I'm having a hard time understanding how some are interpreting my post to say that 'colorful' LGBTs need to tame down or something. My post title says the sum total of my intention & statement quite completely and succinctly. (Nothing more, nothing less.)
I agree , but I do wish there were shows that showed lgbt people in a possessive light and not just crazy sex stuff
All Paths, I pretty much agree with you, but... Nobody's going to watch something that doesn't interest them. If I'm right, the message you're trying to give is "We're not all flaming, fabulous, and feminine!" I.E., we're not all stereotypes. However, we must also acknowledge those who really are "flaming, fabulous, and feminine." To be honest, I don't like how media treats us as a bunch of Sexualized Special Snowflakes, either.
Eh, my life is pretty average and I'm over it. I'm your typical 25-year-old grad student going through a quarter life crisis. Oh and yea i happen to be queer, but that's not gonna make me any more interesting, or any more into the "scene", or any more anything. Sometimes I look around w4w on online dating sites and i think... are all these people artists who are into the scene and wear snapbacks to work? Hmmm. This portrayal you see of LGBTs being all crazy and glamorous has warped how we depict ourselves in the dating pool as well. I think I'll just sit back and wait for someone as boring as me to come into my life, thank you.
Vlogs are video logs. It's like a blog, but instead of posting words on websites like Tumblr or Blogger, there are videos. EDIT: I've been ninja'd by Aussie792.
I don't have a VLog, but if I did I would be just as wacky on camera as off. Sorry, can't help you, my fabulousness cannot be contained.
I think they, and the media, do a pretty good job of acknowledging themselves. :icon_wink My point simply is: Those of us less fabulous obviously need to...I don't know...do SOMETHING...to get noticed. xD Perhaps we can form a new visibility group: Boring Queers Anonymous. Wait...that seems to defeat the purpose a little. :eusa_thin "We're here, we're queer...we.... Yeah, um...we're just here & queer. No, no - a little to your left. Yes, over here. :icon_redf Thank you for noticing me."
Thank you. The whole idea of 'queer spirit' is nonsense. We're just humans like everyone else. I'll be very happy the day that no one even thinks of it as a difference any moreso than having a different favourite colour anymore. The hyper-sexualized and overt characters of media represent us as one dimensional, obnoxious, clueless, and most of all visible-- Right where those bigoted against us want us to be. In a separate category that's clearly defined all on our own. They make us out to be a joke, to be comic relief. Yes, there are those who really honestly are that way and that's fine. But it's expected of ALL of us, and therein lies the problem. You really want to make bigots uncomfortable? Be everywhere, be deep, be intelligent, and above all be invisible. They're comfortable with the idea that we're easy to spot. Bravo, all paths. I'd certainly sign on for 'Boring Queers Anonymous'.
They're uncomfortable that we exist. The hatred of queer public figures and abuse (sometimes beatings and murder) of queers, flamboyant or not, is a reality that doesn't change if we act like them or not. I don't buy that being invisible will make them uncomfortable. I feel that's exactly what they want, and after hearing years of "tone it down" and "stop being so out" being thrown at more openly queer people, I can't believe what you're saying is an appropriate reaction. Being deep and intelligent can come with men in high heels, and sparkling dancers. I'm getting the impression you can reconcile the two; being taken seriously and being obviously queer. Being invisible means that they're comfortable, and potential allies can forget our existence easily, too. This isn't even a discussion about the appearance of "normal" queers in media any longer (which I don't feel is lacking any more than more flamboyant ones), this is a discussion about how we're supposed to behave, who gets the right to represent us, and how we think we're supposed to live.
I'm going to presume you are using queer as a synonym for gay like your other posts. I'm going to ask why you think those who are more colourful or flamboyant are "more open" with their sexuality? It implies that anyone who isn't must be repressed or closeted with their sexuality. Its akin to saying anyone who isn't genderqueer or femme or in anyway non-conformist is "less gay" or "less out", which is just ridiculous. As above, its all about diversity. Flamboyant gay people exist, as do non-flamboyant gay people - although you do find many close-minded people who believe there is no such thing as a non-flamboyant gay person and any that are must all be internalised homophobes (which is an example like you have mentioned, of people policing others on how they are supposed to behave and live) . I think what the OP is trying to say is that there is less representation in the media of one side of the community. It wasn't until very recently that I actually saw a gay character on a show that was familiar to me. I do think its important that people (particularly those from stigmatised minorities) have role models or characters they can identify with - otherwise they can end up feeling rather lost or isolated.
I'm sorry if I worded that poorly. I mean people who fit more expected stereotypes, people who aren't, to use gyspy's word, "invisible."
Yeah I think this. I didn't read the OP as criticising those who are more flamboyant or camp or effeminate or whatever, just that those who don't fit that bracket are underrepresented in the media, which I'd probably agree with. I do think it is important that all types of gay people have all types of gay role models.
Exactly. When I was growing up the gay people I saw in the media felt different to me (to paraphrase from Temple Grandin I saw them as "different, not less"). It did leave me wondering whether I was actually gay, or whether something was wrong with me for not fitting the mould. Again, it wasn't until very recently until I begin to see people I identified more with. Now this lack of representation of diversity isn't the fault of feminine gay men, I don't think the OP was ever suggesting it was. It is probably just hetero TV executives homing in on segments of the community that might "intrigue" the audience more or provoke some reaction.
I'm a pretty boring LGBT too haha. Though I will admit, I do love when people automatically assume I'm interesting because I'm LGBT. Because I'm "different." Then they actually take the time to talk to me about my life. Yes, they'll find out that I'm not very interesting, but they'll also take the chance to get to know me. I had another LGBT member that is far more interesting than I am tell me that I was one of the most interesting people he's ever met. I'm really not interesting I don't think. Just eccentric. I'm really weird. As far as bloggers and vloggers go, some people are just more successful in front of a camera. Either they have more to talk about or they are entertaining. Straight or LGBT.
