identified heterosexual men who work 'gay for pay' in the gay pornography industry would, according to the vague understandings of identity and sexual behaviour the authors have, fit the confines of this research although they in social reality do not demonstrably match the authors' intent or, at the very least, might be considered an atypical population given the performative aspects of their sexual behaviour irrespective of their self-identification. The actual method sites where data was collected at best would a weak correlation between what the authors were looking for and what the facts on the ground actually proved as a result. Given that the site for research was New York, a large, Western (North American) metropolis, the results, to me at least, could only be generalizable with respect to analogous population sizes, geographical location, and community involvement given where participants were found. In the same way that the gender categories are not rigourously defined, so too are the conditions by which participants were involved with the research not appropriately considered as possible factors into the socialization of these youths. The way sex as sexual activity I have no issue with, but acts themselves are not inherent to what comes to constitute sexual identity. The personal and social meaning ascribed to such acts by the individual, which to me proves to much more valuable in understanding how identity is formed, negotiated, and changed given evental situations, cannot necessarily be accounted for via quantitative measurements. For instance, the researchers ask participants if their homosexuality/bisexuality makes them unhappy. But what does 'unhappy' mean exactly? The question fails to consider the convergences and intersections of sexuality with gender, race, age, class, ability, geography, and how all these articulations of identity influence preference and practice inasmuch as preference and practice influence identity. Instead, all these points are considerations later in the body of research to be controlled for, but when, in fact, that people do not necessarily shirk off (or easily shirk off, in any case) such definitions of themselves. Constructions of a sexual self in this instance would be cybernetic (meaning, the system of articulations identity positions, preferences, and practices 'feeds back' iteratively into itself and recasts the dynamism of individualization as coextensive with the existence of one's identity. Mind you, from my socially constructivist perspective, the kind of quantitative research undertaken herein is actually absent of any people whatsoever and the real experiences of these people in the worlds they live within. In this sense, the researchers to me at least treat homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism as social phenomena to be observed (who, what, where, when) than real, embodied experiences and points of view (why and how). Given the limitations and gaps that I find in the construction of the research, the question as to the transitory and/or calcifying aspects of bisexuality and transgenderism is, if anything, not conclusive at all. The final sentence of the article suggest that the only conclusion is the necessity of further longitudinal quantitative research to study such research questions as what was originally proposed. As for the song, well, the "Glee" version of the song certainly sounds intentionally lifted, though whether or not it factually was would be left up to the courts to decide or the parties involved to settle out of court.
|
|
|
Post by mjolnir on Jan 20, 2013 19:29:00 GMT -5
You do that before I report the post. I didnt insult you in any way, read what is written next time. But seen as you asked, Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E., Hunter, J., & Braun, L. (February 2006). Sexual identity development among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: Consistency and change over time. Journal of Sex Research, 43(1), 46�58. That would be the last major study of bisexuality over time and from where a conclusion indicating the transitional nature of bisexuality for some people can be found to back up the point I was pointing out, rather than generally indicating I believed. Given that the paper identifies that no real investigation into how gender is socially and historically constructed and understood as such as a construction (namely, how 'gay' is being gay, how 'lesbian' is being lesbian, how 'transgendered' is being transgendered, etc.), it basically essentializes each of these categories and characterizes change between these categories, which, subsequently, means that the authors do not effectively account for how the self-same consistency of identity is realized at the individual level (i.e. within these categories). Plus, because of the suggestion that identity, preference, and behaviour are relatively conflated by virtue of their supposedly indexical relation (homologous to the saying 'where there's smoke, there's fire'), if not moreover because of the reversibility of this relation (by the authors' logic, if you engage with what is deemed to be 'gay sex' then you are likely attracted to [gay] men meaning that your identity position is one of being gay), the authors predetermine a tendency bordering on causation rather than suggesting the existence of a correlation that expects that how people identify themselves will determine their preference and following from this trajectory, their sexual behaviour and practice. For example, self-identified heterosexual men who work 'gay for pay' in the gay pornography industry would, according to the vague understandings of identity and sexual behaviour the authors have, fit the confines of this research although they in social reality do not demonstrably match the authors' intent or, at the very least, might be considered an atypical population given the performative aspects of their sexual behaviour irrespective of their self-identification. The actual method sites where data was collected at best would a weak correlation between what the authors were looking for and what the facts on the ground actually proved as a result. Given that the site for research was New York, a large, Western (North American) metropolis, the results, to me at least, could only be generalizable with respect to analogous population sizes, geographical location, and community involvement given where participants were found. In the same way that the gender categories are not rigourously defined, so too are the conditions by which participants were involved with the research not appropriately considered as possible factors into the socialization of these youths. The way sex as sexual activity I have no issue with, but acts themselves are not inherent to what comes to constitute sexual identity. The personal and social meaning ascribed to such acts by the individual, which to me proves to much more valuable in understanding how identity is formed, negotiated, and changed given evental situations, cannot necessarily be accounted for via quantitative measurements. For instance, the researchers ask participants if their homosexuality/bisexuality makes them unhappy. But what does 'unhappy' mean exactly? The question fails to consider the convergences and intersections of sexuality with gender, race, age, class, ability, geography, and how all these articulations of identity influence preference and practice inasmuch as preference and practice influence identity. Instead, all these points are considerations later in the body of research to be controlled for, but when, in fact, that people do not necessarily shirk off (or easily shirk off, in any case) such definitions of themselves. Constructions of a sexual self in this instance would be cybernetic (meaning, the system of articulations identity positions, preferences, and practices 'feeds back' iteratively into itself and recasts the dynamism of individualization as coextensive with the existence of one's identity. Mind you, from my socially constructivist perspective, the kind of quantitative research undertaken herein is actually absent of any people whatsoever and the real experiences of these people in the worlds they live within. In this sense, the researchers to me at least treat homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism as social phenomena to be observed (who, what, where, when) than real, embodied experiences and points of view (why and how). Given the limitations and gaps that I find in the construction of the research, the question as to the transitory and/or calcifying aspects of bisexuality and transgenderism is, if anything, not conclusive at all. The final sentence of the article suggest that the only conclusion is the necessity of further longitudinal quantitative research to study such research questions as what was originally proposed. As for the song, well, the "Glee" version of the song certainly sounds intentionally lifted, though whether or not it factually was would be left up to the courts to decide or the parties involved to settle out of court. Beautiful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 19:34:31 GMT -5
You do that before I report the post. I didnt insult you in any way, read what is written next time. But seen as you asked, Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E., Hunter, J., & Braun, L. (February 2006). Sexual identity development among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: Consistency and change over time. Journal of Sex Research, 43(1), 46�58. That would be the last major study of bisexuality over time and from where a conclusion indicating the transitional nature of bisexuality for some people can be found to back up the point I was pointing out, rather than generally indicating I believed. Given that the paper identifies that no real investigation into how gender is socially and historically constructed and understood as such as a construction (namely, how 'gay' is being gay, how 'lesbian' is being lesbian, how 'transgendered' is being transgendered, etc.), it basically essentializes each of these categories and characterizes change between these categories, which, subsequently, means that the authors do not effectively account for how the self-same consistency of identity is realized at the individual level (i.e. within these categories). Plus, because of the suggestion that identity, preference, and behaviour are relatively conflated by virtue of their supposedly indexical relation (homologous to the saying 'where there's smoke, there's fire'), if not moreover because of the reversibility of this relation (by the authors' logic, if you engage with what is deemed to be 'gay sex' then you are likely attracted to [gay] men meaning that your identity position is one of being gay), the authors predetermine a tendency bordering on causation rather than suggesting the existence of a correlation that expects that how people identify themselves will determine their preference and following from this trajectory, their sexual behaviour and practice. For example, self-identified heterosexual men who work 'gay for pay' in the gay pornography industry would, according to the vague understandings of identity and sexual behaviour the authors have, fit the confines of this research although they in social reality do not demonstrably match the authors' intent or, at the very least, might be considered an atypical population given the performative aspects of their sexual behaviour irrespective of their self-identification. The actual method sites where data was collected at best would a weak correlation between what the authors were looking for and what the facts on the ground actually proved as a result. Given that the site for research was New York, a large, Western (North American) metropolis, the results, to me at least, could only be generalizable with respect to analogous population sizes, geographical location, and community involvement given where participants were found. In the same way that the gender categories are not rigourously defined, so too are the conditions by which participants were involved with the research not appropriately considered as possible factors into the socialization of these youths. The way sex as sexual activity I have no issue with, but acts themselves are not inherent to what comes to constitute sexual identity. The personal and social meaning ascribed to such acts by the individual, which to me proves to much more valuable in understanding how identity is formed, negotiated, and changed given evental situations, cannot necessarily be accounted for via quantitative measurements. For instance, the researchers ask participants if their homosexuality/bisexuality makes them unhappy. But what does 'unhappy' mean exactly? The question fails to consider the convergences and intersections of sexuality with gender, race, age, class, ability, geography, and how all these articulations of identity influence preference and practice inasmuch as preference and practice influence identity. Instead, all these points are considerations later in the body of research to be controlled for, but when, in fact, that people do not necessarily shirk off (or easily shirk off, in any case) such definitions of themselves. Constructions of a sexual self in this instance would be cybernetic (meaning, the system of articulations identity positions, preferences, and practices 'feeds back' iteratively into itself and recasts the dynamism of individualization as coextensive with the existence of one's identity. Mind you, from my socially constructivist perspective, the kind of quantitative research undertaken herein is actually absent of any people whatsoever and the real experiences of these people in the worlds they live within. In this sense, the researchers to me at least treat homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgenderism as social phenomena to be observed (who, what, where, when) than real, embodied experiences and points of view (why and how). Given the limitations and gaps that I find in the construction of the research, the question as to the transitory and/or calcifying aspects of bisexuality and transgenderism is, if anything, not conclusive at all. The final sentence of the article suggest that the only conclusion is the necessity of further longitudinal quantitative research to study such research questions as what was originally proposed. As for the song, well, the "Glee" version of the song certainly sounds intentionally lifted, though whether or not it factually was would be left up to the courts to decide or the parties involved to settle out of court. Well, that's a better response than one I could have come up with.
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Jan 20, 2013 19:47:24 GMT -5
Wow. Lawspeak wasted on something as worthless as Glee.
|
|
hassanchop
Grimlock
Who are you to doubt Belldandy?
Posts: 14,910
|
Post by hassanchop on Jan 21, 2013 5:12:31 GMT -5
You're all also forgetting that this show is guilty of stereotyping. From Cracked:
"In researching this article, I hadn't thought to include Glee at first. In fact, on the surface, Glee looks like a damn musical U.N. of shit I'd never watch. But it also looks like they have someone from almost every ethnic background available on the show and dammit, they're all so full of song. But then it was pointed out to me that every non-white character is such a non-white character that it's like the producers had actually just come here from an albino world and were so taken with the novelty of people who weren't white that they had no time to look into or care about their cultures at all. Hence the two Asian characters on the show have the same last name. The Jew's last name is Ben Israel and he's as sexually deranged as Gladstone. The Latina cheerleader is actually named Santana Lopez, possibly because they had to cut Conchita Luisa Mexicasa out of the script. There's even actually an Irish exchange student who is immediately believed to be a leprechaun. The reason you don't want to think of Glee right off is the reason half of you rolled your eyes at that last sentence. Oh come on, no one believes the Irish kid is a leprechaun, that's a joke. Of course it is. Just like the awkward Jew with the afro, the black girl who always sings the big gospel notes, the gay kid with the great fashion sense, the overachieving Asian, the fiery, underprivileged Latina, the cheerleader who is so dumb that she has a negative GPA and so many others. Everyone is a something on this show.
One episode revolved around a Jewish girl wanting a nose job to look like one of the white characters and actually, sincerely included a duet of the two girls singing "Unpretty"/"I Feel Pretty." Now I'm not one for subtext, but I think the genuine sentiment here from the show was that you can be pretty, even as a Jew. That wasn't what they meant, but it's exactly what they said. Hey Jew, don't feel bad you look so Jewish, you're beautiful. We're all beautiful just the way we are, even if we're not normal. Hell, the episode this happened in was called "Born This Way."
Another episode entitled "Asian F" is about one of the Asian characters getting an A-, which is so terrible that his father demands daily drug testing for him. And that's such a great example of why Glee continues to skirt under the radar, because they made that ridiculous stereotype the focus of an entire episode like that somehow ameliorated the stupidity of it existing. As though Glee's producers think that by shoving their parade of characters and their intense stereotypes in your face, rather than having them be subtle, it's cool, because they're acknowledged. But that s---- kind of wack, yo."
And let's not forget that the producer called anyone who didn't want their songs in the show an ignorant idiot:
(language warning)
|
|
|
Post by stevieboy on Jan 21, 2013 7:53:07 GMT -5
You have a point but throwing-around a term like hate is overkill. The Westboro church and KKK hate. The Glee creators are overly opinionated and preachy but hateful? I wouldn't go that far. It's still discriminatory and prejudice. You'd think members of a group on the receiving end of so much intolerance and persecution wouldn't pass the buck like that, but they do. In my mind you would think after all the hardships they've faced they should be on a higher plain of understanding but alas. Wow, I just got turned on to this Coulton guy by the husband of someone who I once argued with Glee about cause she a fan and didn't agree with my saying that Glee sets a horrible example for children due to many of the reasons listed above. Time has a way of settling all arguments. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2013 8:38:52 GMT -5
Honestly, I'm surprised anyone in that show still hasn't been jailed for their unprovoked assault on Rocky Horror. Bravo, sir. Brah. Vo.
|
|
the2ndevil
Grimlock
Super Seducer Survivor
Where Is Your Santa, Now?
Posts: 13,637
|
Post by the2ndevil on Jan 21, 2013 13:37:20 GMT -5
Maybe this changed with the new season, but the only bisexual character I remember from Glee was portrayed as not "really" being bisexual. It came off as very condescending and reflective of a really discriminatory attitude a lot of LG's have towards the BT's in the LGBT movement. The character Britney has been portrayed has Bisexual pretty consistently. She dated Artie, then Santana, and now is in a relationship with Sam. The sex of the person she has feelings for has never mattered to her. And towards the Transgender end, they have Unique, who, of all the new characters they introduced, is the one that fans seem to have really taken to.
|
|