Soap Opera Discussion Groups and Forums

As The World Turns Discussion Group

Topic: Thanks for the homophobia, PGP and CBS!


Topic Posted by: Brhannada^sArmour
Date Posted: Wed Aug 20 21:01:22 2008
Additional Comments:
To Jean Passanante, Christopher Goutman, Brian Cahill, Barbara Bloom et al.:

Thank you for the August 20, 2008 episode that really put us gay and gay-friendly viewers in our place. You sure told us! Through the fictional Brian Wheatley's patronizing remarks to his boss Luke Snyder, you let us (whose spending indirectly pays your salaries) know that no matter how much disposable income we can offer to support the sponsors of As The World Turns, it is only GAY MONEY like the Luke Snyder Foundation. Whether we're old, loyal viewers who happen to be gay or gay-friendly, or new viewers attracted by the hope that someday you will learn to treat gay characters like Luke and Noah with respect, the apologetic tone of your bowdlerized Luke/Noah story makes it clear that you only value those in your community of viewers who are "conservative." I guess, you must think that "conservative" means people who don't conserve anything of value - neither money nor family nor friendships nor professional relationships nor the planet on which they live. You value people who disown their children for being gay, support wars against their neighbours and shortchanging of the troops, overspend their income and overpopulate the world with spoiled children driving gas-guzzling cars. We, who are solvent and employed, whose support you really need to save your livelihood, are not worthy of your recognition. To borrow a metaphor from your Bible-thumping core audience, we are just the faithful Canaanite dogs waiting for crumbs from your Messianic table.

Only in your imagination (and I use the word very loosely) does the argument that the Luke Snyder Foundation should not be known as "The Gay Foundation" sound at all convincing to a gay man like Noah. Would anyone tell Melinda Gates that the inclusion of her moneyed husband's name undermines the credibility of The Nerd Foundation? A little realism, please. If the Luke Snyders of the real world, people with money and contacts, even consider hiding who they are so that they can approach children without being called pedophiles, shame on them for not doing their part while we regular folks march with our heads held high! With all the misogyny and racially segregated stories and watered-down pornography and political apathy on your shows (which you target to children), are you only ashamed that As The World Turns is jokingly called "The Gay Soap Opera" for having just two marginalized characters going in and out of the closet with minimal screentime for over two years? That name is not an insult; it is a badge of honour given to one that has the courage to be different. Such badges are earned by true underdogs who have everything to lose, not by cowards in positions of power like yours.

Sincerely,


[Real name of Brhannada's Armour]

P.S.: I wonder how the management and donor community of the charity Dream Makers feel about you aping its idea and using the slogan "make dreams come true for children" shortly before calling the philanthropic community homophobic. Grounds for a lawsuit, perhaps?





Add a MessageGuidelinesTopics ListHomeOther SoapsDaily Recaps for the Show!Registration
Posted by: Ryder
Date posted: Sat Aug 23 17:38:23 2008
Message:

Personally, I saw this episode more as a form of (serious) satire with Goutman & Passanante perhaps creating a scene based on their firsthand knowledge of working within the American Daytime industry.

IOW, the Brian Wheatley character, here, was serving as a kind of metaphorical composite of your typical soap opera production company and/or network executive. As such, Brian himself is AOK with a talented actor (i.e. a resourceful founder of some charity) being homosexual -- just as long as he doesn't let the soap opera audience (i.e. the conservative philanthropists supporting the endeavor) know or, at least, have evidence to confirm this detail about his personal life.

Luke, of course, represented the three dozen or so actors on the eight daytime dramas who are known to be gay by their fellow cast and crew members, yet must continually make the choice whether to contractually abide by this working condition. In turn, Noah played the part of the realistic talent agent who counsels that this condition could be necessary to further one's acting career (i.e. ensure the livelihood and success of the charity).

Replies: (list all replies)

  • That's an interesting interpretation. However, I find it more believable that the scene was an allegory for ATWT's pretense that gay-friendly viewers should be grateful to have gay characters at all, because the daytime audience is supposedly homophobic and our support really isn't worth the show's attention.

    Respond to this message


    Posted by: dandyfop
    Date posted: Thu Aug 21 19:28:30 2008
    Message:

    I don't like or dislike Luke and Noah. Frankly, they bore me. Of course, this is TPTB's fault, they could actually try to write a compelling story for them.

    They have gotten loads of press over this couple and given little or no return.  I don't know in what reality they would be considered a real couple. Two testosterone laden hotties kiss and grope all over town for months- but are holding off on sex?  I call bullsh!t.  They have been dangling this carrot for way too long. 

    I don' expect that to change anytime soon if ever. TPTB are trying to keep both sides happy. We either have a real gay couple on ATWT or we don't.

    Replies: (list all replies)

  • Homosexual or not Noah and Luke are BoRRRRRING , period....lose them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!**

    Respond to this message


    Posted by: Calico
    Date posted: Thu Aug 21 17:02:58 2008
    Message:

    During the meeting between the organizer, Luke and Noah -- I was appalled at the romantic gestures between Luke and Noah.

    This was suppose to be a serious (maybe professional?) meeting about setting up a foundation -- not a 'romantic' display.

    The organizer was right to say something to Luke -- it was the 'romance' display that the organizer felt was inappropriate and probably wouldn't bode well when trying to raise monies.

    As for public 'romantic' displays that I have seen -- the ones that was really in our face has been the homosexual couple in a restaurant -- I have never seen heterosexuals act that way!

    Replies: (list all replies)

  • You're right that Luke and Noah didn't act very professional - they acted like two young people in love. If Brian had said to them that the philanthropic community won't take them seriously if they touch each other more frequently than the other philanthropic couples, it might have been believable. However, the dialogue made it clear that Brian did NOT see fit to advise Luke about ''romantic displays,'' he advised him not to be OPEN about his relationship with Noah and admitted that homosexuality was the problem because CHILDREN were involved and Luke could be mistaken for a pedophile. Come to think of it, it would have made a decent dramatic scene if Brian had tried to approach the subject of ''romantic displays'' and Luke had misunderstood.
  • I say that's nonsense. Luke and Noah were hardly all over each other, and the meeting took place in Luke's mother's home - not a business setting. So what if they touched one another a couple of times? I can remember MANY incidents where other ATWT couples HAVE been all over each other in public places, but strangely there isn't much criticism of that. Margo and Tom smooch in the police station (a place of work). Carly and Jack were often in some kind of a clinch in public. Emily could never be pried off Paul's side when they were together. I doubt any foundation manager would have told them to cool it. eom/D

    Respond to this message


    Posted by: Mia
    Date posted: Thu Aug 21 12:04:53 2008
    Message:

    Your anger is showing. Don't let it consume you.

    Replies: (list all replies)

  • Not to worry. I watched, I exploded, I calmed down.
  • Now that pleases me !!

    Respond to this message


    Posted by: maggimae
    Date posted: Thu Aug 21 11:35:06 2008
    Message:
    Hello, this is a soap opera, not a vehicle for social reform. Drama needs conflict: good guys and bad guys. And even some in between guys. I marvel at your passion, your logic, not so much.

    Replies: (list all replies)

  • maggimae, perhaps you've seen my multiple posts saying that ATWT needs to portray homophobes as having some sympathetic and redeeming qualities? I want to see bad guys, and especially in-between guys, and that includes homophobes. However, when Luke would clearly be in a position of power, it doesn't make SENSE that the bad guys can demand anything, and he's giving in. The whole scene seemed like an allegory of ATWT's response to viewers who want equal treatment for Luke and Noah: ''We don't want to be known as 'the gay soap opera.''' Well, then, why are stories about Luke/Noah always about going back in the closet? Why not have a love triangle with Luke's friend Reg, or sibling rivalry with Aaron, or even one of the crazy stories that straight characters have: lookalikes and stalkers and instant bone marrow transplants and being presumed dead? Why not have characters who happen to be gay, instead of characters whose entire purpose is to show how sexless and inoffensive and philanthropic gay men are?

    Respond to this message


    Posted by: wondering
    Date posted: Thu Aug 21 9:18:56 2008
    Message:

    My, my you do go on a rant don't you. I don't agree with this sl as most organizations don't care who donates the money. I'm sure sick kids and their parents couldn't care less if it gives them help. But, I see the point the show is trying to make and that is : keep your affection in the home not in public. I think that goes for everyone not just gays. (gads, I dislike that label)

    When I go to the mall and see couples making out I feel like telling them to get a room. Sex should be kept private not put out there for the public. Can't people keep their hands to themselves in public and act like decent folks. Not everyone wants to see fondling and kissing in public places. It' s really disgusting and I don't care if it is b/b, g/g or b/g it should be kept private and at home not in the workplace and public places. Guess I am old fashioned !!

    Replies: (list all replies)

  • If Luke's idea for the foundation was that anyone who sits through five minutes of watching him make out with Noah gets $100, I would be the first to call it tawdry. However, what he and Noah would be doing is nothing more than co-hosting a fundraiser, dancing with the other couples, standing together at the podium. It's just like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation letting everyone know that a married couple made a donation together. What's indecent about that?
  • It wasn't about standing at a podium. It was about the hugging and kissing in a restaurant. That's disgusting no matter who is doing it.
  • You're entitled to your opinion that hugging and kissing by anyone in public is disgusting, Paula, but that is not Brian Wheatley's opinion. He didn't tell Luke that the philanthropic community frowns on couples showing affection in public. He said that Luke's being openly GAY might be a problem.

    Respond to this message


    Posted by: tweety
    Date posted: Thu Aug 21 9:01:44 2008
    Message:
    I can't believe where these writers took this storyline.  The storyline looked to have great potential, but I should have known better.  Now, we have a horn dog like Parker declared a hereo because during his stalking time, he happen upon a young man getting too aggressive with Liberty.  Brad and Katie are made to look like the bad guys, although all along they were asking Parker to stay away from Liberty and he chose to ignore their pleas until they got desperate and did something a little stupid but not fatal.  But, now they're wrong and Jack whose idea of parenting is to stick his head in the sand until the bad goes away, is considered a great father.  And Carly who was helpless and guilty just ignored the whole thing.  What do they care if their horn dog son keep stalking some girl.  Janet who first displayed more brains than any of them has been taken back down to Jack's and Carly's level of ignoring the problem and it will go away.

    Replies: (list all replies)

  • Wow, this was suppose to go to another post! I don't know what happened?

    Respond to this message


    Posted by: tweety
    Date posted: Thu Aug 21 8:29:53 2008
    Message:

    I would love to understand what the gay community and some of its supporters want from this storyline.  Do you expect this storyline to erase years and years of homophobic behavior by a majority of people.  Is it the responsibility of these writers and producers to make up for the hundreds of years of abuse and discrimination.  Its like some people are ignoring the gains of this storyline to concentrate on the negatives.  I thought the scenes with Luke and that guy were very, very realistic.  I agreed with Lily and Lucinda that he was simply pointing out the obvious.  Why shoot the messenger.  He made it clear that he did not feel that way.  And perhaps that guy was wrong to express his feelings to Luke, does that make him a homophobic.  It seems to me that the gay community should relish the chance to open dialogue regarding discrimination and homophobic attidues.  ATWT has step forward to use their show as a vehicle for understanding the gay community.  Instead of complaining and seething, maybe some should use this opportunity to educate those who need it.   

    Replies: (list all replies)

  • I don't think anyone is asking atwt to right any wrongs. I'd just like a dramatic love story, the kind the frequently write for hetero couples. eom/allison
  • I don't think it's ''obvious'' at all that the philanthropic community is so conservative that no one will take money from a gay man. If they let kids suffer because they were only offered tainted money, wouldn't that be really bad publicity? I can imagine Luke facing homophobic discrimination in many aspects of his life: from teachers; from strangers; from his church; from the courts... but from people who need his money? Please. If a rich man like Luke has to hide, who is supposed to stand up?

    Respond to this message


    Posted by: Shadowdancer
    Date posted: Thu Aug 21 7:31:08 2008
    Message:
    Most conservatives I know who drive gas-guzzling cars have only one spoiled child.  You may know more of them than I do, though.  Very interesting rant, I wonder if it will have its intended effect... keep us posted!

    Replies: (list all replies)

  • You're right, what I wrote was a stereotype and it probably detracted from what I was trying to say. I just have to wonder what is so great about people who disapprove of homosexuality, that ATWT wants to appease them? Is their money better than mine?

    Respond to this message


    Posted by: Allison
    Date posted: Wed Aug 20 21:46:29 2008
    Message:
    i disagree with the premise that philanthropies are predominantly conservative. when you are handing out money to sick kids, no one's going to question your sexual orientation. And i'm really tired that encounters with homophobes are about the only thing they can come up with for a story line for luke and noah.

    if only luke would use his money to help fund support groups for gay/lesbian/questioning teens, now that would make for an interesting storyline.

    Replies: (list all replies)

  • forgot to say, thank you BA for bringing this up. eom/allison
  • ''i disagree with the premise that philanthropies are predominantly conservative.'' So do I. ''And i'm really tired that encounters with homophobes are about the only thing they can come up with for a story line for luke and noah.'' It is just ridiculous, isn't it? Someone needs to inform TPTB that they are NOT writing this story in the Seventies or Eighties. Many gay people live happy, successful, and relatively bigotry-free lives. This is not to say that everything is perfect now and that homophobia has disappeared, but my gosh... The gay people I know do not *cower* in fear and worry constantly about it. They're busy leading their lives. eom MaryHatch
  • Did I understand the new foundation manager to say that *most people who are involved in charities are conservative*? I'm not completely sure that's what he said because I find him rather yawn inducing, but if so I would like to point out that liberals also fund charities and we don't give a thought to the sex lives of fellow donors. I agree with everything BA, Allison and MH have said. I find this storyline disgusting. What is wrong with Luke and Noah having a normal happy relationship for a change?/Cricket

    Respond to this message


    Posted by: cjpsf
    Date posted: Wed Aug 20 21:20:36 2008
    Message:
    Emotionally, the almost worst part of this whole show was when Noah agreed that maybe they should be discrete about their relationship. I immediately thought..oh yeah..that would be great, hide that you are a couple and then something happens..are we potentially leading into a pedophile story...and then they look guilty because they kept their relationship secret....When I think of gay parents, because I don't personally know any..I think of the movie that Robin Williams was in where he and his partner had a son living with them. That seemed like such a good movie...Big Eden was another good movie I just saw this weekend..Sad, but good. Intellectually, I agree with the comments in the BAs message....

    Respond to this message


    Add a MessageGuidelinesTopics ListHomeOther SoapsDaily Recaps for the Show!Registration