No, it isn't. If "sex" were everywhere, the police would be spending their entire time arresting couples of all genders for copulating in public.

Now, if you mean society has become more sexualised, as you stated, then I'm afraid the more things change the more things change the same: the Ancient Greeks had periods of overt sexualisation (and didn't have a word for "homosexuality" incidentally) as did the Romans, the Normans, the Tudors, the Carolines, the Victorians...the list just goes on and on - complaints about scantily dressed pop stars dancing to loud music and promiscuity were all aired in the 60's and 70's, the 80's and 90's and will doubtless continue to be until the end of time (the real one, that is)

What it comes down to, is perspective: virtually all of the parents I have spoken to about "sex" on TV (and remember, there is NO sex in DW) seem to have a problem with their own embarrassment about it in relation to the questions their children may ask - none have said it will make their children rush out and have sex any more than watching "Midsomer Murders" will make them serial killers.

It is the Adults that have a problem with sex, sexuality and sexualisation because a) they remember what they were like as children/teenagers b) they do not differentiate between sex and love enough and c) are able to read far more into a simple scene than a child ever would.

Oh and by the way, without "sex" the human race would cease to exist...

I don't think I agree. I think sex is part of everyday life and I think it is healthy if people are exposed to it in different media. I think there is nothing wrong with introducing children early to the notion of what sex is and what it means (and I'm talking about homosexuality, hetereosexuality, bisexuality and any other sexual practice people like to indulge in as long as it doesn't involve force e.g. rape etc.). Teenage pregnancies are particularly prevalent in countries in which sexual education is not part of an early curriculum.

I would not want to go back to a prudish society, in which people are uninformed about sexual practices and are left alone with their questions. Health includes healthy minds and bodies. Knowing about sex and treating it as part of everyday life is crucial to both IMO obviously.

Disclaimer: I don't mean to say that I would like to see full sexual intercourse in Doctor Who, but I thought the scene with Amy and the doctor was actually quite a good one, because it showed that women these days do not necessarily lie back and think of England or Scotland or whatever.

I think in all fairness...most of us only brought in SM into the debate because of the double standerds of others....not to criticise Moff, or to make it into a RTD vs SM debate....but to show the inconsistancies in the argument of some people.....I think most of us here have no problem with any sexual references that either RTD or Moff have brought into the show...its the way they write...they enjoy it....and so do most of us


I will have to disagree here like Lach and John....

yeah the may not have had as much kissing going in the classic series as they have now.....but there was plenty of supressed sexualisation of the show....that is there in the deeper levels....or in form of the clothes worn by female companions.....why else would the companions often than not be seen as somethingfor the dads...if Who was that sexless? Amy's Short skirts are in nursery as Moff said compared to those clothes worn by the likes of Leela, Romana, Peri, Zoe....sex was very much there...but ina different format....
and agan sexuality and sex are not the same thing.....falling in love with a person or talikng about being in a relationship with a person, doesn't always mean sex 24/7...

And as John said that there have always been periods of overt sexual societies.....even the 60's....with the hippie culture...sex was love....

i have never even heard of gay agenda before!!
though i am fairly new to the forum im glad the OP has bought it to my attention.
im not sure i noticed too much of a 'gay agenda', in doctor who, but its everywhere in torchwood!! it was like some scifi version of queer as folk. RTD clearly loves expressing his sexuality, even when it has no relevance to the story.

Gay? Why this obsession with happiness?
I suppose there's a "gay agenda" on children's television too. Grow up ffs nobody is ramming it down your throat. (There really is nothing that doesn't sound like a double entendre is there?)

yet he didn't write majority of the stories......so the basic ideas were his, as were the major plot decisions, but not every joke every quip...and no TW wasn't full of gay agenda either...

Whereas when children are exposed to knowledge about sex, sexually provocative clothes and relationships of all kinds from a very early age and with more information than any generation has ever had before from teachers, books, radio, TV and the internet about how not to get pregnant while doing whatever they want, we get...a very large number of teenage pregnancies

yeah but not from the gay kids.

My heart sank when I first saw this thread, and now I look again and it's massive! Sigh....

I don't think that children are exposed to this from a very early age. For one thing, there is the watershed, and before that you don't see any explicit sexual scenes (not that I think you should), it's all about kissing etc. Revealing clothes?? Short skirts or bikinis do not equal sex. Song texts may have references, but teenagers and children don't learn anything from that about sex. I'm more generally concerned that sex education starts at home, parents sitting down with their children, explaining things, rather than children and teenager learning about sex from their peers. Having seen the reaction to the Amy scene even just on here and the papers, I don't think that is happening very much at all. I believe that sex education in school could be improved, however, I'm not well enough informed about current policies so I'm happy to be proven wrong (my information came from an international study looking across diffferent countries - I will try to find a link). Kids need to be informed about their choices, and their responsibilites. Treating sex as part of every day life from on early age rather than being all hush, hush, makes it easier to give them these choices and it encourages them to discuss their own potential sex life with their parents (including prevention of pregnancies).

There was a gay agenda. To deny it does nothing more than show one's own pig-headed ignorance. The simple fact was that clearly RTD (and likely at least some of his fellow writers) made a concerted effort to include references of a gay and bisexual nature in several episodes.

The most likely reason for this was to push the idea that sexuality is no big deal, being gay is just part of some people's lives and it's all fine and dandy. A noble sentiment. But in the end the complete dearth of subtlety in getting this message across made the whole thing ham-fisted and a bit of an own goal, because everyone noticed it, it became a theme and people were indeed expectantly waiting for the next reference to crop up and be hammered into our heads. Unfortunately RTD made too big a deal of trying to say that being gay is no big deal.

Obviously some people (a select minority, might I add) seized this opportunity to vent homophobic opinions and generally make complete prats of themselves. But I object to this blanket notion, I've seen quite a few times in this thread, that anyone who asserts that there was a gay agenda is a nasty old bigot who just thinks anything gay is evil and against God.

The agenda was just so clearly there, it is foolish to argue otherwise. But for me it was nothing more than a well intentioned blunder that accounted for maybe a total of a couple of minutes screen time across the entire series. It wasn't the downfall of the show by any means.

Well thank you for calling me pig-headed....but I will still argue that there is no gay agenda.....not anymore than the Scottish-references in series 5 are some form of Scottish agenda.....RTD wrote them because he is comfortable writing gay references.....Moff did them because he loves playing sexaul type jokes.....Gareth wrote the one about Shakespeare because 57 academics would punch the air at that revelation....and writing the two gay characters in Unicorna and the Wasp, is something even the current Agatha christie dramas on ITV tend to show....


This idea that he has an agenda is because he happens to be gay himself...which then when people go on about it, shows that they have a problem with it, that fact that people are counting it (i'm not), shows that they are the ones with the problem and therefore noticing it. He writes the world as he sees around him...being gay isn't abnormal...making gay jokes isn't a one off.....so if that seeps into his writing, it doesn't mean he has som grand plan. But at the same time if he has peopl writing to him telling him hey are proud that he has made a hero like Jack Omi-sexual...a character who sexuality is not boxed up...ofcourse he will feel proud, just like DT did when a young boy told him on the radio station that his Doctorhas inspired him to be an actor....does this mean that DT started off as the Doctor with a plan to make everyone actors???

I'm a woman, from an asian background....when I wrote stories in...or essays....my experience would always seep in....my cultural, my thoughts as a feamel would and can be seen for those looking for it....sometimes i would right an essay and wouldn't even realise I did it.....and get pointed out by my tutor that I did, and thy found that interesting. But i have no agenda to promote some female agenda....or my cultural agenda (something I would definitely not do)

So yes, while what the gay references do is make them seem normal as any other hetrosexaul reference....that is because it is being done with no other thought than...ohh it would be a good joke...the cat married to the Human feels embarrased about two lesbians (more of a joke on all those who bang on about the gay agenda)....oh the man of the house could b the one who is having the affair with the butcher...oh the beard joke is a great chance to mae a joke about the Master's sexuality...


I think there is something quite scary in this idea that when any gay reference appears, its because they must have put a lot of thought into where to put it....yet that same thing won't apply to hetrosexaulity....surely, it should be as easy as decidingthat someone is married to the opposite sex???

Family Guy and Simpsons, and Friends....and all sorts of popular shows have some gay reference....or joke...does this mean everyone of those has an agenda as well??? No the only reason RTD is being accused of it is because he is gay himself...simple as...."oh he is gay, so it must be an agenda"....I rightly rememeber someone saying in these very forums that SM can do them, but RTD shouldn't because he is gay....I mean what??? That said it all really....

There is certainly a "straight agenda" now.

And its probably why the viewing figures are going down.

Aside from the fact that that's a nonsensical assertion, it's based on an incorrect assumption: they aren't.

And to Crazzy: yes, i've noticed the Gay Agenda in the Marple remakes too, and it's equally annoying there-though it's far from being the worst thing about those abominations, which are about as close to Christie as the Magic Roundabout.

But is it an agenda...if its a norm now in TV shows???? just like someone happens to be straight, someone happens to be gay....unless its a soap (where everything is amplified)...being gay, or making a reference to such a sexuality is as normal as a straight character or suggesting someone is eyeing up the opposite sex.....


whether you find them annoying or not...is a different matter....

To those whom this thread, and the repeated arguments contained within, causes despair: revel in the knowledge that the modern, free and liberal world we love so infuriates many close-minded, conservative people. Their moaning and whining - indicative of how miserable other peoples freedom makes them feel - leads me to experience enormous doses of schadenfreude. The world doesn't belong to them anymore - it's ours now.

I don't think I've any energy left for this old argument again.

Anyway, it was a good twist in Sherlock, how moriarty portrayed the gay bloke and it fooled Sherlock... very good..

as far as Who is concerned, I've said all I want to the topic

Who exactly are you speaking to? We're not all bloody Liberals, thank Christ. Astounding arrogance to assume such a thing or to assume it gives you the moral high ground.

Whoever started this thread certainly knew what he/she was doing!
I've read through the thread not really wanting to (but couldn't help myself!) just to see the same old people churning out the same old points as they have done loads of times before - you know who you are!!

Guys, we know who the homphobes are on this forum, so don't rise to their narrow minded opinions, they're not going to change them! You might as well go and bang your head against a wall repeatedly.

Right, thats my two penneth, I'm off to start (another) thread about what is canon and what isn't.........

I guess it was to be expected that unmitigated crap would appear on this thread .

Is there a more stupid question to ask than "How many is "many"?

mmmmmm, schadenfreude!

Yes indeed.
Sad that you can remember such irrelevant information

Dummkopf.