Wow! Survivor Africa stud is gay!

[Guest]

Gasp! I just got my TV Guide today, and looked through the pictures of the "contestants," or whatever they're called. I read the profile on the guy who seems like the major stud, Brandon Quinton, and lo and behold, he's the gay guy! His eyes are so beautiful, they make me break out in a sweat. God, please don't let him be kicked out the second week like Kel Gleason. Please, God, I'll be good! }>

They can't kick him off early. They just can't. How will the tribes survive without a skilled makeup artist and bartender! And if you were kicked out early, Brandon, I'll give you a million for you to be my own live-in makeup artist and bartender. Just as soon as I win the SuperLoto jackpot. And I have a feeling it's going to happen soon! :* :7

[Guest Kevin 2]

I agree he is cute. However I saw his video clip and he appears to be a flammer or drama queen, how umbecomming. :-(

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>I saw his video clip

>and he appears to be

>a flammer

 

"APPEARS" to be a flamer?!?!?

 

Shirley Temple (circa 1934) is butcher than THAT queen! I saw his video (limp wrist holding a cigarette) and cringed.

 

So far, we've been represented on that show by an "evil" hairy fat guy who couldn't keep his clothes on and now a skinny mincing sissy faggot. In Australia, Jeff was gay but kept his mouth shut about it the whole time so most of the viewing public didn't have a clue.

 

Sadly yours,

 

FFF

[Guest DJPerez]

FFF:

 

So he flames a bit....Ces't La Vie! Not all of us are Homo G.I. Joe's. I think he's FINE; he could bivouac with me anytime!

 

I figure that Jeff Probst, the producer, is playing to the same crowd that watches "Will & Grace" to see Jack do his thing each week. T.V. is all about those Neilson Numbers, after all!

 

Peace & Pleasure!

(As I search for my tiara);-)

 

D. J.

http://www.geocities.com/djpworld/

[Guest BenDover]

I applaud the new "gay contestant" on Survivor:Africa. I applaud his sense of self, his courage to just be who he is and to be out front with it. I don't think he needs to "represent" any of us beyond his personal integrity and honesty as a human being who happens to be gay. We come in all colors, shapes and sizes, and I'm glad he is yet one more gay person to step onto the stage of life in public. If he's an asshole, let him be an asshole in his own right and not feel some sort of collective responsibility or guilt that he is "representing us." He's just another guy trying to grab his 15 minutes of fame and he's as queer as the rest of us -- not queerer because he flames, but queer because that's the way he is. Go all the way, Queer Boy!!

[Boink]

Jeff Probst isn't one of the producers, but he sure is a hottie. I'm glad at least he gets to return every season!

[+ deej]

I don't watch the show. Tried it a couple of times but it bored me.

 

But Jeff Probst IS hot. Has everyone seen that post-shower photo that's floating around the net of Probst in just a towel? Great bod!

[Guest regulation]

So the gay men of America are to be represented on a popular television show by an effeminate type who is a bartender or makeup artist? I suppose the producers' idea was to see how many negative stereotypes they could combine in one person.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>So the gay men of America

>are to be represented on

>a popular television show by

>an effeminate type who is

>a bartender or makeup artist?

 

Where does this idea come from that one single gay individual who is shown on television "represents" gay men? He is just that - one individual, and he doesn't "represent" anything other than himself.

 

There are masculine gay men and effeminate gay men - just like there are masculine and effeminate straight men - so should there be some prohibition on including effeminate gay men on television?

 

This type of thinking has led to the trend where no criminals or villians in movies can be black, for fear that people will hysterically yell "racism" on the ground that a single individual black criminal is meant to "represent" all black people.

 

When filmmakers show a black criminal, they're not saying that all black people are criminals, just that *this* particular black individual is a criminal. Identically, Survivor isn't depicting that all gay people are effeminate, just that this particular individual is.

 

> I suppose the producers'

>idea was to see how

>many negative stereotypes they could

>combine in one person.

 

I doubt it - I'm sure the producers only idea was to put as many interesting people on the show as possible so as to attract as many viewers as possible. The first show had a gay man who was not effiminate; this show has one who is. What's the issue? Should every gay man on television falsely comport to a particular type so as to maximize propaganda value?

[Guest WetDream]

RE: Never say never

 

Who'd have thunk it, but here I am agreeing with TT.

[Guest regulation]

>Where does this idea come from

>that one single gay individual

>who is shown on television

>"represents" gay men?

 

It comes from the fact that television programs reach vast numbers of people and for many of those people constitute their sole source of information on subjects with which their own lives have not made them familiar. If popular television programs consistently show African-Americans as welfare recipients and drug dealers, a significant number of people will accept that association simply because they have no competing source of information on the subject.

 

>so

>should there be some prohibition

>on including effeminate gay men

>on television?

>

 

Who suggested that there should be such a prohibition? Sounds pretty extreme to me.

 

>This type of thinking has led

>to the trend where no

>criminals or villians in movies

>can be black, for fear

>that people will hysterically yell

>"racism" on the ground that

>a single individual black criminal

>is meant to "represent" all

>black people.

>

 

I am aware of no such trend. I just saw "Training Day," in which the villain is African-American and which won overwhelmingly the box-office competition among all films exhibited last weekend. Unless my memory fails me, every single African-American character with a speaking part in that film is a criminal or gang member. In the first two episodes of the new Steven Bochco series "Philly," the villain was an African-American who tricked the series protagonist, a white woman, into helping him avoid prosecution for a brutal murder of which he was indeed guilty. Another recurring character on that show was an African=American prostitute who kept getting arrested for assault. The new series "The Guardian" is about a lawyer who represents children whose custody is in question; of the first two children whose cases are shown one, who is white, is the child of a doctor, while the other, who is black, is the child of a drug addict.

 

 

>I doubt it - I'm sure

>the producers only idea was

>to put as many interesting

>people on the show as

>possible so as to attract

>as many viewers as possible.

 

 

Neither you nor I has any idea what the producers had in mind. We only know what they are actually doing.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>I applaud the new "gay contestant"

>on Survivor:Africa. I applaud

>his sense of self, his

>courage to just be who

>he is and to be

>out front with it.

>I don't think he needs

>to "represent" any of us

>beyond his personal integrity and

>honesty as a human being

>who happens to be gay.

 

Thank God I'm not a diabetic![/font size=5]

 

Saccharinely yours,

 

FFF

[Guest TruthTeller]

>It comes from the fact that

>television programs reach vast numbers

>of people and for many

>of those people constitute their

>sole source of information on

>subjects with which their own

>lives have not made them

>familiar.

 

This may be true, but even if so, what are you suggesting? That every gay person depicted on television be the epitome of masculinity even though not all gay people are supremely masculine -- just to make sure that we're not perceived to be sissies?

 

There are all kinds of gay people depicted in the media. If anything, PC pressure has demanded that gay people never be shown as sex-craved and effiminate, but instead, must always be depicted as this upright, middle-class, sexless, respectable monolith, i.e., the sturdy (and extremely boring) gay neighbor who pays his taxes, chivalrously walks old ladies across the street, and gently disappoints all the single women who have to accept that this handsome normal gentleman is indifferent to (if not outright repulsed by) the powers of the Vagina.

 

I think it's a huge sign of progress when all different types of gay *individuals* can be depicted on television, rather than only one type being shown out of either sterotype or a desire to propagandize the masses about "what gay people are". The gay person on the first Survivor seems to me about as diametrically different as the one on this Survivor, which is a pretty accurate sampling of gay pepole generally.

 

>>so

>>should there be some prohibition

>>on including effeminate gay men

>>on television?

>>

>

>Who suggested that there should be

>such a prohibition? Sounds

>pretty extreme to me.

 

It sounds pretty extreme to me, too, but -- given your protests about the inclusion of this *individual* on Survivor -- it certainly seems to be the logical conclusion of your argument. If that's not, what is?

 

>Unless my memory

>fails me, every single African-American

>character with a speaking part

>in that film is a

>criminal or gang member.

 

Given that there *are* such things in this world as black criminals and gang members, do you think there's anything wrong with the inclusion of such characters in a TV show?

 

Do you think that these black characters "represent" -- or are intended to represent -- all black people?

 

>Neither you nor I has any

>idea what the producers had

>in mind. We only

>know what they are actually

>doing.

 

I feel very confident asserting that the principal intent of the producers of any network show - which costs millions of dollars per episode to produce, and which disappears in a matter of weeks with low ratings -- is to attract as many viewers as they possibly can consistent with the purpose of the show. I don't think it can be reasonably disputed that when contestants are selected for a Survivor, the most influential criterion, far and away, is how likely the selection will be to add vieweres.

[Guest Kevin 2]

<But Jeff Probst IS hot. Has everyone seen that post-shower photo that's floating around the net of Probst in just a towel? Great bod!>

Yeap I've seen it, heres the link for everyone else http://www.survivorfever.net/JeffAfrica.html

[Guest regulation]

>This may be true, but even

>if so, what are you

>suggesting? That every gay

>person depicted on television be

>the epitome of masculinity even

>though not all gay people

>are supremely masculine -- just

>to make sure that we're

>not perceived to be sissies?

>

 

I have never suggested any form of regulation :-) of the content of television or film presentations.

 

>There are all kinds of gay

>people depicted in the media.

> If anything, PC pressure

>has demanded that gay people

>never be shown as sex-craved

>and effiminate, but instead, must

>always be depicted as this

>upright, middle-class, sexless, respectable monolith,

 

Would you say that is an accurate depiction of the character of "Jack" on "Will and Grace"? Or of "Upstairs John" on "NYPD Blue"? I certainly wouldn't. There seem to be some that the PC folks missed.

 

>It sounds pretty extreme to me,

>too, but -- given your

>protests about the inclusion of

>this *individual* on Survivor --

>it certainly seems to be

>the logical conclusion of your

>argument. If that's not,

>what is?

>

 

Frankly, the notion that any limits should be placed on what is depicted by artists never even occurred to me. The fact that your mind keeps veering in the direction of such measures even though I have never brought them up suggests to me that you would be more likely to approve of them than I would.

 

>Given that there *are* such things

>in this world as black

>criminals and gang members, do

>you think there's anything wrong

>with the inclusion of such

>characters in a TV show?

>

 

I never said there was. I did say that a preponderance of such portrayals in a medium like television would be likely to have a certain effect on the perceptions of many in the audience, and I believe what I said is totally accurate. Whether or not that practice is "wrong" depends on one's point of view.

 

>I feel very confident asserting that

>the principal intent of the

>producers of any network show

>- which costs millions of

>dollars per episode to produce,

>and which disappears in a

>matter of weeks with low

>ratings -- is to attract

>as many viewers as they

>possibly can consistent with the

>purpose of the show.

>I don't think it can

>be reasonably disputed that when

>contestants are selected for a

>Survivor, the most influential criterion,

>far and away, is how

>likely the selection will be

>to add vieweres.

 

I don't feel at all confident of your ability to read the minds of television producers. If you could, you would certainly know that one of the main attractions of a reality show like "Survivor" is that it is far cheaper to produce than an hour-long dramatic program for the simple reason that there is no need to pay scores of thousands of dollars per episode to each of the main cast members. Anthony Edwards's salary for one season of "ER" is certainly many times the amount of the prize money won by the last survivor on "Survivor."

 

Let me add that anyone who has done much reading on the history of the television industry knows that television executives prefer that characters on a weekly program reinforce, rather than challenge, the expectations of the audience. If you compare, for example, a list of the television programs that are most popular among black Americans with a list of those most popular among white Americans you will soon see why executives have this preference. And it is because of this preference that I find nothing surprising about the fact that a character on a popular program is chosen so as to accommodate stereotypical notions about gay men.

[guyinsf]

Thanks for posting the link. All I can say is: Yummy!

[Guest]

>This may be true, but even

>if so, what are you

>suggesting? That every gay

>person depicted on television be

>the epitome of masculinity even

>though not all gay people

>are supremely masculine -- just

>to make sure that we're

>not perceived to be sissies?

>

>

>There are all kinds of gay

>people depicted in the media.

 

Well, there are all kinds of gay people depicted in the media. In Will & Grace, Will comes off like your typical masculine guy, while Jack comes off as big flamer. In Queer as Folk, Brian also comes off as a masculine guy. What I have to wonder, however, is why the masculine gay guys always seem to be portrayed by heterosexual actors. Doesn't Hollywood perceive that gay guys might portray masculine men?