C3P0 a drama queen?
September 2, 2002 4:16 PM   Subscribe

C3P0 a drama queen? Who didn't see *that* one? Anyways... welcome to the only page on the internet about gay celebrity... robots.
posted by jcterminal (91 comments total)
 
Tracks from Transformers was not gay. Starscream on the other hand...
posted by Stan Chin at 4:24 PM on September 2, 2002


so cute! ...this macho-machine preferred a more submissive partner. Make no mistake, it was clear that Dr. Smith was the "bitch" in the relationship. Fans of the show can remember him moaning, "Oh, the pain!!!"

thanks jc!
posted by amberglow at 4:27 PM on September 2, 2002


In the Buck Rogers world, Crichton from Season 2 was a far, far gayer robot than Twiki.
posted by Mapes at 4:27 PM on September 2, 2002


Oh for Christ's sakes.

I got bored with this crap when Velma from Scooby-Doo was involved in the conversation during high school, and frankly I don't even care enough to be polite about it.

Get the hell over it, everyone. I am in total support of fair, constructive portrayal of gay... I guess in this case, anythings on television and in movies, but this entire concept of people all on their own deciding that fictional characters, primarily those from cartoons and children's stories, are all secretly gay is just annoying.

People declare these charactes gay using non-context ideas that you could apply to just about anything in existence to declare it anything you want. Just stop it.

C3PO's not gay. When George Lucas says he is, fine. Same thing with other characters: when you find a document or statement from Joe Hanna or Charles Schultz that says Velma or Peppermint Patty were gay, then we'll talk. In fact, I'd love to hear if this evidence exists just so I can show it to all these sites that just thought they were being cute and speculative.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:47 PM on September 2, 2002


I agree, let's discuss which openly gay robots are probably heterosexual.
posted by Stan Chin at 4:51 PM on September 2, 2002


heterosexual robots? that's insane.

In fact, I'd love to hear if this evidence exists just so I can show it to all these sites that just thought they were being cute and speculative.

If there's one thing I can't stand it's the multitude of sites listing which robots they think are gay without strict journalistic integrity. I mean seriously every time I search google nothing but amateur gay robot sites! enough already!
posted by rhyax at 5:04 PM on September 2, 2002


In fact, I'd love to hear if this evidence exists just so I can show it to all these sites that just thought they were being cute and speculative.
sounds like someone's robot lover malfunctioned last night.
posted by quonsar at 5:12 PM on September 2, 2002


"Ooooh...
get her!"
posted by dash_slot- at 5:23 PM on September 2, 2002


XQUZYPHYR, LTFU* thx.

*lighten the fuck up.
posted by jcterminal at 5:25 PM on September 2, 2002


I am in total support of fair, constructive portrayal of gay... I guess in this case, anythings on television and in movies,

As a formerly closeted gay robot, I have to say that I am 100% with XQUZYPHYR in this. Enough with the outing already! Until these gentlebots wish to come to terms with their real selves and step out into the wide wonderful galaxy which awaits them, they should be allowed to live out their private little hells as they desire.
posted by hob at 5:26 PM on September 2, 2002


"...and get her, too!"
posted by dash_slot- at 5:29 PM on September 2, 2002


Hey, it could get worse. Jcterminal could have posted some links to droid slash fiction.
posted by thomas j wise at 5:30 PM on September 2, 2002


Homosexual Robot Cop.
posted by donth at 5:41 PM on September 2, 2002


I am so... whatever.
posted by y2karl at 6:15 PM on September 2, 2002


this entire concept of people all on their own deciding that fictional characters, primarily those from cartoons and children's stories, are all secretly gay is just annoying.

"Annoying?" Heavens to Murgatroid (as a certain lisping pink lion used to say). What exactly is so "annoying" about the fact that Bugs Bunny is a total queer? How much crossdressing and male-male love do you need to see, anyway? The blatant use of obviously queer stereotypes in mainstream cartoons is hardly something that "people" decided to notice "all on their own." Gay humor has been part of cartoons since they began. Have you ever seen "Betty Boop for President" or "Betty Boop's Penthouse" from the early 1930s? Try a search for the word "gay" on either of these two pages. You might learn something.
posted by mediareport at 6:33 PM on September 2, 2002


Oops, try searching for "Betty Boop for President" on the first of the last two links; it'll be faster.
posted by mediareport at 6:35 PM on September 2, 2002


Anyway, it's time for your monthly irony-sensitizing treatments, XQUZYPHYR. Also, I blew David Hasselhoff's car, so there's some truth in the site.

This is the dumbest link I've seen in ages, and it seriously cracked me up. A lesser man would have afeared to post it to the big blue -- bless you, JC.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 7:12 PM on September 2, 2002


What's annoying? That people see stereotypical gay behavior and assume that all cross dressers or effeminate-acting people/cartoon characters/robots/whatever are gay. It's like saying "Ooh, the character loves fried chicken...heh, I'll bet he's black. Bet he can dance real good and play basketball, too." Decades ago, you could have gotten away with that. Indeed, if anyone had protested, you could also say "Come on, lighten up!"
posted by Poagao at 7:12 PM on September 2, 2002


mediareport, being an animation major at NYU studying both its production and history, as well as conversing and studying under several animation professors and historians who in addition to knowing the work of various Disney and Warner Bros. cartoons also in some cases actually worked on them, I'm going to start with saying that the subject of animation history is one I'll defend and openly say I have no doubt as to having an assload more accurate knowledge about it than you. So do me a favor and don't tell me to go learn something about animation; I've been doing that already for three and a half years. (Gosh, if that sounded any more catty you'd think I was a robot.)

As I once confered with John Culhane and John Canemaker on, who responded by concurring with me when Culhane had a similar discussion with Chuck Jones, Bugs Bunny didn't put on a dress because he needed to search deep inside his soul to address his latent unresolved homosexual issues. He did it because Elmer Fudd was a goddamn retard and actually was stupid enough to think a rabbit in a dress was a beautiful woman. And... check this out... that's funny. Not a subliminal socio-political-statement, though Merry Melodies had plenty of those. It was supposed to be funny.

As for your links, they proved my opinion themselves: Jones didn't make "What's Opera Doc" (which by the way is not a "camp classic, it's an Oscar-winning film and the first of few cartoons to actually be entered in the National Film Registry, thank you) as a statement against the homophobic aspects of the Hoover administration. The only people who would honestly believe that, and I'm betting you and me included, are people who are looking for a way to link cartoons to those said policies. I can give you five pages in the morning on how the Smurfs are Communist; that don't make it true.

The Betty Boop cartoons are a completely contrasting example... they are direct jokes at gay stereotypes. You have to look at the context and the time of the film. Though not alive back then, I can guess that in the 1940's and 1950's there was not as much popularity of the modern-day "gay male hairdresser" stereotype. Bugs Bunny putting on a dress and doing Gossamer's nails with a heavy Brooklyn accent was not a gay joke: it was a joke of female gossipy nail salon workers. In other words, putting on a dress is mostly a visual vehicle for making fun of a female stereotype, not a gay male one.

What I was trying to say was that I'd like to see gay characters that are actually called gay characters because the creators specifically made them gay, not because a bunch of college students sat around a TV with a bong and decided they knew more about what Chuck Jones was thinking than Chuck Jones.

I want there to be social statements and openly gay characters; I think a making a gay character a cultural icon is one of the easiest ways to teach tolerance. But why do those who look for a gay icon rally around characters that, if gay, have been (and will likely be) in the closest forever? Why not have a chacacter that the world can admire that there is no argument as to their homosexuality? In light of what Poagao said, it's important to make a non-stereotypical openly gay character just for those reasons.

Nevertheless, until someone can succeed with that, I still stick by my aggravation that someone has declared themselves important enough to override a creator's own thoughts as to the nature of one of their characters. Freud said "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar..." These cartoons are just a damned cigar. That's it. Live with it. Go read Lord of the Flies if you want to interpret the intricate subcontextual detail of every aspect of a narrative.

On preview: probably, RJ, but maybe it's just because, as we now see, I watch way too many cartoons.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:25 PM on September 2, 2002


I think XQUZYPHYR made a good argument...but I still think that like Bugs Bunny in a dress, the ludicrous idea of a ROBOT having gender, much less preferring one gender over another for sexual purposes, something it would have no interest in, is amusing for it's own sake. Perhaps if they hadn't named names? Cartoons can't defend themselves, after all.
posted by agregoli at 7:38 PM on September 2, 2002


not at all Xquz--it makes absolutely no difference whether the creator intended a character to be read as gay or not because once the creation is out in the world, everyone who views it will put their own spin on it, for humorous silly reasons or not. I'll always see Peppermint Patty and Marcy as a couple no matter what Charles Schulz thought...he has no power over how i read his characters once they are created...also see the furor over jar-jar blinks (a walking collection of stereotypes in my mind)....
posted by amberglow at 7:44 PM on September 2, 2002


Cartoons can't defend themselves, after all.
Neither can inactive accounts.

Hmm...
posted by holloway at 7:47 PM on September 2, 2002


I, for one, welcome our new gay celebrity robot overlords.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:09 PM on September 2, 2002


I have to stop looking at this thread. I was about to send amberglow a Hitler quote. It's gotten that ridiculous.
Nevertheless, I disagree completely.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:23 PM on September 2, 2002


Some robots ARE out of the closet, to their parents even.
posted by ursus_comiter at 8:24 PM on September 2, 2002


explain please....and i'm sorry but i don't have a hitler quote for you...but how about this: The Warner Bros. studio, where these cartoons were created in the 1940s and '50s, was an aggressively heterosexual milieu. Chuck Jones and other illustrators were mocking stereotyped homosexual behavior, not winking at homosexuals in a friendly way... from something called The Cartoon Closet
posted by amberglow at 8:31 PM on September 2, 2002


Hmm... not to interrupt amberglow, but that Cartoon Closet article seems horribly biased and stretches for a lot of conclusions.
posted by Stan Chin at 8:43 PM on September 2, 2002


i know Stan, i was in a hurry...help me find something better ..before i'm compared to hitler or something : >
posted by amberglow at 8:48 PM on September 2, 2002


but maybe that proves my point...once a creator is done with their creation, it not about how he wanted it to be perceived but how we perceive it....the differing views on bugs bunny and robots, etc are to be expected, unless the characters are completely one-dimensional!

now i feel better. : >
posted by amberglow at 8:52 PM on September 2, 2002


amberglow, those ...'s of yours omit the following lines:

Many of these antics were borrowed from vaudeville comedy, where a man dressing up as a woman didn't necessarily imply homosexuality (although the same questions arise in retrospect).

But while a man dressing up as a woman may not have "meant" anything in the 1940s, it does mean something in the late 1990s. What has sexualized these cartoon characters is the change in the culture, which in the last few decades has become not just aware of homosexuality but increasingly open about and tolerant of it.

IOW: They didn't make them gay; you're making them gay now.

On preview: Granted, but.... Oh, what the hell.

"The artist does not create for the artist; he creates for the people, and we will see to it that henceforth the people will be called in to judge its art." -Adolf Hitler

Oh look, a dead horse. What do I do with it now?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:58 PM on September 2, 2002


you know what i say about that hitler fellow....a big nancy boy he was!!! ; >
posted by amberglow at 9:03 PM on September 2, 2002


Phil: That's right. It's "Bi-Mon-Sci-Fi-Con". Come meet all your favorite stars! Mark Hamill! Alf! And many more!

Marty: Plus, tag-team robot wrestling! It's the mighty robots of Battlestar Galactica, versus the gay robots of Star Wars!

[source: simpsons archive, show guide ep aabf05]

I present a cartoon claiming that C3PO [and R2D2] are gay. If you look hard enough, you can find answers to all of life's questions on the Simpsons.
posted by birdherder at 9:03 PM on September 2, 2002


Why does everyone think that cross-dressing=homosexual? If that's something that just came about recently, it just means we're getting more and more clueless.
posted by Poagao at 9:05 PM on September 2, 2002


maybe because drag queens (gay men who cross-dress for entertainment value) have become an accepted part of the greater media universe? RuPaul, Dame Edna, etc...as opposed to Milton Berle and Sid Caesar, etc (straight men dressing as women for laughs)
posted by amberglow at 9:12 PM on September 2, 2002


Strangely I think amberglow and X (excuse the abbv., but no way I'm typing that whole thing) are both right and make good points. (I'm not even sure what they're disagreeing on)

I would have to think it is insulting to the creator of a character to have the public completely mangle the intent and meaning of a character. The public sophmorically imbuing a tasteless or ridiculous image on a character that the creator has spent years of his/her life crafting is a problem all artists deal with: interpretation.

Amberglow is right to think that the public may interpret however they wish, but I suggest if you're feeling empathetic try to respect the creator's original intent. Creators on the flipside will also just have to get over it unfortunately.

And as X previously noted, there is a serious need for non-stereotypical gay characters in all media.

A personal vendetta of my own is the complete bastardization of Calvin and Hobbes for car decals depicting urination on [RANDOM NASCAR LOGO]. Or even worse, shudder, Calvin praying at a cross.

By the way, this is the best serious discussion deriving from a Gay Robot post I've ever seen.
posted by Stan Chin at 9:19 PM on September 2, 2002


thank X for that, Stan--he got mad first!
posted by amberglow at 9:31 PM on September 2, 2002


amberglow: maybe because drag queens (gay men who cross-dress for entertainment value) have become an accepted part of the greater media universe? RuPaul, Dame Edna, etc...as opposed to Milton Berle and Sid Caesar, etc (straight men dressing as women for laughs)

Dame Edna is a character of Barry Humphries... who is a straight man who dresses up as a woman for laughs... just like Milton Berle and Sid Caeser...

just a friendly nit-pick from an aussie in the know ;)
posted by cheaily at 9:54 PM on September 2, 2002


My ego got the better of me and I owe you an apology, XQUZYPHYR. Sorry for the "learn something" crack; it was horrid and I'm embarrassed to have written it. The good news, however, is that this proud owner of two Koko the Clown collections is delighted to meet a fellow fan of animation history.

I will say that your furious take on the complexities of the artist/audience relationship struck me as bizarre (I mean, "Get the hell over it, everyone"? Was that really necessary?). While I won't go quite as far as amberglow ("it makes absolutely no difference whether the creator intended a character to be read as gay or not"), I will defend the right of audience members to interpret and claim characters as their own without the necessity of a clear understanding of the intent of the creator. Analyzing this stuff is a balancing act, yes, but you've tilted way too far in the direction of only allowing one meaning for rich pop culture icons. That's just not how it works, and I don't see what exactly we lose by admitting that.

From amberglow's Cartoon Closet link: But while a man dressing up as a woman may not have "meant" anything in the 1940s, it does mean something in the late 1990s.

Um, sorry. While not all crossdressing = gay, playing with gender boundaries "meant something" in the 1940s, too. It may have meant something *different* from what it means now, but don't tell me it didn't mean anything at all. Still, this is all irrelevant to the point, which is that Bugs Bunny is and always will be a big ol' queer. Well, slightly bi, anyway. Any character who could become hairdresser to the stars so easily has *definitely* had some hot male-male sex at least once in his life. My guess is it was with Daffy, back when they were experimenting in junior high school.
posted by mediareport at 10:02 PM on September 2, 2002


My guess is it was with Daffy, back when they were experimenting in junior high school.

Probably.

(maybe nsfw)
posted by Stan Chin at 10:08 PM on September 2, 2002


"Bugs Bunny putting on a dress and doing Gossamer's nails with a heavy Brooklyn accent was not a gay joke: it was a joke of female gossipy nail salon workers. In other words, putting on a dress is mostly a visual vehicle for making fun of a female stereotype, not a gay male one."

your nails must be in bad shape, darling. i've got the number to a good salon if you need it.
posted by jcterminal at 11:36 PM on September 2, 2002


This thread is amazing. I'm shocked that anyone is offended by such a silly website... as if the creator of said site ACTUALLY believes that these "robots" are gay. But whatever... That aside, C3-PO does behave in a such a manor that one might be likely to agree that if the robot were an actual human being, he COULD be gay... based on a few (god forbid) stereotypes. I like to call them 'character trait consistencies'... er sumthin'.

I dunno... maybe that's me just me being my little stereotypical white-male self.

Poagao: It's like saying "Ooh, the character loves fried chicken...heh, I'll bet he's black. Bet he can dance real good and play basketball, too."

Had someone asked me, that would have been my guess too, given those clues.

Stan Chin: And as X previously noted, there is a serious need for non-stereotypical gay characters in all media.

So a gay person that DOESN'T seem gay at all? Please describe for me a non-stereotypical gay character. I'm begging you.
posted by Witty at 2:11 AM on September 3, 2002


"........Not a subliminal socio-political-statement, though Merry Melodies had plenty of those."

So what your saying is that socio-political statements about homosexual robots are unfounded, yet non homosexual robot socio political statements are?

I need an explanation, XQUZYPHYR
posted by Keyser Soze at 3:57 AM on September 3, 2002


Gay celebrity robots can speak well enough for themselves, thank you.
posted by precocious at 4:29 AM on September 3, 2002


Old Will and Grace joke - Jack wants to gather evidence that C3PO is gay and publish it on the internet.

Will: "For the last time, Jack, C3PO isn't gay, he's British."
posted by jonpollard at 6:01 AM on September 3, 2002


geez, some people know how to suck all the fun out of gay celebrity robot sites.
posted by tolkhan at 6:31 AM on September 3, 2002


Witty: There are plenty of gay people out there in the world who do not conform to the current gay stereotypes, believe it or not. And unfortunately, many people hearing Poagao's quote about presuming a character is black WOULD indeed think that character is black, because what producer/creator these days have we seen to make a non-stereotypical black character on television? We've got a long way to go, baby.
posted by agregoli at 6:52 AM on September 3, 2002


Thanks for not answering the question agregoli.

There are plenty of gay people out there in the world who do not conform to the current gay stereotypes, believe it or not.

I do believe it. I never said there weren't. From your statement, you're implying that there are also plenty of gay people out there in the world that DO resemble much of what you'll find in stereotypes. Stereotypes don't just fall out of the sky. They come from some level of fact and/or patterned behavioral or cultural trends... over time.

I'm still curious how you (or whoever) would describe a non-stereotypical gay character.

...because what producer/creator these days have we seen to make a non-stereotypical black character on television?

So all black characters on TV and stereotypical black people? What are you saying?
posted by Witty at 7:17 AM on September 3, 2002


The gay stereotype results from gay people who behave like that being the only "identifiable" kind of gay people for society as a whole. In my opinion, society prefers the stereotype and clings to it desperately because to them what is known is safe, so if the majority of 'mos were running in stealth mode, they could be *gasp* anywhere! Oh the horror.
posted by Poagao at 7:41 AM on September 3, 2002


Of course there are people out there that fit the gay stereotype. I never argued different. Why can't we have a character on television that just happens to be gay, without all the hooplah? Someone that isn't defined solely by their gayness? And as far as I can see, there aren't that many non-stereotyped blacks on TV either. A few, but not nearly enough. And where are the latinos?
posted by agregoli at 7:56 AM on September 3, 2002


agregoli, there are characters on tv that fulfill that role: the lady doctor on ER, that guy on Spin City, etc....many shows have slipped a gay or lesbian character into their ensemble casts, with more on the way every year. Their sexuality is just a part of their character's life--not the whole reason for their existence....I even see Will on Will & Grace as filling that role (but that's because he's not allowed to have sex or anything)
posted by amberglow at 8:10 AM on September 3, 2002


So a gay person that DOESN'T seem gay at all? Please describe for me a non-stereotypical gay character. I'm begging you.

I don't know, I was trying to defend GAY ROBOTS for goodness sakes.
posted by Stan Chin at 8:59 AM on September 3, 2002


amberglow - thanks for pointing out the gay doctor on ER - I forgot about her. I also like her character because she uses a cane, but they've never explained why. Which is great - it's not important!!!
posted by agregoli at 9:03 AM on September 3, 2002


Bugs Bunny putting on a dress and doing Gossamer's nails with a heavy Brooklyn accent was not a gay joke: it was a joke of female gossipy nail salon workers.

It was a joke about a clever *male* becoming a female gossipy nail salon worker. That is, a queer joke. Why the need to deny that so strongly?
posted by mediareport at 3:41 PM on September 3, 2002


Stan Chin: I don't know, I was trying to defend GAY ROBOTS for goodness sakes.

You were? Perhaps we're discussing different statements you made. I'm referring to the one below.

And as X previously noted, there is a serious need for non-stereotypical gay characters in all media.

agregoli: ...without all the hooplah

What hooplah? I think you're inventing 'hooplah'. So a gay character without all the hooplah, that doesn't fit into stereotypes? Hmmm. Perhaps a gay character that we have NO IDEA is gay? Maybe because the non-stereotypical gay character doesn't want/NEED to talk about it.

On second thought, that might not work because the rest of us heteros might notice some context clues about the character and wrongly make assumptions about the character's sexuality. If only we could find clues that were new to the homosexual community, ones that don't suggest some type of trend or commonality.
posted by Witty at 4:42 PM on September 3, 2002


No, I meant, I really don't care. I came to gossip about gay robots.

As far as the whole stereotypes thing, yes, some people do resemble stereotypes, but we certainly shouldn't reinforce them all the time. And I said I don't know, because I'm not gay. Personally, I'd like to see more Asians that aren't known for their Kung-Fu.

Whatever really, let's get back to the point: C3P0 is pretty gay. I think R2D2 is bisexual though.
posted by Stan Chin at 5:53 PM on September 3, 2002


I know--we need a gay asian kung-fu robot!!!! (or we could use Mechagodzilla!--he was a big queen too!) ; >
i couldn't resist Stan--sorry!

I think R2D2 was asexual actually--but served as the porn hologram provider for everyone else....I think robots have to look humanoid to give them sexuality.
posted by amberglow at 6:10 PM on September 3, 2002


Don't forget R2D2 had that cool compartment that ejects vibrators. Oh, you can't seriously tell me that they designed R2D2 to hold light sabers and eject them while on desert slaveships. How many people who own astromech droids even have light sabers? I'd guarantee you a lot more used it to hold sex toys and beer.
posted by Stan Chin at 6:29 PM on September 3, 2002


Oh, I'm offended by your blatant discrimination that robots must be humanoid to have sexuality. Their disability (Lack of human form) does not make them any less sexy. HAL 9000 could love, be jealous, and even sing ballads. Surely, he could also be kinky, albeit through unorthodox measures.
posted by Stan Chin at 6:41 PM on September 3, 2002


totally, Stan

I don't know why, but now i'm thinking of that Lexx head thing....ugh!!!
posted by amberglow at 6:45 PM on September 3, 2002


I'm discriminating--I know--have all the non-humanoid robots picket outside my house...maybe i'll change my ways!
posted by amberglow at 6:47 PM on September 3, 2002


Sounds like a shallow ploy to get hordes of gay sexy robots to come to your house, if you ask me.
posted by Stan Chin at 7:08 PM on September 3, 2002


all right--you caught me!
mmmm....gay sexy robots in my house....

oh, but how do you know I'm not one myself?
posted by amberglow at 7:13 PM on September 3, 2002


oh, we forgot the robot on Time Squad
posted by amberglow at 7:29 PM on September 3, 2002


What hooplah? I think you're inventing 'hooplah'. So a gay character without all the hooplah, that doesn't fit into stereotypes? Hmmm. Perhaps a gay character that we have NO IDEA is gay? Maybe because the non-stereotypical gay character doesn't want/NEED to talk about it.

Why do the gay characters have to be defined soley as I'M GAY, that's where all the jokes and storylines are? Couldn't we have a regular character who yes, it's mentioned they are gay? They don't have to conform to stereotypes in order to have that fact be a part of their character's composition, believe it or not.
posted by agregoli at 7:29 PM on September 3, 2002


Nobody will know what I'm talking about, but Small Wonder was probably just a really advanced real doll. I don't think it was gay though.

Anybody other than me remember that show?
posted by Stan Chin at 7:34 PM on September 3, 2002


I'm still curious how you (or whoever) would describe a non-stereotypical gay character.

I'm guessing this would be a cartoon character who acts, looks, and sounds heterosexual except for the scenes where he is snorking up a trouser snake.

I think R2D2 is bisexual though.

Oh please! R2D2 is obviously a precocious 3 year-old. Or a very smart puppy.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:35 PM on September 3, 2002


hey Secret and Agregoli--come join the fun!

Stan, now you're just sick! that Small Wonder girl! I am disgusted and horrified!!! you straight boys always go too far!
and that was a terrible, terrible show!

keep it coming!
posted by amberglow at 7:44 PM on September 3, 2002


Are you saying that 3 year olds or puppies can't be gay or bisexual?
posted by Stan Chin at 7:45 PM on September 3, 2002


only robot puppies are gay (actually extraordinarily so!)
posted by amberglow at 7:54 PM on September 3, 2002


What do you mean, come join the fun? I was under the impression I was part of it. Sigh, out on the edge of the circle again.
posted by agregoli at 8:08 PM on September 3, 2002


i'm sorry ag; i didn't mean it that way
(Want a gay sexy robot for yourself? I'm pimping them now!)
posted by amberglow at 8:18 PM on September 3, 2002


It was a joke about a clever *male* becoming a female gossipy nail salon worker. That is, a queer joke. Why the need to deny that so strongly?

So the definition of gay is "male becoming female?" Jesus, the situation is worse than I thought. The only way that could be construed as a queer joke is if one were operating under all kinds of misconceptions about gay people.

I'm not trying to be an activist of "spoil your fun" with this lighthearted threat. I'm just sick of people telling me I can't be gay because I'm not effeminate, people asking me why I want to be a woman (hint: I don't). I want throttle them, but end up doing it only in my mind, lest I appear on Mefi as yet another bizarre news story.
posted by Poagao at 9:02 PM on September 3, 2002


Poagao, don't let other people's stupidity get to you so much (even ours here!)...the people who say that stuff to you are having their eyes opened by your very existence (something they couldn't imagine), so you're doing good (or they want you, and they're upset they can't have you)...

how about a nice gay sexy robot? : >
posted by amberglow at 9:11 PM on September 3, 2002


Yeah, yeah, that must be it! They want me! They really want me!

I think I'll get a cat instead. Now there's a gay stereotype for ya.
posted by Poagao at 9:39 PM on September 3, 2002


Poagao, you have to get a cat and then the cat has to get its own cat--that's how you do it!
posted by amberglow at 9:45 PM on September 3, 2002


So the definition of gay is "male becoming female?" Jesus, the situation is worse than I thought.

It always is, hon; it always is. But I used the more general word "queer" instead of "gay" there for a reason, Poagao. To me, queerness -- by definition -- includes things like gender role play, whether bi, homo, hetero or (as a friend of mine likes to say) alien. I think "Gay" is a somewhat more limited category than "Queer." Some folks seemed to be completely stripping Bugs' drag of all *queer* content, and I was arguing that that's ridiculous. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I'm just sick of people telling me I can't be gay because I'm not effeminate

Fuck 'em. There are as many ways to be lesbian/gay as there are lesbians/gays; that's obvious. But while some of my best friends are ultra-macho fags, they also know how much fun it can be to put on a wig every once in a while. ;)
posted by mediareport at 10:31 PM on September 3, 2002


Poagao: I'm just sick of people telling me I can't be gay because I'm not effeminate

I hope you're not including me in that statement. You can be gay however you want to be. I don't have issue with "how" people are gay or black or asian or white or anything else. I WANT people to be exactly how they are, as genuinely as possible. But I'm not afraid of stereotypes either. I'm not one that jumps into the crowd and decides that just because a stereotype exists, that it must be a bad thing.

It seems to me that folks like XQUZYPHYR, Stan Chin, and agregoli aren't comfortable with majority of gay people as they are. I think agregoli calls for more "non-stereotypical" black characters because he/she isn't comfortable with black culture, behaviors, traditions, etc. The more black characters can be like agregoli, the more agregoli will watch. The less gay (defined as non-stereotypical) a character can be, the better for agregoli.

These people prefer whiter black people and straighter gays.

Secret Life of Gravy - That was funny.
posted by Witty at 1:18 AM on September 4, 2002


So you think the majority of gay people are effeminate drag queens? Do you assume that because those are the only ones you notice? Well, that's my point, i.e. it's a misconception of who gay people are.

When will people understand that being gay is not about how limp your wrist is or how many Barbra Striesand (or however you spell it) movies you've seen?
posted by Poagao at 2:17 AM on September 4, 2002


You're going off the deep end Poagao. What makes you think I believe that the majority of gay men are effeminate drag queens? I never said anything like that. "Drag queens" is an excessive addition on your part. The majority of gay men are effeminate however... that's a result, a symptom, a characteristic, whatever you want to call it, of being gay. Gay women, for the most part, are considerably more masculine than straight women. Is that even arguable?

When will people understand that being gay is not about how limp your wrist is or how many Barbra Striesand (or however you spell it) movies you've seen?

Where are you getting this stuff from? Are you afraid to talk about stereotypes because you happen to be a member of a group of people that are often stereotyped the most. It's not like I'm immune to being stereotyped by other groups.

What is being gay about then? I'm sincerely interested in your response.
posted by Witty at 4:50 AM on September 4, 2002


I'm somewhat offended by your comments, witty, but there might be a small element of truth to them. The problem is, how would I know, when I only see one consistent stereotype on television? There are a few exceptions, but not enough, in my eyes. I don't believe that it's diversified enough, so I'm not comfortable with what the media is presenting, that's for sure. And why should I be comfortable with ONLY a stereotype, that I see isn't necessarily true in every day life? I'm GLAD I'm not satisfied with it, as you seem to be.
posted by agregoli at 5:42 AM on September 4, 2002


I am neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. I don't see it being as big an issue as you do. If a TV show or movie wants to cast someone to play a gay character, it's usually because the fact that the person is gay is particular and vital to the concept of the program. Characters are most often exaggerations and extreme examples of the types of people they are portraying. So I don't understand how you can have a character playing a non-typical 'whatever' while giving the 'whatever' any strength to the character if the 'whatever' doesn't matter and never carries any focus.

For instance, if Kramer from Seinfeld was gay, what would be the point in knowing that fact if it had no bearing on the show.

I admittedly don't watch much TV... at all. The only gay characters I can think of at the moment are the two guys on the HBO show Six Feet Under. I don't think I would consider those two to be stereotypes as you define them. But of course they do exhibit some of the characteristics of gay men... as they should. Are there better examples of stereotypical gay characters on TV?
posted by Witty at 6:02 AM on September 4, 2002


To me, queerness -- by definition -- includes things like gender role play, whether bi, homo, hetero or (as a friend of mine likes to say) alien. I think "Gay" is a somewhat more limited category than "Queer." Some folks seemed to be completely stripping Bugs' drag of all *queer* content, and I was arguing that that's ridiculous.

Of course, there are many who interpret Bugs Bunny as a trickster figure, which throws notions of gender into further confusion.
posted by elgoose at 7:36 AM on September 4, 2002


I didn't bring up HBO and Six Feet Under (my favorite show) because it is not mainstream television as most of the viewing public gets - it is a cut above. I don't think that a character being gay NEVER has to have focus, it's a part of that character, and if it is within the plot, sure, but it doesn't have to be the MAIN focus of every gay character. That's all.
posted by agregoli at 9:05 AM on September 4, 2002


Being gay is about being sexually attracted to people of the same sex. It's not about being overly effeminate or masculine, although I'd be interested to see the statistics on which you base your assumption that most gay men are effeminate.
posted by Poagao at 9:34 AM on September 4, 2002


I'm going to chime in and say that there needs to be more well-written gay male characters in television and movies.

However, speaking as a heterosexual male, lesbians need to continue to be stereotyped as buxom, blond, "girls gone wild" adventurous, perhaps interested in threesome, and feminine as much as possible.
posted by Stan Chin at 9:38 AM on September 4, 2002


"Being gay is about being sexually attracted to people of the same sex."

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I think you've lost focus on what we're talking about.

"It's not about being overly effeminate or masculine..."

Never said it was or anything close to that.

"...although I'd be interested to see the statistics on which you base your assumption that most gay men are effeminate."

Are you kidding? Ok, at least 51% of all gay men are somewhat effeminate.
[source: me]

"...but it doesn't have to be the MAIN focus of every gay character."

I just don't see this type of thing I guess. I've never seen a gay character who's only purpose on a show was "to BE gay". And if the fact that the character is gay doesn't matter at all, then why even tell the viewer?

I dunno. We could battle this to the end of time. I see where you're coming from though, I do, I try.
posted by Witty at 10:06 AM on September 4, 2002


Come on, Witty. Try this: At least 51% of *all* men are somewhat effeminate. Sheesh. It's called the dual nature of gender. All humans share in it, regardless of bi, hetero or homo status.
posted by mediareport at 12:24 PM on September 4, 2002


What about Futura? Futura works that whole androgynous, gender-bending robot thing pretty hard so I'm nominating her as an icon the rest of these fabulous robots can worship. Besides, her movie inspired this video.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:48 PM on September 4, 2002


"I love my dead gay robot."
posted by ColdChef at 8:20 PM on September 4, 2002


i don't know October, wasn't she supposed to be the ultimate straight girl?

although I think maybe the chuck e. cheese robots count
posted by amberglow at 8:48 PM on September 4, 2002


mediareport: Try this: At least 51% of *all* men are somewhat effeminate.

Ok, sure... we'll go with that then. That works. Thanks for the helping hand.

Sheesh.

Sheesh what? You're proving my point. I don't take issue with your "data". But for anyone to believe that being effeminate is NOT a common triat among the majority of gay men is just plain silly. So if you say it's 51% of all men, then so be it... it makes my "statistic" just as accurate.

It's called the dual nature of gender. All humans share in it, regardless of bi, hetero or homo status.

Sweet... we learn something everyday.
posted by Witty at 12:56 PM on September 5, 2002


« Older Does the MDA Labor Day telethon   |   Big bother is watching us? Or is he just watching... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments