"Queer Eye for Straight Guy"

[Guest LG320126]

RE:

 

>Though I do like some shows on network TV, I don't think that

>NBC picking this up would mean anything other than that they

>believe they can make money by doing so. Given the current

>fancy regarding "reality" shows that can be produced for very

>little money (because there are no "stars" demanding

>$1,000,000 per episode), the networks will happily program the

>worst garbage if the ratings are high enough.

>

>No, I don't think "Queer Eye" is as pathetic as "Fear Factor"

>-- could anything else be that bad? -- but I still found it

>boring last night. I couldn't even make myself watch the

>whole thing.

 

Although I have enjoyed the show, I have to agree with you 100% that last night's show sucked. As far as a network picking up a program to make money, it just reinforces what I have been trying to say and that is that enough people must be watching and enjoying the show.

[Guest pshaw]

RE:

 

What we really need are shows showing real gay men, not the stereotypes, doing real gay man things like downloading porn, paying for sex and participating on message boards about paying for sex.;-)

 

While the show has its amusing moments, I would think that there will probably come point where most will wonder if you really need five gay guys to repeatedly point out to straight guys that once in awhile they might consider showering, shaving, getting a haircut, wearing clean clothes, and not storing half-eaten pizza and bowls of cereal under the futon. Still, the show is a hell of lot funnier than pretty much any episode of Will and Grace.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

RE:

 

I can understand the complaints about stereotyping, but think they miss the real social significance of this show. Rather than back away from the fact that, as it happens, gay men ARE drawn in large numbers to design, style and fashion and are disproportionately employed in those professions, the show embraces it, maybe even to the point of stereotyping, and effectively says, "So what?" So far the straight guys seem to get along very well with the gay men and to sincerely appreciate their interventions. Fair enough, maybe we don't need more images of queeny fashion designers (though I don't think they should be swept under the rug, either). But we DO need more images of straight guys HUGGING queeny fashion designers (and I think only the blond fashion guy really counts as an all out queen, though non of the guys is super-butch) and even being able to take a little flirting without being threatened and freaking out. These straight guys are THRIVING on the attention gay men are paying them, and the show portrays this as benefitting their HETEROSEXUAL relationships, which the gay men warmly support (I love how excited they get when the straight guy's reform has the desired effect on his wife or girlfriend). This is a valuable and important political message at a time when conservatives are gearing up to portray us, once again, as a menace to the American family.

 

I can't think of a single non-petty or dangerous stereotype this show supports. It doesn't depict us as child molestors or predators of any kind. It doesn't depict us as any kind of threat to families or to straight relationships. Rather, it suggests that the lives of straight people can be enriched by their contact with gay people. Even gay people with limp wrists.

[Lewis H]

RE:

 

Hear, hear, Devon! Well said!

 

Damn, that show of eloquence is making me hot for you... too bad you've left New York!

 

[Guest BenAJ]

RE: Queer Eye

 

I have to agree with Devon. Ok..it has stereotypes but the more we see the five interacting the more I think they become "less stereotypical" and more like real people. I mean even Queer as Folk is full of stereotypes and the characters on that show are much more 2 dimensional ( although it is still a guilty pleasure but then i used to watch Dynasty too).

 

What I really like is unlike most reality show there is no "mean spiritness" in the show. The show is all about helping someone to reach his goal at the end of the show. Although, some of the guys you might find annoying, none of them depict a negative image. There is more ruthlessness on the Bachelorette.

 

Ok so the basis of the show is a gimick...5 gay guys making over a straight guy... but that is 5 more REAL gay men on t.v. (not straight playing gay). With the lack of real gay characters on t.v. I don't mind at all

[Rick Munroe]

RE:

 

Devon, you make some good points but miss the point that we could do so much better:

 

>gay men ARE

>drawn in large numbers to design, style and fashion and are

>disproportionately employed in those professions

 

But a title like "Queer Eye..." implies that this is what ALL gay men are interested in and know about. If it were "Some Queer Eyes...", I would find it less insulting (but I'd still think it's trash and not watch).

 

>and the show portrays this as benefitting their HETEROSEXUAL

>relationships, which the gay men warmly support

 

But what about gay relationships? Do we see any of these 5 gay guys with partners (or even mentioning them)? No, that wouldn't be palatable. Corporate America wants its faggots single and fashionable and thereby safe. As usual, we're second class citizens and it's their relationships and lives that matter.

 

>This is a valuable

>and important political message at a time when conservatives

>are gearing up to portray us, once again, as a menace to the

>American family.

 

It would be far more beneficial to have a show depicting the fact that gay families are the American family, not outsiders who can help "them." I'd rather see a show about a gay couple whose home needs remodeling, or whose kids need help with their homework, etc., than the same stereotypes that have been used forever to perpetuate the idea that we are different, don't have families, don't do "normal" things.

 

And if I were straight, I'd find the show and title equally offensive. All straight men have long dirty hair and messy apartments and poor social skills? Yeah, right.

[VaHawk]

RE: Rick is right!

 

You're, imo anyway, right on this issue. Stereotypes of all kinds whether about str8's or gays only continue to perpetuate those stereotypes.

 

How about a show about gay auto mechanics teaching str8 guys how to fix their car? Or str8 male hair stylists teaching a gay male on how

to best style his hair? After all, everyone knows there is no such thing as str8 stylists, str8 fashion designers, str8 interior decorators, gay mechanics, gay cops, gay soldiers, etc., right?

 

Now, how about a show similiar to trading spaces, where the gay guy redoes the str8 guy to ooohs and awes from the female and the str8 guy redoes the gay guy to ooohs and awes about "how Butch!" from all the nelly queen stereotypical gay partners who have "str8 guy fantasies"?

 

Let's hope this show dies a quick and merciful death!

[taylorky]

RE: Rick is right!

 

hawk and rick, of course y'all are both right and state my feelings exactly.

 

unfortunately some will always think some exposure is better than none,how sad that is.

 

as for me .....i have the fashion senses of kobain on crack,hate making my bed..leave alone decorate the bedroom,if doing hair involves more than a brush and a UK hat.......forget it.and my culinary tastes....errrrr y'all don't want to know.

 

but i'm damn good on a horse,put a marlin in my hands and i can take the nuts off a gnat,drop me in any woods anywhere and i'll not only survive.....i'll flourish.etc:,etc:.

 

and i,m 100% red blooded american fruit,and none of the dogs i run with have any desire to get involved in hairdressing etc:, at least not the gay ones,so in my (albeit limited) experience maybe the former generations of gay guys were into that kind of shit. but those of my generation are not

[taylorky]

RE:

 

>>>OK - news update. Just announced on Entertainment Tonight

 

>In your opinion that is.

 

 

yes in my opinion......duhhhhhhh

[taylorky]

RE: Rick is right!

 

doffy doofy do i mean cobain

[Guest DevonSFescort]

RE:

 

>But what about gay relationships? Do we see any of these 5

>gay guys with partners (or even mentioning them)? No, that

>wouldn't be palatable. Corporate America wants its faggots

>single and fashionable and thereby safe. As usual, we're

>second class citizens and it's their relationships and

>lives that matter.

 

Well, how many episodes have aired? How do you know they're not going to bring up the gay guys' relationships. At any rate, in most shows featuring experts helping a novice like this, you're not really bringing in the expert's partner regardless of orientation, because it's not the expert's needs that are the focus. I think you're putting too much of a representational burden on one lite-programming show.

 

>It would be far more beneficial to have a show depicting the

>fact that gay families are the American family, not

>outsiders who can help "them." I'd rather see a show about a

>gay couple whose home needs remodeling, or whose kids

>need help with their homework, etc

 

Well, if this show's initial success continues, it's a lot more likely that you'll see such shows. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if you see an episode where the guys respond to a plea from a gay man to help his clueless lover. The show's single biggest weakness is the limits of its current formula (how many times are we going to have to watch straight guys being told to shave after they shower?). But it's not too late to hope its creators won't be able to tamper with and evolve that formula.

 

>And if I were straight, I'd find the show and title equally

>offensive. All straight men have long dirty hair and messy

>apartments and poor social skills? Yeah, right.

 

Who says the show has to speak for ALL straight men or ALL gay men? That's like expecting "Sex and the City" to accurately represent the sex lives of all single New Yorkers. I'm not saying "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" represents the high-water-mark in the history of gay programming. I am saying that, on the whole, it represents more of a step forward than a step back.

[Rick Munroe]

RE:

 

>Who says the show has to speak for ALL straight men or ALL gay

>men?

 

The title does. "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" implies that the show represents the minds of ALL gay men and that we ALL have one collective brain. That's like calling this website "Escort Eye for the Client" (or vice versa). Do you think you and Benjamin and Hagen and I all think alike?

 

I see your point that this show is more positive than negative, but my point is: instead of just settling for and applauding this one small step forward (or sideways, as I see it), why not push for something better? We make more gains when we fight for the whole meal instead of just accepting the crumbs we're tossed. No?

[Guest DevonSFescort]

RE:

 

>The title does. "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" implies that

>the show represents the minds of ALL gay men and that we ALL

>have one collective brain.

 

That's one possible implication to read into the title, but I don't think the show purports to have such sweeping intentions.

 

>Do you think you and Benjamin and Hagen and I all think alike?

 

Of course not. Three of us aspire to be more than just a dumb whore. :+ Okay, two of us.

 

>I see your point that this show is more positive than

>negative, but my point is: instead of just settling for and

>applauding this one small step forward (or sideways, as I see

>it), why not push for something better? We make more gains

>when we fight for the whole meal instead of just accepting the

>crumbs we're tossed. No?

 

I would see your point if Bravo's programming with respect to gay issues was, overall, the subject of protests, and their executives defended themselves by saying, "But we gave you 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy!' What more do you people want?" I don't know that there's a correct course of action with regard to a lite-fare show like this, other than to watch it if you like it and don't watch it if you don't. But I don't think it makes sense to jump all over a small network that's trying to make a name for itself with a very un-mean-spirited program that shows gay and straight men cooperating with each other. I'm not suggesting that anyone should be "satisfied" with "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." I am suggesting its success will all but ensure that you won't have to be for long.

[guyinsf]

RE:

 

To be fair I also recently saw on TV (I think it was Bravo, too) a show about four gay/lesbian couples planning their weddings. It mostly normalized the experience (ie, they were planning the equivalent of heterosexual weddings, even though the law doesn't recognize their relationships). Though I found the show boring, too, I thought it was more positive in that showed that gay people can be just like straight people without any kind of moralizing that indicated that every gay person should attempt to mimic the heterosexual model of marriage.

 

I think that "Boy Meets Boy," whose debut is currently being hyped on Bravo, indicates Bravo's current commitment to offering more gay programming, something I appreciate. I may find the shows either boring or annoying, but none of them has an angle of pathologizing gay men or women. If anything "Queer As Folk" is a much more disturbing show. If one were to generalize from that show, almost all gay men have drinking or other substance abuse problems, lovers consistently lie to one another, the most respected person in town is the one who is manipulative, narcissistic, and contemptuous of most people, etc. (Not to mention the fact that QAF is poorly written and acted, with a few exceptions.) About the only thing QAF has going for it, in my opinion, is its graphic depiction of same sex physical intimacy. Unfortunately even that seems to be the domain of people with gym-toned bodies. (Guess there are no "bears" or ordinary Joes in the gay community.)

 

Getting back to "Queer Eye..." I do find the stereotyping tiring, but I agree with Devon that the positive relationships between gay and straight men on the show is very refreshing, even though it is just in the context of a "makeover." Though I doubt that homophobes are going to watch the show, at least it does carry the message that a man can be straight but comfortable enough with his own sexuality that he isn't threatened by gay men viewing him as a sexual object. I think this is (sadly) quite radical.

 

I still think the show is boring, though, and I'd be surprised if it maintained a large audience. As others have noted, how many times can they show basically the same thing? I'm already tired of hearing the advice to shave after showering, and I've only watched one complete episode and sampled two others.

 

 

>It would be far more beneficial to have a show depicting the

>fact that gay families are the American family, not

>outsiders who can help "them." I'd rather see a show about a

>gay couple whose home needs remodeling, or whose kids

>need help with their homework, etc., than the same stereotypes

>that have been used forever to perpetuate the idea that we are

>different, don't have families, don't do "normal" things.

>

[Bilbo]

RE: Taylor slips

 

Taylor - NONE of your generation is into those things? Now you're the one stereotyping. I am sure that some of your generation are metrosexuals, and it's not nice to them to say that they don't exist.

[taylorky]

RE: Taylor slips

 

ok ok maybe i exaggerated by saying NONE and i sentence myself to gefilte for breakfast for a week.

 

but in my defence i did say in my experience!!!

[Bilbo]

RE: Taylor slips

 

I ride horse, too. But polo doesn't exist in my own experience. Never met anyone who plays that game. Have seen pictures in the newspaper, though. So, I know just what you mean.

[Guest pshaw]

RE:

 

I don't think "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" implies that all gay men are the same any more than "Everyone Loves Raymond" implies that everyone really does love Raymond. I've never understood the mindset of some gay men who get so torqued at the idea that straights might equate them with some nelly guy that they see on television or in the films. The straights who are inclined to think that way are the same people who think of all gays as "fudgepackers" and/or "pillowbiters" who are freaks at best or sinners who deserve a painful death and torment for eternity at worst. The stereotypes are broken when we live our lives as openly gay men, proving (unfortunately) that we are usually just as boring as our neighbors and co-workers. But working at being more "straight-acting" than straight guys or a bigger slob than fratboys is just as silly as trying to be more feminine than real women. I never understood "embracing diversity" as meaning that being different is OK as long as you are just like everyone else.

 

One thing you can say about the guys on "Queer Eye" - none of them has mentioned being obsessed with Lucille Ball or Miss Ross. Now that WOULD be an offensive stereotype.

[Rick Munroe]

RE:

 

>The

>stereotypes are broken when we live our lives as openly gay

>men, proving (unfortunately) that we are usually just as

>boring as our neighbors and co-workers.

 

But that's the point. This program doesn't show the way we really live; it merely drags out the same tired cliche of one type of gay man, which is the type people are comfortable with seeing.

[Rick Munroe]

RE:

 

>it does carry the message that a man can be straight but

>comfortable enough with his own sexuality that he isn't

>threatened by gay men viewing him as a sexual object. I think

>this is (sadly) quite radical.

 

You're right; that is a positive thing. And I sure do love to flirt with my straight male friends. }(

[Guest DevonSFescort]

RE:

 

>But that's the point. This program doesn't show the way we

>really live

 

Is there a makeover show out there that shows the way ANYBODY really lives? Apart, say, from giving a glimpse into how the makeover recipient lived before he got his makeover?

 

And while we're on about it, who's "we?" No matter which gay person(s) you choose to represent on television, you're going to leave somebody out. This is one of the difficulties about being part of a minority -- any minority. Does anybody remember the British film "My Beautiful Laundrette?" The screenplay was written by an Anglo-Indian named Hanif Kureishi, and shortly after the movie was released, he was besieged with calls from angry relatives claiming that thanks to him, everybody would now think that all Indians were "buggerers" ("Thank heavens for top quality films like 'Gandhi,' added his aunt). If anything, his relatives had better reason to complain then than gay Americans do now, since there is a much greater variety of images of gay men now -- and probably then (in the eighties) too -- than of Indians outside of Bollywood (if you want to get bombarded by offensive stereotypes, rent 'The Guru').

[Guest Utopia]

RE:

 

I watched this show for the first time tonight, the edited NBC version. I love it and will try to catch the full version on Bravo.

===

"You realize that life goes fast

It's hard to make the good things last"

[Rick Munroe]

RE:

 

>Is there a makeover show out there that shows

>the way ANYBODY really lives?

 

I don't know because I don't watch makeover shows but since the advent of television there have been thousands of television programs in every genre depicting straight people from every walk of life, and whenever it's time to show "the gay guy" character, it's the same tired old cliché.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

RE:

 

>since the advent of television there have been thousands of

>television programs in every genre depicting straight people

>from every walk of life, and whenever it's time to show "the

>gay guy" character, it's the same tired old cliché.

 

I think this complaint is dated. To name a few examples, "the gay guy" characters on Roseanne, Suddenly Susan, Spin City, and Dawson's Creek were all different from each other and from the guys on Queer Eye, and MTV has practically launched a new stereotype of gay guys as uniformly young, attractive, masculine, athletic and level-headed -- often the only sane character in the household -- though on this season of The Real World they've finally got someone swishy, which is a change of pace for them. If you go beyond the small screen to movies, you've actually got quite a bit of variety -- James Gandolfini's gay mobster in The Mexican comes to mind as an obvious departure from type.

 

I mentioned Indians in my last post, but overall the situation for Asian American characters is much closer to the stagnant dynamic you describe. Look at the uniformity of images that group is served up. Other than Lucy Liu, it's difficult even to think of a well-known Asian actor who isn't from the martial arts genre -- and when you see an Asian character with a love interest, the love interest is virtually never Asian themselves -- it's always necessary to water it down with a white partner, as if American audiences couldn't handle seeing more than one Asian on the screen at once. (At least Jet Li was paired up with Aaliyah before they died, but as someone reminded me, they never actually hooked up.)

[Nvr2Thick]

RE:

 

>>And Mr. Monroe,what is MTV's CRIBS

>

>Another example of the horrible state of entertainment in

>2003. :-(

 

Same shit, different year.

 

Trio's latest reruns serve to remind us that banality is nothing new to television, and that pop culture programming is not worse -- just different.

 

"Battle of the Network Stars" anyone?