omfg…. its a tv program people! politcal correctness is going a BIT to far if you ask me!
The only thing I’m asking of you is that you learn to spell “it’s”, “programme”, “political”, and “too”.
Let me try that again:
It’s, programme, political, and too.
Actually, in North America, it is generally spelled “program.” (and “spelt” is spelt “spelled”)
Well North America hasn’t spoken or written English for years, and this is a British site.
Americans can’t even construct a finite sentence any more.
Let’s just keep appalling, cheap Americanisms off this site thank you very much. We don’t need that lazy coarseness here. And no Barbie doll-like nasal twanging, either, which grates just as much. Sniff!
Ofcom doesn’t seem to be a fan of gays…
This will be interesting
No it wont.
I wasn’t offended by the adverts. Tell Ofcom and it’s daily mail readership to go and fu*k themselves.
Another show of “real” people acting badly, if Chelsea and Essex are anything to go by. I suppose it keeps the Drama School rejects employed though.
How about some quality drama on Channel 5 for a change?
I thought the adverts were quite fun!
You have a desperately boring life then.
What’re the odds the complaints were from some of these evangelical freaks?
I havent seen the ad, but I’ll bet none of the ‘lesbians’ look like the lesbians I know. Short hair, doc martins and shirts with rolled up sleeves. If the lesbians featured in the ad are glam, beautiful women, then Id agree that Ch5 are guilty of titterfying lesbianism for the benefit of straight men, hoping to pull them in as viewers, which IS abit vulgar
Uhm, some lesbians aren’t actually like you describe. How ridiculous of you to follow such a stereotype. Yes, a lot are like that, but not all; thus, if Channel 5 choose to not cast lesbians that don’t look how you mention, they cannot be accused of “titterfying lesbianism” for the beneft of heterosexual men.
I didnt say for a moment that ALL lesbians were ‘like that’. I said “the lesbians I know”, look like that. And as for the second half of your post, I stand by the opinion that if the lesbians that Ch5 have used in the ad, or appear in the show, are all glam, lipstick lesbians, then I think thats a decision that they would have made based on the fantasies of straight men, therefore making the show more appealing, than if it were full of dyke type lesbians. And if the whole premise of the show is ‘reality’, well then, thats not a very real depiction of gay life
Spiritbody, I was afraid that this was aimed at straight men too, so I understand where you’re coming from. But I refuse to let ‘what straight men like’ impact on my viewing or what kind of lesbians we can have visible on TV. (Don’t get me started on how much I HATE that and the whole idea that men somehow own our sexuality).
I know that we all see things from our own angle, but personally I think that we see too much of the ‘stereotypical lesbian’ and not enough variety. We’re all different and we don’t need to have a certain look to be lesbians. I think it’s important people realise that, particularly young women discovering their sexuality. It’d be nice if we were shown in all our diversity.
I also had another thought – perhaps the ad was purposely avoiding showing lesbians that were too ‘stereotypical’ to broaden people’s view or to avoid stereotypes, as they thought?
Yeah thats a really interesting thought. But I cant decide which image of lesbian needs the most promoting. If this show were full of butch lesbians Id probably say “How stereotypical. They should be showing that lesbians can also be glam feminine ladies”, and if it were full of glam feminine ladies, id probably think “How vulgar to pander to straight mens fantasy type lesbian. They should be showing butch lesbians if they want to depict reality”. lol so you cant win with me sometimes.
Variety is the spice of life – in this as in most things, I’d say :D
But seriously, I do know that some younger girls have an extra struggle with their sexuality because they think that lesbians must look a certain way – short hair, butch etc etc. If they themselves don’t look like that it can cause a lot of confusion and pain (teenage years being very sensitive ones anyway).
Showing you can be a lesbian and look and act however you want and not have to conform to some special pattern is important to me because of that.
It holds true equally for other gay, bisexual and trans people too. Stereotypes are bad for everyone, I think.
Um, could that not be because these stereotypes do exist? You see them all over the place. I took my nieces to see the Glee roadshow last week and amid the teenage girls screaming and throwing their knickers at the cast were the most stereotypical-looking gay men doing likewise (well, maybe not so much knicker-throwing). Sure we are not all like that, but just as many of us squirm when seeing real life embodiments of gay stereotypes, male or female, the media are bound to use such caricatures as extreme representations of gay culture for entertainment value. It is the Nortons, Carrs and Wintons that put bums on seats. Just compare their antics to the blandness and insipidness of the “rugged” EastEnders duo of Christian and Syed. No competition!
Yes, stereotypes exist but it’s lazy to use them and nothing else. While I appreciate other groups may be stereotyped (eg older people perhaps), I think there’s more awareness of stereotyping there and a move away from it.
As for the ‘bums on seats’ – hmm, maybe, I don’t know. But how can people move on when stereotypes are perpetuated?
As for Norton, Carr and Winton :D personally I only like Graham Norton of those three – not because he’s camp but because I think he’s funny.
Another interesting point is how much people play up to stereotypes to be ‘safe’ and popular. I’m not suggesting any of those three do, but in the past gay men being very camp clearly marked them out as ‘not like us so no need to worry’ and made them seem unthreatening to most people.
The vast majority of lesbians I know, and I know a LOT of lesbians (being one myself), don’t have short hair, don’t wear Doc Martens and don’t wear shirts with rolled up sleeves. In fact the vast majority of my lesbian peer group could “pass for straight” if you follow stereotypes. I think a lot of lesbians probably do have cropped hair and dress fairly androgynously (because that’s how they feel comfortable) but a large number of them, particularly these days, would probably pass under the radar (gaydar?) as they just look like anyone else.
If I had £1 for every time someone had said to me “I never would’ve guessed you’re a lesbian!” I would’ve earned myself a good few quid. Honestly, it frustrates me a bit that people assume you have to look a certain way to be a lesbian (and I’m not saying you have that attitude Spiritbody).
I’m hoping there’ll be a mix of different-looking, different-acting lesbians of a variety of ages, races and personalities… is that too much to hope for?
So what if these adverts are shown before the ‘watershed’, on TV, so far as we are concerned we are normal and the public should get used to seeing gay people holding hands and kissing in public, like the ‘so-called’ normal people, perhaps the advent of Same-Sex Marriage will help reinforce our identity.
I suppose the ultimate Reality Show would be a show about some people who work in a TV Studio putting on a show about themselves. No need to involve anyone else and really low cost/high profit margin. And hey some of them are bound to be gay.
Are we sure that channel 5 aren’t just turning the lives of lesbians into some sort of freak show?
How many contacted Ofcom to say that they see no reason to tell them that they have no complaint?
Does this even make sense?
How about telling that you are offended
about these homophobia complaints that you too quickly react.
Can’t make sense of this one either.
Bet this show will be a jerk off session for geezers. A bit like the bbc3 show last year. Reminds me of guys at my school ,their mantra was, hate chi chi men but pretty lesbians are nice,they know how to please a man .
Oh you went to Eton too!
i wish , no some crummy south london cesspit, now obviously called an academy. Doubt if they even heard of chi chi man slang in eton.
“Then, the women were shown at the gym or stroking a toy cat while a voiceover said: “Well, what were you expecting?”
Shock horror, it appears that some people have just realised that Lesbian sexual desire does not actually involve men.
Offcom complainers. Get over it.
These shows are aimed a heterosexual males who get off on fake lesbian commercial porn……You will see lots if kissing and groping while at some point one of the main actors will go off and sleep with a man (to make the audience think all lesbians are obtainable to short fat balding men with low IQ’s)……..Bring back Sugar Rush, at lest it intelligently explored all of human sexuality.
I agree, that does sound some what like sad heterosexual male titterlation.
Or rather, blatant misoygny.
Yep, bring back sugar rush
Indeed. I suspect they are hoping to get sponsorship from Kleenex……
I really hope not, Helen, but I suspect you may be right.
What a tedious idea for a reality TV show. I suppose that every time the girls go out for dinner, the voiceover will entreat the audience to “tune in next week to see lesbians eating out!”
Sorry, but am I the only one that finds this offensive?
I’m all for equal rights and doing a gay/les show but this all smacks of Sunday Sport’s “Three in a bed lezzers in a sexy romp with a cucumber” type exploitation targeted at straight men into a bit of girl-on-girl action.
Probably Even :)
I think if Sex and the City can be cut for daytime views then these ads hardly break the mould.
They can have ads to promote straight shows but not Gay/Lesbian one…mmm.
Who compaigned I wonder?
14 people…that’s the entire Christian Voice membership ;)
That’s the entire churchgoing population of the country.
Probably – lo
.Probably – lol