Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Glee’s controversial gay sex episode airs tonight

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. having seen the episode, your making far too much noise about nothing , it does not actually show very much at all , it focuses mostly the last few mins on rachel and finn .. and what it does show is pethetic to the noise your making about it

  2. Erm its glee, i think the most sex i ever seen on that show was people laying in bed together never actually showing anything at all … whats the fuss? people need to get over it, theres far worse and more damaging stuff on TV. Instead of focussing on abstinence (which only works for kids that won’t have sex) the US should be focussing on a big push for contraception to prevent STI and pregnancies.

  3. people will never get over it, I am sure the daily mail and or the sun will try to incite more homophobic points of views telling us how tv is corrupting our youth (errrr if you don’t want your kids to watch don’t give them tv’s in their rooms) and spreading the gay filth to unacceptable levels, pretty much the same as they wrote for every other gay scene from willow and tera kissing on Buffy to brookside back in the day. irrelevant how innocuous any of it is.

    1. Nawal Husnoo 10 Nov 2011, 12:43pm

      But, to quote Stephen Fry on another matter, “….but TV shows that portray people shooting other people in the face is ok.”

      1. of course it is ok, the daily mail and the sun seem to not to be to worried by that so it must be ok, they are truly the source to the fountain of all morality.

        Nice quote btw I love Stephen Fry :)

      2. It’s VERY true! Look at Torchwood: Miracle Day episode 7 and all the fuss made by that! Captain Jack in that same episode was tortured and shot and beaten etc and NOBODY complained about that. They only complained about a love scene and that was just what it was, a love scene between two epople who loved one another. The only disgraceful thing about the whole thing was peoples double standars! We don’t want to see two men in bed with one another ut the more blood and gust the bettter!!!

      3. Dan Filson 11 Nov 2011, 1:27am

        Is that what is called a facial?

  4. I watched it yesterday and Chris Colfer’s right. It’s a sweet episode. There’s some talk about sex, a couple of kisses and no nudity. Really not a big deal

  5. Perhaps in prudish America this sort of thing might be controversial or ground-breaking or new (I doubt it though) but not here. We’ve had gay relationships and gay teenagers on our screens for decades. Queer as Folk in 1999 was far more graphic and explicit.

    Where’s the news here?

    1. Indeed. What’s this nonesense about ‘the first time something like this has been shown on television’? ‘Queer As Folk’ was way ahead of the Americans…

      1. I’m pretty sure he meant network (non-cable) television in the US.

  6. I’ve already seen the episode nothing happens, It’s a bit dull tbh I don’t really like the new series and I hate all the new characters they seem to have no realisticness (if thats a word) to them at all.

    1. jamestoronto 10 Nov 2011, 1:30pm

      Good word but realness, reality or realism would be better choices.

      1. Reality didn’t seem like it fitted but realism is gonna be my new insertion – just imagine I’d said that instead haha :P

  7. Father Ted 10 Nov 2011, 1:04pm

    Funny how a few bigots in a room like to call themselves a “council” so that they can sound more important than they are. Another one, a certified hate group, is the “family research council”.

    I may watch this episode, though I’m no fan of Glee.

  8. Well I wish there had been TV like this when I was a scared, confused teenager growing up and learning to keep secrets about my sexuality. I think the quote from Stephen Fry hits the nail on the head.

    1. Absolutely Shane

      It is a grown up and responsible broadcaster that demonstrates that society includes gay people – who experience the same emotions, questions, doubts, insecurities, joy, love and hopes as their heterosexual peers.

  9. Already saw it this Tuesday!

    It was sweet, cute, totally within the perimeters of what most teen dramas usually do when it comes to sex. The only difference was it was two guys.

    Of course, any portrayal of the fact that two men can be tender, considerate, intimate with each other in a sexual relationship is probably NEWS to so many mostly male homophobes who can only associate the act of sex between men with domination, violation, humiliation and one-sided satisfaction….largely in part because that is how THEY approach sex with women. So they think in a situation with two men, one has to be the “lesser”, the “woman” and that any man would “demean” himself that way or want to “demean” his fellowman that way is UNBEARABLE.

    Never met a homophobe who was also a noted skilled lover of women and champion of women’s sexual freedom and satisfaction.

    Also, it is interesting so many straight women love seeing men get romantic and intimate with each other, largely in part because they wish THEIR men did.

    1. Nawal Husnoo 10 Nov 2011, 4:00pm

      So true!
      A Type I homophobe is a gay or bisexual person that represses their own sexuality. They tend to be viciously homophobic and self-hating closeted homosexual or bisexual homophobes. Usually, either they are religious or they live in a religious community. In general, this kind of people will have been bullied and brainwashed into believing being gay and engaging in a gay relationship is wrong, dangerous or undesirable.

      A Type II homophobe is a viciously homophobic heterosexual person who has romantically been rejected by a bisexual or gay person in the past, or is in a relationship with a closeted gay person and fears that their current partner, who is either gay or bisexual might leave them now and break their heart.

      Both Types I and II homophobes have no idea what a healthy relationship is and as such, are unable to judge which relationships are worthy of encouraging or discouraging.

      [Gay Agenda, 2:10] (http://www.gayagendabook.com/gayagenda.html#2_10)

      1. I think there is also Type III Homophobe.

        Heterosexual men and women who are secretly unhappy with the paradigm they have blindly adopted in their self-expression and life choices. Religion, culture, society have told both men and women a lot of crap about how they are SUPPOSED to be and a lot of straight people who have bought it hook, line and sinker are now very unhappy.

        Monogamy, marriage, what is supposedly “Manly” vs. what is supposedly “SIssy & weak”, what is supposedly “Ladylike” and what is suppsoedly “Slutty and/or inappropriate or selfish”

        This has led to mercenary, unfulfilling and disappointing straight relationships and loads of sexual dysfunctions.

        So, when dissatisfied straight people see gay people enjoying an “alternative” that is not available to them (because they are not attracted to the same sex) it seems to them like we are getting our cake and eating it too. UNFAIR! No enjoying orgasms WITHOUT the burdens they have endure…in fact…just enjoying orgasms, is enviable enough. Then we have,
        open or other creatively negotiated relationships according to our mutual needs, sex-positive shamelessness, men who get to express EVERY emotion, women who get to explore EVERY ambition (not just motherhood and domestic subservience), monogamy BY CHOICE not mandate or circumstance. Oh…and did I mention the orgasms.

        That is why they try so hard to sugar-coat “traditional family values” and the superiority of heterosexuality, when the truth is there is SERIOUS dysfunction in their ranks: divorce is on the rise, 1 in 3 women are sexually assaulted EVERY minute, 1 in 3 girls are victims of incest and abuse, the vast majority of married men cheat, Anorgasmia (loss of orgasm) is a growing problem among married couples, sexual fulfillment continues to evade many women and with 7Billion people, over half of which live in poverty or in places where their basic human rights are ignored and our natural resources dwindling, you cannot really make a case for breeding as a HUGE priority right now.

        That is also why some people revel so much when we suffer the effects of exclusion, inequality or disease or violence. To them we need to PAY for this loophole we enjoy. That is why we must do our UTMOST to contradict that by being healthy, happy and a more humane, hospitable community. Not just to prove them wrong but show them how they can improve their heterosexuality with a little of our freedom and individuality.

        1. Paula Thomas 10 Nov 2011, 5:46pm

          Yeah but the Type 3 is basically a Type 1 in denial so…

        2. Nawal Husnoo 10 Nov 2011, 6:23pm

          Type III: A religious person who takes scripture in a very literal sense, i.e. a religious fundamentalist. Type III homophobes have been brought up to believe they are unable to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong [Gay Agenda, 4:9]. They are unable to engage in critical thinking and their arguments are based on straw-man arguments, equivocation and non-sequiturs. So great is their arrogance from their religious education, that they think they have the right to impose their arbitrary prejudices on law-abiding, tax-paying citizens of a secular republic.

          [Gay Agenda, 2:11] (http://www.gayagendabook.com/gayagenda.html#2_11)

          1. Kudos on your fantastic website initiative. I would love to link to it from my blog with your permission.

            My blog is http://jessiegirl.blogspot.com

            I agree with your “Homophobe Classifcation” but I still believe one group is unrepresented. As I said before straight people (not closet homosexuals or in relationships with closet homosexuals like Michelle Bachman for example) who have been failed by the gender status quo Judeo/Christianity and its culture has imposed upon them and frustrated at their powerlessness to break free from it.

            I believe this because I see it everyday. I deal with straight women who are in horrible relationships with men, stuck in loveless marriages or confounded by the unfair gender role imposed on women. They convince themselves they will find happiness within it and when confronted with a lesbian like me who is emancipated from a lot of their baggage, become acutely aware of all the things that frustrate them. However, they are powerless to free themselves, so their anger is misdirected at me when it should be directed at the system that told them women have to hide their brilliance and ambition, compete with other women for male attention, their looks are their most important currency, they have to play demure, hide their sexual power and marriage and motherhood are their only real benchmarks of accomplishment as women.

            Think of the men whose “macho” prison have led them to be at the mercy of one or more baby mamas. They are stuck and secretly frustrated.

            So when they see gays and lesbians free of the paradigm, there is resentment. Why should we get off scott free? They don’t realise they don’t HAVE to be entrapped as well. They can be straight and make their own rules regarding their gender roles, sexual freedom, reproductive choices and relationships.

            The sooner gay people and straight people realize we are fighting the SAME monster that is trying to impose gender and sexal uniformity on us all, the better.

    2. PumpkinPie 10 Nov 2011, 4:12pm

      That is so true about the way misogynists view sex with women. They just seem to rationalise the woman’s side of things as just being “what she’s there for”. I’d never thought about how this would affect their view of gay men. In comparison, I suppose they hate lesbians for denying them what they rightly see as theirs.

      No wonder I’ve always felt a kinship with feminists – I guess our enemies tend to be the same sorts of people.

      1. Anti-gay bigotry is part and parcel of the same patriarchal, Judeo/Christian, empire-enabling, planet destroying machine.

        The rules are simple: “The fittest gets what the fittest wants at the expense of the weaker”

        Where brute strength is concerned, men get what men want at the expense of ANYTHING remotely female, whether a woman, a girl, Mother Nature or a gay man.

        All LGBT people, all feminists, all Occupy Movement activists, environmentalists, New Age pagans, atheists, humanists, free thinkers, tolerant Afrocentrists, Native American leaders, the advocates for Indigenous Peoples and civil rights….we have all been the collective “Bitch” of this system for over 2000 years.

        The sooner we find common ground to join our purpose to dismantle this system before the world reaches Zero Point, the better.

  10. jamestoronto 10 Nov 2011, 1:31pm

    To quote the Bard. “Much Ado About Nothing.”

  11. Although I bet Keith will secretly record it on his sky box.

    No wait, his TiVo, he’s an inbred yank.

    No wait, he’s too poor and stupid to have/use TiVo.

    He’ll watch it on-line, or rob a TV. Probably not much in the way of faeces in Glee, but he’ll make do….

  12. I love Glee and i am sure that this episode will be good. They will do it tastefully and won’t show too much at all. It is a family show, so they wouldn’t show too much of an adult theme on it. Whether that would be gay or straight. Having seen all the episodes that have already aired in the UK, i can say that all the romance on the show is not inappropriate. People are making a huge fuss over nothing. As people have said, no doubt the Daily Mail and the Sun over here will be making a big deal over it for no reason. But we can challange them and their readers online with their right wing views.

    1. They probably show more passion in Eastenders than what they will show in Glee.

  13. Firstly i wanna say that i am a huge Gleek. Not ashamed to admitt it. As people have said who have already seen the episode, have said that it does not show much at all and is appropriate for family viewing. Glee is not showing something which hasn’t been broadcast before on tv regarding straight people losing their virginity. American TV shows are some of the most violent. Yet, there is a big fuss when two men kiss on the tv screen. Doesn’t make sense to me.

  14. Kurt and Blaine are soo cute together. I’m looking forward to tonight. James is correct when he said that instead of focusing on abstinence, these people in the USA should focus on contraception to try and prevent all sorts of STI’s and pregancies.

  15. I saw it and it’s very tame, no nudity, actually tastefully done even though it’s not realistic. I find nothing that would offend a viewer. If parents today think their children aren’t having sex, they’re delusional. Just saying “no” doesn’t and never will work.

  16. Nawal Husnoo 10 Nov 2011, 5:30pm

    Many homophobes claim they want to “protect the children from homosexuality”. In the real world, homosexuality is not a transmissible condition, anymore than skin colour can be transmitted. In fact, when they talk about the children, what they really mean is that the children will ask awkward questions: if a parent has told the child that gay people are evil, unhappy, mentally sick and full of disease, how will this child cope with discovering that there are happy and fulfilled gay couples?

    [Gay Agenda, 4:40] (http://www.gayagendabook.com/gayagenda.html#4_40)

  17. I saw the word “brainwashed” and assumed Melanie Phillips was involved.
    I’ve not watched glee yet but may do after what i’ve heard

    1. You don’t LEARN your sexual orientation. It’s innate! Homophobes refuse to accept this obvious truth because their ENTIRE argument rests on homosexuality being a “chosen vice”, nothing more than a bad habit like smoking. Of course the glaring failure and scandal of their OWN ex-gay programmes expose them every-time.
      Most gay people have and always will come from heterosexual families. I did. I was SATURATED with heterosexuality in books, television, movies, school, social settings, music, church, family, friends and attempted boyfriends. And the ENTIRE time, I was creaming my panties over girls.
      I never met or saw one single lesbian until I was already self-affirmed and out.
      So, for the gay and lesbian youth here in the Caribbean who get American cable TV, Glee and out stars like Ellen etc. are a blessing because there are no gay positive books in public libraries (unless you are lucky enough to go to UWI St. Augustine and the one battered-up copy of “On Being Gay” by Brian Mc Naught is still there) there is no “gay street”, no gay community centre, no Trevor project and out and open Caribbean gay superstars. Usually when anything gay is being mentioned its derogotary, defaming or intended for crude humour. Yet despite this, if Carnival (the only time you can be yourself) is any indication, HUNDREDS of gays and lesbians keep being born every year.

  18. I’m glad that American TV seems to have finally shown a gay couple talking about, and maybe even having sex (and where was that parent guy when every single other character in Glee had sex?), but that doesn’t mean Kurt Hummel isn’t one annoying little b*stard. I’m glad they’ve made his boyfriend less of a stereotype, though. Maybe they can then kill Kurt off in some singing accident and give his boyfriend another lover who is less irritating. Then they can have sex. That would be good.

    1. I love Kurt, I relate better to him than I do to blaine. But unfortunately I am quite effeminate like he is and into my musicals and singing (no performing mind you) and definitely prefer more masculine men. Leave Kurt in I don’t feel so bad seeing him :P

  19. burningworm 11 Nov 2011, 8:40am

    Should controversial have been written as “controversial”?

  20. Father Dougal 11 Nov 2011, 11:05am

    Saw it, there was no sex at all and everyone kept their clothes on. It was just implied that something had happened. A load of fuss about nothing.

  21. Sorry totally off topic here but I have enjoyed our discussions on here with the few exceptions, can anyone recommend a gay forum or two that has interesting discussions as I have had on here?

    Many thanks

  22. Jock S. Trap 14 Nov 2011, 11:47am

    And?

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all