This topic came to me after a conversation I had with my Gym buddy Jon. We were chatting after a late night workout and he was telling me about how excited he was to see Power Rangers the weekend it came out but was annoyed by the introduction of a gay superhero. I told him, that I didn’t see anything wrong with it at first. Jon looked me dead in my face and said “that’s not the Power Rangers tho”. I hesitated but it kinda made sense, that wasn’t the original Power Rangers and therefore, not the same thing altogether.
Jon continued with “…how are people expected to react when gay is just being thrown in their face all the time?” and it clicked. How are people supposed to accept homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle chosen by others if its abrasively thrown in their face on a regular basis? (you would have a problem if it were grandma’s delicious pound cake abrasively being thrown in your face on a regular basis too, don’t lie) This prompted me to want to write this post.
Let me start here: I am an ally of the LGBTQ community. I’m probably not as outwardly active as I should be but I am an ally. I empathize and somewhat understand the confusion that comes with growing up and feeling comfortable in your body and struggling with your self-identity. And a number of friends throughout my life have come out to me. With that being said, I feel like homosexuality is a something that happens at birth. I believe it may be the wiring in the brain or equal to a gene defect but I truly believe that genuine homosexuality is biological; not to be confused with going through an experimental phase in college (because that’s exactly what it is, experiments.. to see what you like and don’t like; exploring your sexuality). But it’s not a disease; you don’t catch it like a cold. Homosexuality is a part of who someone is just as much as their skin color, hair and eye-color. However, I do feel as though there is an agenda of pushing homosexuality on the general public through media.. Not sure if it is with positive or negative intentions but I can say that there’s definitely a positive and negative impact. But first: lets define a few lines shall we?
Lets first define the two: sex vs. Gender
Dictionary.com defines ‘Sex’ as:
- either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions.
Dictionary.com defines ‘Gender’ as:
- either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated by social and cultural roles and behavior
Sex you are born with (hence why I think sexuality is hereditary). Gender is taught; how we are taught to act i.e. boys wear blue girls wear pink.
I have heard some confused people say that homosexuality is being taught to young children through media programming… some of this may be true, but only for a small percentage of people. The presence of homosexual content and characters on television teaches impressionable children about sexuality and the struggles they may be facing themselves. The character is something to relate to and may serve as a guide on socially acceptable behaviors until they learn otherwise. If the child doesn’t struggle with identity issues or issues of sexuality, media won’t affect them as profoundly. On the flip side, the illustrations of non-heterosexual content in the media may contribute to heterosexuals misunderstanding of homosexual behavior (i.e. a man assuming that all gay men are going to solicit them). This increases public paranoia and thus increases the presence of homophobia.
A Study on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Content on Television illustrates that the highest proportion of non-heterosexual content is on premium cable channels (HBO, STARZ), with the second highest being cable channels like MTV, BET, VH1, and the smallest proportion of homosexual content in commercial TV channels (ABC, CBS, NBC, WB, PBS). Although this study is bit dated, the shows mentioned in the study are relevant enough for the findings to be significant. In fact, I feel that since the results of this study have been published, the numbers in reference to non-heterosexual content (talking about and behaviors) have increased.
Look, I’m all for inclusion. I am a double minority for pete’s sake. So I’m hip to discrimination. I don’t have a problem with LGBTQ inclusion initiatives. I don’t have a problem with the increase in non-heterosexual characters in the media… But here’s where I draw the line: when a character’s (homo)sexuality is distracting from the main plot… or rebooted series’ forcefully including outed homosexual characters.. it distracts from the original story and its classical timeliness. More and more non-heterosexual characters, ok. But when its distracting from the main plot… or characters change from original plot, it distracts from story.
Beauty & The Beast: We all know the characters of Beauty & the beast. Belle the beauty, The Beast, Gaston the jerk face who thought he could woo Belle into marrying him, and the Tea cup. THAT CUTE LITTLE TEA CUP! HOW CAN YOU FORGET HIM!?
In the realistic rendition, I’d have expected one of the inanimate objects of the enchanted Castle to be the ground-breaking homosexual character… but no. The 2016 release featured Gaston’s sidekick named “LeFou” as an openly gay man and has a subplot of its own.
Beauty & the Beast is already teaching the horrific message to children ‘to stay in abusive relationships because the beast will become a prince, all you have to do is love him’… which is a steaming pile of bull crap. In the real world, Domestic violence is nothing to joke about and I don’t condone staying in an abusive relationship of any kind for any reason. But back to this argument, whhyy is this even a sub-plot? Its taking away from the original story. Leave well enough alone.
Power Rangers: In 2017, the revamped Power Rangers movie remade after the TV series was released and was applauded for its first openly gay superhero in a feature film… I still have to ask though, Why change the plot? The hyperlink I have attached has a short video clip explaining some of the plot including the character and some reactions to it. It’s cool that one of the original characters was gay, it sucks that he was harassed for it. But he should take pride in what he was a part of. The original Power Rangers character stories were good the way they were.
Btw I had a pink power ranger action figure with the aircraft
Empire: Call me what you want but I love the plot lines and twists outside of everything about Cookie Lyon form Fox’s Empire. I noticed that on a micro level- the viewership of Empire had decreased before the end of Season 1 (not to be confused with actual viewership rates, those I don’t know, I’m just speaking from a personal stand point)… due to the over-exposure of a character’s homosexual lifestyle portrayed on the show (by Jamal Lyon played by Jussie Smollett). Now, I must admit, some of the scenes early on were comparable to soft-core porn in my opinion… but it was a relationship. The characters were in relationships and were illustrating the issues (similarly to and different from that of typical heterosexuals) within their relationship. Season 2 has significantly has less explicit scenes but still some non-heterosexual content. Season 3 has reintroduced issues within homosexual relationships but is significantly less explicit than the first season (Possibly due to Jamal Lyon’s character not being in a committed relationship anymore).
Notably, a Blog Louder with Crowder and the aforementioned Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Content on Television study have valid points about homosexuality being misrepresented in the media. In both links, information is given and supports the claim that media including TV and films have been saturating programming with homosexual or non-heterosexual content but non-heterosexual people they make up a small percentage of the population (approx 3 or 4%). However, People believe that the percentage of homosexual and non-heterosexual individuals is higher because of what they see in the media. Paranoid much?
Clearly Paranoid. So much so that legislation is being introduced to regulate public bathroom usage by transgender persons… Which is another can of worms all together as far as sexuality and gender identity.
The Bathroom Bill states that transgender persons must use the restroom that corresponds with their biological sex at birth, NOT their gender identity. So… a man transitioning into a woman, who looks ALL Woman would be forced to use the men’s restroom… opening her up to assault. The argument is that, they’re perverts and will touch children, or that people will start dressing up just to use the opposite sex’s restroom to get some sort of sexual gratification from it… this is not true. There is a
HUGE AND DEFINING
difference between a homosexual and a pedophile. Can there be overlap? In specific individuals, yes. And that is very wrong.
This bill is so unnecessary because in real life, it shouldn’t matter. #HeresTheThing you have probably used the bathroom with a transgender person before and didn’t even notice. Wanna know why? BECAUSE NO ONE LOOKS AT PEOPLE IN PUBLIC RESTROOMS! NO ONE! You may notice that the guy next to you has on a nice pair of shoes or the nice Birken bag the girl next to you has, but it’s a rarity. These encounters don’t happen often because people go to public restrooms when they feel they absolutely have to. They go in to handle their personal business and then exit. Anyone lurking around a bathroom is up to no good. Period. But more to the point, it’s more probable to find a heterosexual person exhibiting suspicious/ shady behavior near public restrooms rather than non-heterosexual Individuals. So what do we really need this dumb ass bill for? Nothing, other than to ease conservative paranoia.
To those of you on your religious high-horse, regardless of what you believe, I BELIEVE you should just mind your own business. lol #NoButReally #SorryNotSorry
No forreal, regardless of what you believe, if there is a higher power you believe in (and its not Satan), more than likely, that higher being is somehow connected to the idea of love (Charles Manson’s followers even believed in some twisted form of love for a superior being). I’ll do some math for you real quick tho:
God = Love. Love = Acceptance. Acceptance ≠ intervention. Acceptance ≠ chastising. Acceptance ≠ patronizing.
Accepting someone else for who they are also means that you are able to accept yourself for who YOU are. That means accepting your sexuality. WE have to understand that sexuality is fluid. Things you thought might have been too “freaky” when you were young are now part of your regular sexual repertoire and things you like to do now, you may not like to do when you become old and senile.
In the latest Dave Chapelle Special on Netflix, Chapelle gives his take on sexuality when he tells a story about running into an old friend who came out as a homosexual. He says something to the effect of “we all have our kinks…I fuck feet” implying he has a foot fetish. Lmao. This is hilarious and gross to me but I understand what he means lol. (I’m not big on my feet being handled any way accept being rubbed by hands lol). But it’s the same as, a woman who is heterosexual but likes to have threesomes with another girl and a guy; or a guy who is heterosexual but likes his butt hole licked when he’s getting head from a woman. Sexuality is so grey that there isn’t a solid black or white because “everybody’s got their kinks”. And what you might think is pedestrian may be extreme to someone else, and vice versa.
SO LETS SUMMARIZE:
- ‘Sex’ is how you’re born, the anatomical parts; ‘Gender’ is how you’re taught to act in reference to your biological sex.
- Non-heterosexual children learn how to act from what they see on tv (like everyone else).
- The media is over saturated with homosexuality illustrating unrealistic representation giving the perception is that everyone is homosexual.
- LGBTQ Inclusion becomes over saturation when classic plot lines (in tv & film) are changed and distract from the story.
- Increased paranoia from media agenda of homosexual “epidemic” lead to bathroom bill which was stupid.
- Accept homosexuals like you accept people with blonde hair or green eyes or big feet, because we all have our kinks and their sexual prowess’ are their own business just like yours and mine is.
Why is it any of our business who people sleep with? Unless we’re sleeping with that person? I don’t care if someone is homosexual, asexual, pansexual, bisexual or anything else sexual… That’s really none of my business.. so why do other people think its theirs? If you can’t openly and proudly announce to the world that you like to fuck feet, old ladies over 60, or to be dominated, then why is it your business if someone likes to have sexual relations with the same sex? Exactly, its none of our business breh. Accept people of the LGBTQ community for who they are and what they can contribute, because in the grand scheme of things, who they lay with isn’t a significant detail. I mean wouldn’t you prefer to be remembered as a scientist who discovered a cure for breast cancer rather than a scientist who is a misogynist or womanizer or a whore? Or that one Black Scientist? or that Jewish Scientist? This degrades the significance of achievements.
Furthermore, all gay men don’t want to hit on straight men just like every woman don’t want to either. All lesbians don’t want to turn out straight girls just like all men don’t want to turn our straight girls. Don’t insult a homosexual or non-heterosexual person by assuming they don’t have a type or preference for whom they’d like to have sexual relations with.