Just catching up on what has been said recently and there are a couple of points I would like to make. Re the Kirk/Uhura kiss. It has always been claimed that this was the first interacial kiss shown on TV in America. this is in fact not true. Apparently there was an earlier one shown (sorry can't find my source for this at the moment) but it was not on a mainstream programme. Also TV executives chickened out at the last moment and used a cut that showed the two characters strongly resisting. In fairness this was part of the plot but it made out that Kirk was almost repugnant at kissing Uhura. Secondly the Will Smith bit about not being allowed to kiss a white actrress. Is this true, has he actually said that ? if so it obviousley doesn't work the other way round, witness the sex scene in Monsters Ball ! Thirdly a lot of posters have said that they felt uncomfortable about the male/male sex scene in Torchwood. Surely its perfectly OK for people to say they didn't enjoy it or were uncomfortable without being labelled ? The over reaction of some posters to anyone who has expressed such an opionion has been pretty extreme.
Like i said previously. I do not like batting about the "homophobia" tag without merit. If people are uncomfortable with it then that is their prerogative
BUT
you have to acknowledge that saying that there is no need for it to be on television, while at the same time ignoring the m/f scene, is going to draw criticism.
A lot of people do not like seeing sex scenes regardless of the orientation. Why you feel the need to single out the gay sex is beyond me
Well from my previous posts I thought it would be obvious. I would also prefer to keep (any) sex out of Torchwood and just concentrate on moving the story along. At the end of the day, if it's the sex that is really lighting someone's candle they should go an buy a PC and a modem instead...
It was a very small portion of an hour long show and it had enough of a lead in. It didn't go from the bar scene to surprise butt sex in a split second.
...however it could have gone from the bar seen to Jack and barman lying in bed after the 'chequered flag'. Was seeing them at it crucial to moving the story on?
......because the 95%+ of the viewing public are straight and by implication the majority of which would feel repulsed or uncomfortable at best. You would have a point if the majority of the viewing public were engaged by or ambivalent to seeing gay sex on tv.
What shall we see in Torchwood next? Some S&M, three (or more in a bed)? For some this is fine at home or in a drama specifically exploring theses issues but not for a mainstream sci fi program.
but its a mainstream sci fi program where the main character is openly "omnisexual" It is not pretending to be something else. It is what it is. Has been since day one.
It is not as if Picard and Riker just suddenly jumped into bed
It was an enjoyable episode, but I was a bit narked when Gwen mentioned crisps, petrol station & pavement & they had to get a joke in, whereby the American woman gave out the translation.
It was supposed to be funny, but it was obvious that it was for the American viewers.
If they're going to do this every time one of the British characters utters a British colloquialism, it's going to get rather tedious.
We (as in British) have to watch American programmes & hear their terminology & there is no jokey translation, because it's usually pretty obvious what they mean, so why do it in Torchwood?
Well from my previous posts I thought it would be obvious. I would also prefer to keep (any) sex out of Torchwood and just concentrate on moving the story along. At the end of the day, if it's the sex that is really lighting someone's candle they should go an buy a PC and a modem instead...
...however it could have gone from the bar seen to Jack and barman lying in bed after the 'chequered flag'. Was seeing them at it crucial to moving the story on?
Why should anyone have to do that?
She didn't HAVE to. it was her choice. You are talking about restricting the writers choice because it makes YOU uncomfortable. If you do not like watching sex scenes i suggest you watch a different show since Torchwood has ALWAYS been overly sexual (orgasm alien in series 1)
I do not particularly like seeing people getting mugged on TV. i tell you what. instead of the violence why not have the victim just give the guy his wallet.
It was an enjoyable episode, but I was a bit narked when Gwen mentioned crisps, petrol station & pavement & they had to get a joke in, whereby the American woman gave out the translation.
It was supposed to be funny, but it was obvious that it was for the American viewers.
If they're going to do this every time one of the British characters utters a British colloquialism, it's going to get rather tedious.
We (as in British) have to watch American programmes & hear their terminology & it there is no jokey translation, because it's usually pretty obvious what they mean, so why do it in Torchwood?
Agreed
If anything it should be the other way around. In the past i have had to explain to US friends what i am referring to when I say "pavement" "crisps" "nappy" "quid" etc
It would rarely happen the way shown last week...except for the lemonade thing
Well from my previous posts I thought it would be obvious. I would also prefer to keep (any) sex out of Torchwood and just concentrate on moving the story along. At the end of the day, if it's the sex that is really lighting someone's candle they should go an buy a PC and a modem instead...
By all means, complain about sex scenes in general on TV but don't keep going on about the 'gay' sex scenes - especially one that wasn't even explicit in the BBC edit and was featured in a show where the leading man has been bisexual from the very begining.
If you've been watching Torchwood since it started back in 2006, you shouldn't be that shocked by it.
My point is I (and I believe the majority of the tv viewing public, based on the available facts) would rather not see gay sex on mainstream tv..
You have not given any 'facts' to support your claim. The only fact you have given is that some statistics show 95% of the population is straight.
I don't know how many straight people would turn off a tv show that had gay sex scenes in it, and unless you can provide a link to an accredeited study that asked that specific question, then neither do you! You are just surmising.
You don't want the gay sex scenes to be on the tv. You are straight. You are part of the 95% majority. = The 95% majority don't want the gay sex scenes on the tv.
That is your logic.
However that same logic can be used to say
My partner and I don't mind the gay sex scenes being on tv. We are straight. We are part of the 95% majority. = The 95% majority don't mind the gay sex scenes on the tv.
If we did say that, you would no doubt strongly object!
You don't want the gay sex on tv! We shouldn't presume to tell you shouldn't disapprove of it!
However, unlike you we wouldn't dream of saying that. We wouldn't dream of claiming that we speak for all straight people and neither should you!
Like i said previously. I do not like batting about the "homophobia" tag without merit. If people are uncomfortable with it then that is their prerogative
BUT
you have to acknowledge that saying that there is no need for it to be on television, while at the same time ignoring the m/f scene, is going to draw criticism.
I agree, same sex relationships and all that implies should be shown on TV but people have to accept that some viewers will find it uncomfortable to watch.
......because the 95%+ of the viewing public are straight and by implication the majority of which would feel repulsed or uncomfortable at best. You would have a point if the majority of the viewing public were engaged by or ambivalent to seeing gay sex on tv.
.
My objection to your comment is simple. You assume that just because people are straight that they will have a problem watching gay sex on the TV. That is my issue. Some people may have a problem and that's fine - some people have problems watching lots of things - I love programmes like ER but can't stand the operations etc. I also had to turn away when Rex was impaled but I wouldn't say that means they shouldn't be shown. I suspect, although like you I have no actual figures, that there might be people who are equally repulsed by such scenes. You assume to speak for the majority because you feel that way.
I wonder how many of the straight male population would object to two naked women cavorting on their screens - somewhat less than the 95% who are straight I guess. And that's just it - it's all a guess.
Show me the money - show me the figures that show that the 95% straight majority object to seeing same sex characters having sex in a TV programme where the main character is omnisexual.
I would also point out that the demographic for watching Torchwood is largely younger and younger people are much less likely to feel the same as you if they are straight or not.
I agree, same sex relationships and all that implies should be shown on TV but people have to accept that some viewers will find it uncomfortable to watch.
Sure, I don't mind the m/m action, but feel uncomfortable watching f/f action. However I don't insist my boyfriend turns off the tv when f/f is on, or say How dare the tv execs put f/f action in a show. I just read the paper while the action is happening on the screen!
I would also point out that the demographic for watching Torchwood is largely younger and younger people are much less likely to feel the same as you if they are straight or not.
And based on the demographics of the episode, 52% of the audience is female.
Zaphodski, are you claiming to also speak for the female audience as well? !
Sure, I don't mind the m/m action, but feel uncomfortable watching f/f action. However I don't insist my boyfriend turns off the tv when f/f is on, or say How dare the tv execs put f/f action in a show. I just read the paper while the action is happening on the screen!
no from now on, everything that could make even the smallest percentage uncomfortable must not be shown.
you do realise tat the 95% quoted is a load of bull anyway right??
There are no accurate percentages of the amount of bisexuals in the population. Many people in relationships will class themselves as straight because they are in a hetero relationship. In fact my best friend classes herself as a lesbian and is married to a woman and yet she finds men sexually attractive.
So any figure you quote is flawed from the outset
I think you have vastly underestimated how many "heteroflexible" people there are around nowadays
The pace pedestrian and not what we are used to with Torchwood.
In our household this has been relegated to something to put on iPlayer and half-watch while playing games on the PC along with Come Dine with Me and a host of other vague tat.
Original Torchwood was worthy of actually watching on TV, as is Doctor Who.
Secondly the Will Smith bit about not being allowed to kiss a white actrress. Is this true, has he actually said that ? if so it obviousley doesn't work the other way round, witness the sex scene in Monsters Ball !
It's long been that way round.
I remember watching a documentary a long time ago discussing this very issue, and it is one of the single most complicated topics in cinema.
The doc went beyond just TV and presented some startling statistics from the real world, where black woman are several orders of magnitude more likely to marry white men than black men are to marry white women.
The social attitudes behind this cover issues of social status and sexism as well as plain old racism. Old attitudes where a man can marry "beneath his rank" but a woman should never do the same persist, and in the USA in particular, skin-colour is still perceived as an indicator of social class. Alternatively, you can look at the objectification of women, and suggest that under this framework, having a little "exotic" object on your arm is no bad thing, but that guys aren't objects, so it doesn't work the other way round.
Just have a look at the current tenants of the White House: a "black" president who's every bit as "white" as he is "black", but whose wife is more black than him. Would he have been voted in if he was married to a white woman? I can't say for sure, but it seems unlikely to me.
The lack of black-man/white-woman action on TV can be justified as "reflecting social attitudes", but on the other hand, it's a social attitude that certainly should be challenged if society is to progress, and kudos to TW for covering it, but it's a shame they juggled it up with other issues and got it lost in the mess.
I do not believe that 95% of any population anywhere is straight. Wherever that figure comes from it's a bit bollocks.
You only have to do a bit of internet dating (as I do) to find out that things are a lot less cut and dried than you would think. A lot of people do it with a lot of people of either the same or opposite sex. And those who don't sometimes like watching those of a different orientation.
Not only are you appearing to suggest that my repulsion at watching two men having sex is equivalent to someone being persecuted over the colour of their skin. The implication is that the inherent sexual preference (of the majority of the populous) is as intolerable as racism and should be dealt with (and corrected) in a similar way.
That's not implied at all. It wasn't suggested that being heterosexual is as intolerable as racism, it was suggested that being offended by gay sex is as intolerable as racism. You appear to be unable to see the distinction and assume that all heterosexuals will be repelled by a gay sex scene (and incidentally, it was barely a sex scene at all and lasted I think less than a minute) but the distinction exists nonetheless.
That's not implied at all. It wasn't suggested that being heterosexual is as intolerable as racism, it was suggested that being offended by gay sex is as intolerable as racism. You appear to be unable to see the distinction and assume that all heterosexuals will be repelled by a gay sex scene (and incidentally, it was barely a sex scene at all and lasted I think less than a minute) but the distinction exists nonetheless.
I'm a hetero male and I last less then a minute . . . Ooops. TMI
Just catching up on what has been said recently and there are a couple of points I would like to make. Re the Kirk/Uhura kiss. It has always been claimed that this was the first interacial kiss shown on TV in America. this is in fact not true. Apparently there was an earlier one shown (sorry can't find my source for this at the moment) but it was not on a mainstream programme. Also TV executives chickened out at the last moment and used a cut that showed the two characters strongly resisting. In fairness this was part of the plot but it made out that Kirk was almost repugnant at kissing Uhura. Secondly the Will Smith bit about not being allowed to kiss a white actrress. Is this true, has he actually said that ? if so it obviousley doesn't work the other way round, witness the sex scene in Monsters Ball ! Thirdly a lot of posters have said that they felt uncomfortable about the male/male sex scene in Torchwood. Surely its perfectly OK for people to say they didn't enjoy it or were uncomfortable without being labelled ? The over reaction of some posters to anyone who has expressed such an opionion has been pretty extreme.
As far as I'm aware the Star Trek one was sort of the first one shown on American mainstream TV. IIRC they were resisting because of the storyline of being made to kiss but the angle that it was shown at meant that they looked like they were kissing but they actually didn't.
I believe that a British series and I think that it was Emergency Ward 10 showed a kiss between characters that had different skin colours years before the Star Trek episode Plato's Stepchildren though.
I'm straight and didn't have a problem with the sex scene, what there was of it at all. So just count me out of that 95% please.
EditThe guy with Captain Jack did have a nice bum.
Well all I can say is that I'm a 62 year old grandmother and I watched the American version on Saturday, and the UK version on Thursday and I had no problems with the gay sex scene in either versions; and quite tame compared to the naked wrestling scene between Oliver Reed and Alan Bates in Women in Love.
So count me out of the 95% as well.
By the way, I've conducted a "straw poll" amongst my friends (all in their 60s); most of whom hadn't watched Torchwood. They all rushed to view it on iplayer, and not one of them was offended - so count them out of the 95% as well!
Comments
Like i said previously. I do not like batting about the "homophobia" tag without merit. If people are uncomfortable with it then that is their prerogative
BUT
you have to acknowledge that saying that there is no need for it to be on television, while at the same time ignoring the m/f scene, is going to draw criticism.
Well from my previous posts I thought it would be obvious. I would also prefer to keep (any) sex out of Torchwood and just concentrate on moving the story along. At the end of the day, if it's the sex that is really lighting someone's candle they should go an buy a PC and a modem instead...
...however it could have gone from the bar seen to Jack and barman lying in bed after the 'chequered flag'. Was seeing them at it crucial to moving the story on?
Why should anyone have to do that?
It is not as if Picard and Riker just suddenly jumped into bed
It was supposed to be funny, but it was obvious that it was for the American viewers.
If they're going to do this every time one of the British characters utters a British colloquialism, it's going to get rather tedious.
We (as in British) have to watch American programmes & hear their terminology & there is no jokey translation, because it's usually pretty obvious what they mean, so why do it in Torchwood?
She didn't HAVE to. it was her choice. You are talking about restricting the writers choice because it makes YOU uncomfortable. If you do not like watching sex scenes i suggest you watch a different show since Torchwood has ALWAYS been overly sexual (orgasm alien in series 1)
I do not particularly like seeing people getting mugged on TV. i tell you what. instead of the violence why not have the victim just give the guy his wallet.
If anything it should be the other way around. In the past i have had to explain to US friends what i am referring to when I say "pavement" "crisps" "nappy" "quid" etc
It would rarely happen the way shown last week...except for the lemonade thing
By all means, complain about sex scenes in general on TV but don't keep going on about the 'gay' sex scenes - especially one that wasn't even explicit in the BBC edit and was featured in a show where the leading man has been bisexual from the very begining.
If you've been watching Torchwood since it started back in 2006, you shouldn't be that shocked by it.
You have not given any 'facts' to support your claim. The only fact you have given is that some statistics show 95% of the population is straight.
I don't know how many straight people would turn off a tv show that had gay sex scenes in it, and unless you can provide a link to an accredeited study that asked that specific question, then neither do you! You are just surmising.
You don't want the gay sex scenes to be on the tv. You are straight. You are part of the 95% majority. = The 95% majority don't want the gay sex scenes on the tv.
That is your logic.
However that same logic can be used to say
My partner and I don't mind the gay sex scenes being on tv. We are straight. We are part of the 95% majority. = The 95% majority don't mind the gay sex scenes on the tv.
If we did say that, you would no doubt strongly object!
You don't want the gay sex on tv! We shouldn't presume to tell you shouldn't disapprove of it!
However, unlike you we wouldn't dream of saying that. We wouldn't dream of claiming that we speak for all straight people and neither should you!
I agree, same sex relationships and all that implies should be shown on TV but people have to accept that some viewers will find it uncomfortable to watch.
My objection to your comment is simple. You assume that just because people are straight that they will have a problem watching gay sex on the TV. That is my issue. Some people may have a problem and that's fine - some people have problems watching lots of things - I love programmes like ER but can't stand the operations etc. I also had to turn away when Rex was impaled but I wouldn't say that means they shouldn't be shown. I suspect, although like you I have no actual figures, that there might be people who are equally repulsed by such scenes. You assume to speak for the majority because you feel that way.
I wonder how many of the straight male population would object to two naked women cavorting on their screens - somewhat less than the 95% who are straight I guess. And that's just it - it's all a guess.
Show me the money - show me the figures that show that the 95% straight majority object to seeing same sex characters having sex in a TV programme where the main character is omnisexual.
I would also point out that the demographic for watching Torchwood is largely younger and younger people are much less likely to feel the same as you if they are straight or not.
Sure, I don't mind the m/m action, but feel uncomfortable watching f/f action. However I don't insist my boyfriend turns off the tv when f/f is on, or say How dare the tv execs put f/f action in a show. I just read the paper while the action is happening on the screen!
And based on the demographics of the episode, 52% of the audience is female.
Zaphodski, are you claiming to also speak for the female audience as well? !
no from now on, everything that could make even the smallest percentage uncomfortable must not be shown.
There are no accurate percentages of the amount of bisexuals in the population. Many people in relationships will class themselves as straight because they are in a hetero relationship. In fact my best friend classes herself as a lesbian and is married to a woman and yet she finds men sexually attractive.
So any figure you quote is flawed from the outset
I think you have vastly underestimated how many "heteroflexible" people there are around nowadays
The pace pedestrian and not what we are used to with Torchwood.
In our household this has been relegated to something to put on iPlayer and half-watch while playing games on the PC along with Come Dine with Me and a host of other vague tat.
Original Torchwood was worthy of actually watching on TV, as is Doctor Who.
I remember watching a documentary a long time ago discussing this very issue, and it is one of the single most complicated topics in cinema.
The doc went beyond just TV and presented some startling statistics from the real world, where black woman are several orders of magnitude more likely to marry white men than black men are to marry white women.
The social attitudes behind this cover issues of social status and sexism as well as plain old racism. Old attitudes where a man can marry "beneath his rank" but a woman should never do the same persist, and in the USA in particular, skin-colour is still perceived as an indicator of social class. Alternatively, you can look at the objectification of women, and suggest that under this framework, having a little "exotic" object on your arm is no bad thing, but that guys aren't objects, so it doesn't work the other way round.
Just have a look at the current tenants of the White House: a "black" president who's every bit as "white" as he is "black", but whose wife is more black than him. Would he have been voted in if he was married to a white woman? I can't say for sure, but it seems unlikely to me.
The lack of black-man/white-woman action on TV can be justified as "reflecting social attitudes", but on the other hand, it's a social attitude that certainly should be challenged if society is to progress, and kudos to TW for covering it, but it's a shame they juggled it up with other issues and got it lost in the mess.
I do not believe that 95% of any population anywhere is straight. Wherever that figure comes from it's a bit bollocks.
You only have to do a bit of internet dating (as I do) to find out that things are a lot less cut and dried than you would think. A lot of people do it with a lot of people of either the same or opposite sex. And those who don't sometimes like watching those of a different orientation.
I thought the scene with Jack was hot.
That's not implied at all. It wasn't suggested that being heterosexual is as intolerable as racism, it was suggested that being offended by gay sex is as intolerable as racism. You appear to be unable to see the distinction and assume that all heterosexuals will be repelled by a gay sex scene (and incidentally, it was barely a sex scene at all and lasted I think less than a minute) but the distinction exists nonetheless.
I'm a hetero male and I last less then a minute . . .
As far as I'm aware the Star Trek one was sort of the first one shown on American mainstream TV. IIRC they were resisting because of the storyline of being made to kiss but the angle that it was shown at meant that they looked like they were kissing but they actually didn't.
I believe that a British series and I think that it was Emergency Ward 10 showed a kiss between characters that had different skin colours years before the Star Trek episode Plato's Stepchildren though.
I'm straight and didn't have a problem with the sex scene, what there was of it at all. So just count me out of that 95% please.
EditThe guy with Captain Jack did have a nice bum.
So count me out of the 95% as well.
By the way, I've conducted a "straw poll" amongst my friends (all in their 60s); most of whom hadn't watched Torchwood. They all rushed to view it on iplayer, and not one of them was offended - so count them out of the 95% as well!