If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gore Vidal Now)   Gore Vidal, Mike Wallace and the 1967 CBS News report, 'The Homosexuals'   (gorevidalnow.com) divider line 110
    More: Interesting, Gore Vidal, bright spot, rights movement, egalitarianisms, Tennessee Williams, Planck epoch, Richard Grenell, Columbia University Professor Albert Goldman  
•       •       •

10975 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 May 2012 at 3:23 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



110 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-01 04:45:14 PM  
Wow, that guy interviewed at the beginning sure seems pretty gay...

Yes, I have to agree with the people who said that, considering the feeling at the time, you can't condemn Wallace too much for this. Even growing up in the 80's, we weren't raised to really be tolerant, most of us just figured out on our own that the people we'd grown up with who turned out to be gay were still our friends and family, but we were still at the tail end of the 'F@gs!!' era...

Now, I couldn't care less. I've had gay friends over the years, and my brother in law is gay, and he actually lives with us, my kids haven't caught the gay from him. Back in the 60's though, I can understand why shows like this would happen, although in the first part that I've watched, they still seem less confrontational than your Rick Santorum types of today.
 
2012-05-01 04:45:17 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: As a gay person: While clearly terrible, this report was from a different time. Much like the racist Bugs Bunny cartoons of the '40s, it's important to view it in a historical light,


though I'm inclined to agree with your view on TFA, this example has always been odd to me. Stuff like this is pretty damn racist, no matter how you cut it; it's akin to excusing raghead jokes circa 2001 just because the people involved with 9/11 were Arabs.

Unless you're thinking of other examples that don't immediately come to my mind.
 
2012-05-01 04:47:18 PM  

Geotpf: Uberunder: "In the fashion industry, many observers see an effort to blend the sexes, to de-feminize woman - to replace curve and contour with sexless geometric sterility."

Kate Moss: fashion model.

Wallace wasn't ALL wrong in this report.

In the 40 years since the report, look at the trend line for what pop culture perceives as the ideal feminine form. With the exception of the occasional outlier (which, statistically, you'll basically always have), the trend has been towards ever-skinner, ever-less-curvy women. The creatures who inhabit fashion catwalks today would never have gotten a date to the prom in 1967.

So, while the homophobia is wrong and hateful and damaging, don't let it cloud the value of what time has proven to be a valuable observation: when gay men dominate the fashion industry, they design clothes for people who fit their aesthetic. And big bouncy tits aren't part of it.

Of course, if hetrosexual men ran the fashion industry, women would be urged to wear nothing except a pair of clear plastic stripper heels.

The real question is: Why aren't women running the fashion industry, as opposed to gay men?


Because it would look like this:

www.theffjd.com
 
2012-05-01 04:54:07 PM  

Geotpf: Uberunder: "In the fashion industry, many observers see an effort to blend the sexes, to de-feminize woman - to replace curve and contour with sexless geometric sterility."

Kate Moss: fashion model.

Wallace wasn't ALL wrong in this report.

In the 40 years since the report, look at the trend line for what pop culture perceives as the ideal feminine form. With the exception of the occasional outlier (which, statistically, you'll basically always have), the trend has been towards ever-skinner, ever-less-curvy women. The creatures who inhabit fashion catwalks today would never have gotten a date to the prom in 1967.

So, while the homophobia is wrong and hateful and damaging, don't let it cloud the value of what time has proven to be a valuable observation: when gay men dominate the fashion industry, they design clothes for people who fit their aesthetic. And big bouncy tits aren't part of it.

Of course, if hetrosexual men ran the fashion industry, women would be urged to wear nothing except a pair of clear plastic stripper heels.

The real question is: Why aren't women running the fashion industry, as opposed to gay men?


they want tall skinny girls without many curves so they all can wear whatever the designer creates with as few alterations as possible, not because the designers are gay and thus want women to look like 12 year old boys because they are attracted to how 12 year old boys look.
it's just not as easy to standardize to any other body type. in fact that theory sounds almost like something a bigot would say.

/that was what a six foot tall catwalkchick I lived with for 5 years convinced me of anyway.
 
2012-05-01 04:54:12 PM  
I submitted this video weeks ago and now you have it up because it's on gore vidal? And the headline isn't funny. Pathetic.
 
2012-05-01 04:58:58 PM  
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7080723/76590127#c76590127" target="_blank">AngryJailhouseFistfark</a>:</b> <i>midigod: Mimic_Octopus: from the gays i [know | see in public] this is all perfectly accurate. at least with the younger ones. retired gays seem to settle down some i guess...

So... there's no one between 25 and 65 that's gay, in your experience?

Nope. Teh Ghey pretty much goes from hot, smooth, young twink, dancing around in hot-pants and combat boots to aged queen almost overnight. They go to bed as that kid from Glee and wake up as Ian McKellan.



NTTAWWI
I haven't seen the Glee but I love McKellan's work, and not just the sci-fi/fantasy stuff.</i>


Or from "cub" to "bear".

I figure I have a few more years of cubdom in me.
 
2012-05-01 05:02:12 PM  

Uberunder: "In the fashion industry, many observers see an effort to blend the sexes, to de-feminize woman - to replace curve and contour with sexless geometric sterility."

Kate Moss: fashion model.

Wallace wasn't ALL wrong in this report.

In the 40 years since the report, look at the trend line for what pop culture perceives as the ideal feminine form. With the exception of the occasional outlier (which, statistically, you'll basically always have), the trend has been towards ever-skinner, ever-less-curvy women. The creatures who inhabit fashion catwalks today would never have gotten a date to the prom in 1967.

So, while the homophobia is wrong and hateful and damaging, don't let it cloud the value of what time has proven to be a valuable observation: when gay men dominate the fashion industry, they design clothes for people who fit their aesthetic. And big bouncy tits aren't part of it.


Who farking CARES about the "fashion industry"? It's not what men want. Go to any strip club, pop in any porn, and you'll see what men want. With the exception of niche fetishes(Flat chest, young looking, etc), the majority of the women are NOT skinny, and quite often are pretty curvy. It's just the fasion models who have gotten skinnier, guys still want some curves. Unfortunately, not all of the girls have figured that out, and some try to go the Kate Moss route, but that isn't exactly what men want.

It's not because of the gays though. You think they weren't into fashion 50 years ago?
 
2012-05-01 05:09:46 PM  
Of course everyone wants to know why gay people like to go cruise public restrooms, why they feel the need to have 'Pride' parades, why they need rainbow stickers and pink triangles, why they want to have their own bars, and why they seem to have such a party-related lifestyle...

The term 'In the closet' pretty much sums it up. For centuries, we have forced them to hide their lifestyle, to seek out others like themselves in 'secret' places that were also public so that nobody saw people going anywhere they wouldn't normally go. We made them embarrassed of who they were, ashamed of their feelings, afraid of persecution. Of course now they're proud to be 'out', they're excited that they don't have to fear arrest merely for being with another man, and they feel that they don't need to hide it anymore. The pride parades and rainbow stickers are just over compensation after centuries of oppression, but who can blame them, really? As far as this myth of promiscuity, I'm sure it's no more prevalent that it is in any other group of single people, with the exception of the rigidly religious types.

My only problem with Pride day is when I have to try and get anywhere downtown that day, traffic is a biatch.
 
2012-05-01 05:11:06 PM  

HailRobonia: midigod: Mimic_Octopus: from the gays i [know | see in public] this is all perfectly accurate. at least with the younger ones. retired gays seem to settle down some i guess...

So... there's no one between 25 and 65 that's gay, in your experience?

You obviously aren't aware of the gay life cycle. When the larval form, known as "twink" reaches 25, he forms a protective cocoon where he pupates until age 45 when he emerges as a "daddy."


Gay middle age is 30 though
 
2012-05-01 05:14:52 PM  

relcec: they want tall skinny girls without many curves so they all can wear whatever the designer creates with as few alterations as possible, not because the designers are gay and thus want women to look like 12 year old boys because they are attracted to how 12 year old boys look.
it's just not as easy to standardize to any other body type. in fact that theory sounds almost like something a bigot would say.

/that was what a six foot tall catwalkchick I lived with for 5 years convinced me of anyway.


You want a model with broad shoulders and no hips so that they're literally a walking clothes hanger, then you don't have to worry at all about fit and can just design for the fantasy of the clothes. Hence, the second Andrej Pejic came on the scene with a pretty face but quite literally the body of a teenage boy, he became the next hot thing--he's the perfect walking coat hanger.
 
2012-05-01 05:19:19 PM  

jigger: I submitted this video weeks ago and now you have it up because it's on gore vidal? And the headline isn't funny. Pathetic.


Actually I'm pretty sure it's been greened before a couple years back.
 
2012-05-01 05:26:54 PM  
So, I started watching the report, it's kind of amusing if the whole thing wasn't so messed up how they've got people sitting behind plants and furniture to stay anonymous. Has anybody ever attempted to identify them and find out what happened to them in the years since?
 
2012-05-01 05:30:49 PM  

Mikey1969: My only problem with Pride day is when I have to try and get anywhere downtown that day, traffic is a biatch.


I hear that. We have the same problem with St. Patrick's Day parades in this town. I love my Irish heritage 364/365 days a year, and then one day a year I'm sitting behind the wheel screaming to myself at the top of my lungs "Get the hell off the street, drunkies!"
 
2012-05-01 05:41:14 PM  

Quick Fixer: I hear that. We have the same problem with St. Patrick's Day parades in this town. I love my Irish heritage 364/365 days a year, and then one day a year I'm sitting behind the wheel screaming to myself at the top of my lungs "Get the hell off the street, drunkies!"


Man, what would happen if they had Pride week at the same time as St Patrick's Day? Have the parades down parallel streets?
 
2012-05-01 05:43:54 PM  
You people.

/Don Draper
 
2012-05-01 05:44:18 PM  

Mikey1969: Quick Fixer: I hear that. We have the same problem with St. Patrick's Day parades in this town. I love my Irish heritage 364/365 days a year, and then one day a year I'm sitting behind the wheel screaming to myself at the top of my lungs "Get the hell off the street, drunkies!"

Man, what would happen if they had Pride week at the same time as St Patrick's Day? Have the parades down parallel streets?


When I was a boy there were parades every day of the year! ...those were dark times...
 
2012-05-01 05:44:32 PM  

Mikey1969: It's not because of the gays though. You think they weren't into fashion 50 years ago?


50 years ago was the era of Twiggy.
 
2012-05-01 05:45:37 PM  
i232.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-01 05:48:22 PM  

dv-ous: MIKE WALLACE: They are attracted mostly to the anonymity of the big city - New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco. The permissiveness and the variety of the cities draw them. The average homosexual, if there be such, is promiscuous. He is not interested in, nor capable of, a lasting relationship like that of a heterosexual marriage. His sex life - his "love life" - consists of a series of chance encounters at the clubs and bars he inhabits and even on the streets of the city. The pick-up, the one-night stand. These are characteristic of the homosexual relationship. And the homosexual prostitute has become a fixture on the downtown streets at night, on street corners and subway exits, where these young men signal their availability for pay.

Sounds good to me. *shrug*



Not that there's anything wrong with that.
 
2012-05-01 05:49:30 PM  

MrEricSir: Mikey1969: It's not because of the gays though. You think they weren't into fashion 50 years ago?

50 years ago was the era of Twiggy.


And Gay men were already well ensconced in the fashion industry. That and performing arts were the safest places in an era when they still had to hide. I'm just saying that the skinny look isn't because the gays discovered the fashion industry, that's silly.
 
2012-05-01 05:51:41 PM  

Uberunder: "In the fashion industry, many observers see an effort to blend the sexes, to de-feminize woman - to replace curve and contour with sexless geometric sterility."

Kate Moss: fashion model.

Wallace wasn't ALL wrong in this report.

In the 40 years since the report, look at the trend line for what pop culture perceives as the ideal feminine form. With the exception of the occasional outlier (which, statistically, you'll basically always have), the trend has been towards ever-skinner, ever-less-curvy women. The creatures who inhabit fashion catwalks today would never have gotten a date to the prom in 1967.

So, while the homophobia is wrong and hateful and damaging, don't let it cloud the value of what time has proven to be a valuable observation: when gay men dominate the fashion industry, they design clothes for people who fit their aesthetic. And big bouncy tits aren't part of it.


and, in turn, straight men have ignored the fashion industry - scornfully mocking it

/wash
 
2012-05-01 06:07:02 PM  

Mikey1969: I'm just saying that the skinny look isn't because the gays discovered the fashion industry, that's silly.


It certainly could be. Let's say you're a gay clothing designer with a bunch of dresses on coathangers. Wouldn't you want to find women who look kinda like a coathanger to wear 'em?
 
2012-05-01 06:09:51 PM  

FeedTheCollapse: Fluorescent Testicle: As a gay person: While clearly terrible, this report was from a different time. Much like the racist Bugs Bunny cartoons of the '40s, it's important to view it in a historical light,

though I'm inclined to agree with your view on TFA, this example has always been odd to me. Stuff like this is pretty damn racist, no matter how you cut it; it's akin to excusing raghead jokes circa 2001 just because the people involved with 9/11 were Arabs.

Unless you're thinking of other examples that don't immediately come to my mind.


An explanation is a different thing than an excuse.

Of *course* they're racist, when viewed through the lens of today, but *at the time* they were not seen as anything out of the ordinary. Hell, when I was a kid in the 70s, there was still a restaurant chain called Sambo's. (I miss their awesome pancakes!), It was commonplace to hear folks use derogatory nicknames for blacks, jews, asians, hispanics, etc.-- simply because it had never occurred to them to consider that it might be offensive, and it didn't occur to most of those minorities to say "hey man, not cool". We know better now.

We forget, at our peril, that we really *have* moved the world forward, incrementally, over the years. Look at the war era cartoons from Warner and Disney and Terrytoons, and recognize them as racist -- but compare the maid in Tom & Jerry to the evil Japanese in nearly every cartoon of the era, and there's a clear difference in how they're treated. One reflects a cultural reality that anchored the stereotype (black maids were commonplace, just as hispanics are now), and the other is deliberate demonization.

A dear elderly lady says things like "oh, that nice n*ggr lady has the most beautiful skin" -- which says it all, really. It's hard to shake habit formed over our formative years; you're not going get a frail 80-year-old to change easily, and it's best to take it as the genuine compliment intended, and remind her that nowadays decent people don't use the N word in public. So what if the elderly occasionally forget that the standards of politeness have changed over time, or if dusty old artifacts of the past serve as shameful reminders of past thoughtless and casual discrimination. We need not judge too harshly. The past is the past -- learn from it, certainly, but don't hold someone's past ignorance against them. It's what they do today that matters.
 
2012-05-01 06:21:31 PM  

MrEricSir: It certainly could be. Let's say you're a gay clothing designer with a bunch of dresses on coathangers. Wouldn't you want to find women who look kinda like a coathanger to wear 'em?


LOL... Triangular women, hope we don't get gay too many geneticists, they might get together with the gay fashion designers... Seriously though, I think if the gay men in the fashion industry were trying to "blend the sexes", then they'd be designing clothes for rent boys, not scrawny scarecrows...

You're right though, some of these chicks look like coat hangers. They stand sideways and disappear.
 
2012-05-01 06:26:42 PM  

jvowles: FeedTheCollapse: Fluorescent Testicle: As a gay person: While clearly terrible, this report was from a different time. Much like the racist Bugs Bunny cartoons of the '40s, it's important to view it in a historical light,

though I'm inclined to agree with your view on TFA, this example has always been odd to me. Stuff like this is pretty damn racist, no matter how you cut it; it's akin to excusing raghead jokes circa 2001 just because the people involved with 9/11 were Arabs.

Unless you're thinking of other examples that don't immediately come to my mind.

An explanation is a different thing than an excuse.

Of *course* they're racist, when viewed through the lens of today, but *at the time* they were not seen as anything out of the ordinary....

We forget, at our peril, that we really *have* moved the world forward, incrementally, over the years. Look at the war era cartoons from Warner and Disney and Terrytoons, and recognize them as racist -- but compare the maid in Tom & Jerry to the evil Japanese in nearly every cartoon of the era, and there's a clear difference in how they're treated. One reflects a cultural reality that anchored the stereotype (black maids were commonplace, just as hispanics are now), and the other is deliberate demonization.



I mean to add in the part about Tom & Jerry's maid. Though we would call her character a racist stereotype by today's standard, the maid was probably not created with the intention to demean; but I'm having a hard time believing Bugs Nipping the Nips was anything other than intentional demonization even given the political/cultural climate.
 
2012-05-01 06:37:07 PM  
Ah, the golden age when liberals didn't applogize for being who they were. Now it's just too partisan.
 
2012-05-01 06:42:43 PM  

FeedTheCollapse: jvowles: FeedTheCollapse: Fluorescent Testicle: As a gay person: While clearly terrible, this report was from a different time. Much like the racist Bugs Bunny cartoons of the '40s, it's important to view it in a historical light,

though I'm inclined to agree with your view on TFA, this example has always been odd to me. Stuff like this is pretty damn racist, no matter how you cut it; it's akin to excusing raghead jokes circa 2001 just because the people involved with 9/11 were Arabs.

Unless you're thinking of other examples that don't immediately come to my mind.

An explanation is a different thing than an excuse.

Of *course* they're racist, when viewed through the lens of today, but *at the time* they were not seen as anything out of the ordinary....

We forget, at our peril, that we really *have* moved the world forward, incrementally, over the years. Look at the war era cartoons from Warner and Disney and Terrytoons, and recognize them as racist -- but compare the maid in Tom & Jerry to the evil Japanese in nearly every cartoon of the era, and there's a clear difference in how they're treated. One reflects a cultural reality that anchored the stereotype (black maids were commonplace, just as hispanics are now), and the other is deliberate demonization.



I mean to add in the part about Tom & Jerry's maid. Though we would call her character a racist stereotype by today's standard, the maid was probably not created with the intention to demean; but I'm having a hard time believing Bugs Nipping the Nips was anything other than intentional demonization even given the political/cultural climate.


Just because a stereotype is demeaning doesn't mean it isn't accurate.
 
2012-05-01 06:50:13 PM  
Didn't they get a spin-off? "The Homosexuals: The Next Generation"?
 
2012-05-01 06:55:53 PM  
If anything, that report was extraordinarily progressive for its time. Discussing the matter at all, and then having opposing viewpoints instead of just fear mongering, showing the gay rights positions in a legitimate light, that priest differentiating between homosexual urges and homosexual acts, that protestant minister who, though viewing homosexuality as a sin was ashamed of himself for his urge to recoil from those who admitted their homosexuality and sought his guidance; Wallace and his producers should not have been too ashamed of this even in recent years.

As was pointed out in the report, 49 states criminalised consensual homosexual conduct between adults back then and actively prosecuted them. 90% of the population believed that homos should be prosecuted and punished. The psychological and psychiatric community regarded homosexuality as a mental disease, and it was listed as such in the DSM, the bible of their profession.

Now, with that in mind, watch that report and listen to its treatment. It was boldly progressive.
 
2012-05-01 07:01:30 PM  
God almighty, it's hard for me to believe that I was actually alive when this was made. We really aren't that far separated from the cave men, are we?
 
2012-05-01 07:01:42 PM  

Guuberre: Am I the only one that read Wallace's remarks in a '60s crime-drama voiceover?


[raises hand]
 
2012-05-01 07:05:58 PM  

Unhip1: Didn't they get a spin-off? "The Homosexuals: The Next Generation"?


Yes, followed by "The Homosexuals: Deep Throat 12"
 
2012-05-01 07:20:11 PM  

DarnoKonrad: Ah, the golden age when liberals didn't applogize for being who they were. Now it's just too partisan.


I hate to say this, but I have to agree. Too often liberals and progressives are forced to apologize for our beliefs, and too often conservatives and regressives are apologized for and lionized. My favorite bit is:
Wallace: Who says so?
Vidal: I say so.

Just yesterday Joel Osteen got a hero tag for saying what two ministers said in this 45-year-old documentary. I'm tired of the BS I have to put up with in terms of fear of politics in the classroom; I'm afraid to talk about anything with political or business implications. I can't even talk to my students about ethics.

I'll go you one further and say that the heroes aren't even the unapologetic Mark Daytons, Tammy Baldwins, and Al Frankens. The heroes here are the men (especially Lars Larson and the Jack Nichols) who stood up. Nichols went on to have a successful career as a journalist and activist, but in the short term lost his job. I don't know anything about Larson.

I encourage everyone to watch the whole show.
 
2012-05-01 07:20:43 PM  
Geotpf:
The real question is: Why aren't women running the fashion industry, as opposed to gay men?

Many women are "running" the fashion industry, but they use catwalk models as living clothes hangers just like the gay men do. And clothes hangers have to simply hang the clothes, not fill them out.

HopScotchNSoda:
Now, with that in mind, watch that report and listen to its treatment. It was boldly progressive.

That might be generous of you, but I was surprised they even provided two sides to the issue, rather than just "witness a chilling expose of the vile nightlife that seduces innocent Christian boys for the depraved lusts of venial perverts". Having a guy as articulate as Gore Vidal on to talk at length wasn't exactly blood libel.
 
2012-05-01 07:27:56 PM  
I watched this a while ago. It's obviously not something that reflects contemporary ideas of homosexuality. It is an accurate snapshot of popular attitudes in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s, and it also reinforced those prevailing, negative attitudes, as did even a lot of American gay popular culture, at the time. (The Boys in the Band remains one of the most depressing and bizarre things I've ever watched...)

What impresses me is out of this pre-gay liberation period you see the emergence of these incredibly positive and influential homophile groups like the Daughters of Bilitis and the Mattachine Society. And I think perhaps one positive side of this program was that the Mattachine Society was even included.

Overall, though, this was a whole lot of bullsh*t. It doesn't matter if the prevailing idea was that homosexuality was a mental illness at best and a dangerous sex offence at worst, and cops were literally jailing people for being in a gay bar or wearing pants (yes, gay bars were illegal and non-gender mixed bars were frequently busted by cops, and lesbians were literally getting arrested for wearing men's pants in this era.) There is nothing noble in journalism or documentary film that seeks to sensationalize and demonize various social groups and approaches a topic seeking to reinforce preconceived negative stereotypes. Even judging this solely by the standards of the 1960s, it was a hot mess.
 
2012-05-01 07:31:28 PM  
yay, perverse women! wait. what?

www.pandora.ca
 
2012-05-01 07:31:38 PM  
And they consistently used the technical term "homosexual", with the one exception of contrasting the "gay lifestyle" (random hook-ups, et cet.) with conservative homosexuals. Never once did even the detractors call them bum bandits, poofs, fairies, queers, queens, fudge packers, uphill gardeners, fruit picking sodomites, nor other such terms.
 
2012-05-01 07:36:11 PM  
bobbette:
lesbians were literally getting arrested for wearing men's pants in this era.

I'm pretty sure back then, cops could hustle you downtown for just about anything including "lookin funny" so, totally not a surprise.

Apparently my mom (not a lesbian) and her friends used to dress in men's clothing and sneak into bars "as men" for the lulz, back in college. I'm surprised they didn't meet some trouble for it, but I doubt they were fooling anyone. Knowing her naivete though (she was raised in the country), she at least was probably 100% oblivious to what it could have implied to others, at the time. What probably saved their bacon was being in a college town where it was recognized as a meaningless student prank.
 
2012-05-01 07:39:22 PM  

HopScotchNSoda: Now, with that in mind, watch that report and listen to its treatment. It was boldly progressive.


Nope. This aired in 1967.

To put it in a larger anglophone world context, in 1965, a man was arrested in Canada for homosexual acts and placed in indefinite detention as a sex offender. His name was George Everett Klippert.

Even in a largely gay-intolerant environment, there had already been a few gay-sympathetic articles starting in the mid-1960s in Canada, and Canada's national newsmagazine defended Klippert. Then this happened:

The day after Klippert's conviction was upheld [by the Supreme Court of Canada], New Democratic Party leader Tommy Douglas invoked Klippert's name in the Canadian House of Commons, stating that homosexuality should not be considered a criminal issue. Within six weeks, Pierre Trudeau presented the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 (Bill C-150), an omnibus bill which, among other things, decriminalized homosexual acts between consenting adults. The law passed, and homosexuality was decriminalized in Canada in 1969.

Tommy Douglas was also a Baptist preacher.

Across the pond in the UK decriminalization happened about a year earlier - and positive attitudes about decriminalizing homosexuality, including the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury, had influenced that debate.

Homosexuality wasn't fully decriminalized in America until 2003. There's nothing boldly progressive about this or any chickensh*t American mainstream media takes on homosexuality up to and including the present day.
 
2012-05-01 07:46:30 PM  
this was the first gay character I remember who wasn't played as a total stereotype for yuks (i'm looking at you,jack tripper)

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-05-01 08:09:35 PM  
One of the earliest mainstream pleas for gay rights:

www.kesterbrewin.com

Featuring the tracks: "Let Me Touch Him", "The Touch of His Hand", and my personal favorite: "Palms of Victory"
 
2012-05-01 08:19:28 PM  

bobbette:
Homosexuality wasn't fully decriminalized in America until 2003. There's nothing boldly progressive about this or any chickensh*t American mainstream media takes on homosexuality up to and including the present day.


And even now, the media treats whining about the outcome of Lawrence v. Texas as if it's a legitimate mainstream view.
 
2012-05-01 08:21:06 PM  

bobbette: HopScotchNSoda: Now, with that in mind, watch that report and listen to its treatment. It was boldly progressive.

Nope. This aired in 1967.

To put it in a larger anglophone world context, in 1965, a man was arrested in Canada for homosexual acts and placed in indefinite detention as a sex offender. His name was George Everett Klippert.

Even in a largely gay-intolerant environment, there had already been a few gay-sympathetic articles starting in the mid-1960s in Canada, and Canada's national newsmagazine defended Klippert. Then this happened:

The day after Klippert's conviction was upheld [by the Supreme Court of Canada], New Democratic Party leader Tommy Douglas invoked Klippert's name in the Canadian House of Commons, stating that homosexuality should not be considered a criminal issue. Within six weeks, Pierre Trudeau presented the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69 (Bill C-150), an omnibus bill which, among other things, decriminalized homosexual acts between consenting adults. The law passed, and homosexuality was decriminalized in Canada in 1969.

Tommy Douglas was also a Baptist preacher.

Across the pond in the UK decriminalization happened about a year earlier - and positive attitudes about decriminalizing homosexuality, including the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury, had influenced that debate.

Homosexuality wasn't fully decriminalized in America until 2003. There's nothing boldly progressive about this or any chickensh*t American mainstream media takes on homosexuality up to and including the present day.


did this air in the u.k. in 1967? was it produced with a larger anglophone audience in mind? I'm not saying the program was progressive for the time period. in fact I didn't watch the wallace interview an even if I did I couldn't make that judgement.
I'm saying you're forgiven for believing that what was happening in the u.k. or canada at any given moment in recent history has anything at all to do with normative values in the u.s. at the time. I'm saying what was happening in those countries that happened to speak English is interesting, but it has nothing to so with whether this program can be considered a progressive examination of the topis or merely mainstream treatment of that subject in america during that time.
 
2012-05-01 08:31:35 PM  
I hope Mike Wallace is burning in hell for this
 
2012-05-01 08:37:14 PM  

relcec: in fact I didn't watch the wallace interview an even if I did I couldn't make that judgement.


Your whole comment was a waste of my time, then.

relcec: 'm saying you're forgiven for believing that what was happening in the u.k. or canada at any given moment in recent history has anything at all to do with normative values in the u.s. at the time. I'm saying what was happening in those countries that happened to speak English is interesting, but it has nothing to so with whether this program can be considered a progressive examination of the topis


Since I already wasted my time reading it I may as well answer the question. Wallace's piece actually does make reference to the UK's decriminalization efforts and Western Europe's lack of criminalization of homosexuality in an expansive section on criminality. Since the US isn't an island without a lack of access to news or influence from overseas, the debate in the UK would have made it to America as well - just as it made it to Canada. That's part of why the piece is not progressive even in context. Other reasons include skewing the section on psychiatry to only include expert voices arguing that homosexuality is a mental illness, for example.
 
2012-05-01 09:08:51 PM  
www.legaljuice.com

fc00.deviantart.net
 
2012-05-01 10:28:15 PM  
Did they 69 at the end of the segment?
 
2012-05-01 11:04:30 PM  
Saw the headline; came expecting to see some witty play on "The Aristocrats!" theme. Leaving sadly disappoint
 
2012-05-01 11:38:04 PM  
We don't excuse wrongs depending on what time it is. The founding fathers were wrong about slavery and racism. Wallace and these social scientists were wrong about homosexual bigotry. These prejudices are borne of ignorance not excused by it. Furthermore, in the case of Wallace this was 1967! -not some dark ages. I even suspect that the founding fathers for the most part knew that the way they were treating these people (slaves) was wrong. Certainly there were many voices exclaiming this at the time.
We must face up to these things. We do not have to be personally ashamed nor are we (of course) somehow responsible for the past, but we must acknowledge without excusing the errors made in our history. C'mon, It should be easier for us than the Germans.
 
2012-05-02 12:39:59 AM  

Mimic_Octopus: dv-ous: MIKE WALLACE: They are attracted mostly to the anonymity of the big city - New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco. The permissiveness and the variety of the cities draw them. The average homosexual, if there be such, is promiscuous. He is not interested in, nor capable of, a lasting relationship like that of a heterosexual marriage. His sex life - his "love life" - consists of a series of chance encounters at the clubs and bars he inhabits and even on the streets of the city. The pick-up, the one-night stand. These are characteristic of the homosexual relationship. And the homosexual prostitute has become a fixture on the downtown streets at night, on street corners and subway exits, where these young men signal their availability for pay.

Sounds good to me. *shrug*

from the gays i [know | see in public] this is all perfectly accurate. at least with the younger ones. retired gays seem to settle down some i guess...


I'm a gay male and I agree. I know gay men in their 80's who have never had a monogamous partner. I'm 31 and I've been monogamous with mine for 5 years.

I don't see it as a gay thing. I see it as a guy thing.
 
Displayed 50 of 110 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report