DallasTeleAg said:

---

I don't mind the discussion, based on the topic alone. There is no problem with asking a question and having a dialogue on that question.

However, you seem to already have an opinion that gays want to drive their lifestyle down your throat, and therefore it is permeating Netflix. So, is this a thread discussing an apparent observation, or a thread so you can find others to validate your opinion? I am willing to bet the majority of gays just want to be left alone and go about their own lives, without being caught up in some discussion of representation. Hell, I would even bet (obviously no stats here, just an assumption) that out of all the sub categories of the LGBT groups, gay men are probably the ones who push their "agenda" the least.

---

I've heard the claim "the gays want to force their lifestyle upon us" since Will & Grace hit television in the '90s. I thought the claim then was ridiculous on its face. I find the Religious Right to be sanctimonious and in love with hearing themselves preach, but this is a common claim among social conservatives. Like I've said before, with so many gay characters placed in shows and movies, many seemingly for no other reason other than 'representation', it adds fuel to their claims.

Quote:

---

On the statistics part, you are completely missing the point everyone was making. You said that since 10% of the population is LGBT, then 1/10 movies should have a gay person in it. THAT is where you are failing at statistics. All the next poster said was that what the statistic means is 1/10 characters in EACH show should be LGBT. You then came back and said they were the same thing, which is blatantly a ridiculous response to someone simply pointing out your error in logic.

---

As I've said multiple times on this thread already, I know where I made a mistake in my original post, and I still don't care. It's a non-issue to me, but it is apparently hugely important to some posters on this thread. Whether LGBTQ make up 4.5% of 10% of the population, they're apparently over-represented in Netflix shows and movies. Are you upset I made an error in expressing math, or chose the wrong cliche to express how little I care? Would you be happier if I had said, "I was told there would be no math"?

Were most popular books in, say, the 19th and 18th centuries not by and about white straight men? Sure, you had your Pride and Prejudices and Jane Eyres and what not, but the gay community and minorities sure as sh*t weren't represented in any meaningful way.

And to be clear, none of this is to go on some ridiculous anti-straight-white-man bent either. I'm just stating the obvious here.

TCTTS said:

---

Were most popular books in, say, the 19th and 18th centuries not by and about white straight men? Sure, you had your Pride and Prejudices and Jane Eyres and what not, but the gay community and minorities sure as sh*t weren't represented in any meaningful way.

---

Probably not openly, but there was a pretty massive body of literature about the difficult burden of living with women. And about the foppish dandies who escaped the female's grasp.

Gramercy Riffs said:

---

Buzzy said:

---

(and the whole "OMG you applied your stats wrong, it would be 10% of characters not movies" argument) is irrelevant.

---

Slow down, champ. That's the second time you've mentioned my post in a snide manner, and I'm not the one piling on. Nor did I have any opinion on your original point one way or the other. You're either reading something in my post that isn't there, or you're embarrassed now, which of course you covered up by saying you didn't care (we all believe you). Either way, get over it. I simply made sure we're all on the same page with how that ratio would work. There was a chance it could have cleared everything up in one reply. Instead, it revealed much more. Congrats. Great thread.

---

The above quoted portion wasn't about your reply to my post, but other posters reacting to my reply to your post.

TCTTS said:

---

To the OP all I have to say is... "Who cares?" Straight white men have been pop culture's primary target/focus for decades, if not centuries. Given that fact, I just can't imagine giving two sh*ts that the gay community, minorities, etc are only just now getting their time in the sun as well. Is their media exposure an exact representation of current, real world demographics? No. But it's not meant to be, either. That, and, echoing Spilner from earlier, if anything, lost time is being made up for here, so of course there's going to be an "overcorrection" of sorts, for the time being. It'll all most likely even out over time anyway. And if it doesn't? Again... who cares? So what if my share of all content marketed toward me, as a straight white male, goes from, say, 75% down to 65%? One of the primary purposes of storytelling is two-fold; to find situations/characters you can relate to, yes, and learn from, but to also experience empathy - to walk in another's shoes - for those you otherwise can't. So if more gay characters serve to not only connect with gay audiences, but *also* help someone like me empathize with them, over-saturation is kind of the point, for now.

---

Holy crap! 210 words and 22 commas. I guess if words are straight and commas are gay, then your post is spot on for the 10:1 straight-to-gay ratio mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

Exactly! Those ****ers

Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:

---

Is this like when you buy a new car, and then all of a sudden you start noticing that same make / model on the road everywhere? Buzzy, did you have a life changing experience recently?

---

Beider-Meinhof phenomenon.

No. When I was at A&M in the '90s, I remember running into a lot of social conservatives who complained about the 'gay agenda'. These people felt gays were 'forcing their lifestyle' down their throat. LAter, any mention or showing of the series Will & Grace brought these complaints out again. I always thought complaints about an 'agenda' were paranoid and ridiculous, because in my (perhaps naive) mind, I thought gays simply wanted to be left alone, they just didn't want to stigmatized or 'otherised', used as a political tool to foment fear.

I watched Chick Fight recently, and read the reviews after, where people absolutely lost their shiiit over 'the gay lifestyle being forced down their throats'. I'll be honest, I don't understand the need for 'inclusion'. I don't look to movies for heroes or people to emulate. Movies are stories, and most of them are based on fictional stories. I don't understand the need to see someone on a screen that I can relate to in some way or is somehow similar to me to feel good about myself or my life. The time period I grew up, kids all wanted to be Michael Jordan because of his athletic gifts on the basketball court, not because he was in Space Jam. You could see kid wearing #23 jerseys and wagging their tongues as they drove to the hoop, they weren't trying to emulate Tom Cruise flipping bottles in Cocktail.

I came on here and wrote this post because I figure most posters on TexAgs are going to lean conservative, so if someone like me (a social liberal who doesn't care what consenting adults do in their bedroom) notices a prevalence of gays on Netflix shows, people on TexAgs will really notice it.