Supernatural / Jensen Ackles / Jared Padelecki [merged]

[aijalon18]

^C'mon lesbians are not the same thing and you know it. People generally think lesbians are hot.

[falconfan]

^C'mon lesbians are not the same thing and you know it. People generally think lesbians are hot.

Wow.... I really feel like I should just pretend you didn't say that.

Lesbians are no more accepted in our society than gay males. That is unless of course they're fulfilling the role of sex object in a pornography or trashy MTV show. That's pretty much the only place you see them. The public doesn't accept their ability to hold genuine relationships and they are much more absent in society than the homosexual male (often present in a feminized form as the comic relief). Lesbians are much harder for the public to accept outside a sexualized capacity (ask Ellen's THREE canceled sitcoms) and they're even oddly absent from scientific studies which seem to always focus on the gay male.

[aijalon18]

Wow.... I really feel like I should just pretend you didn't say that.

Lesbians are no more accepted in our society than gay males. That is unless of course they're fulfilling the role of sex object in a pornography or trashy MTV show. That's pretty much the only place you see them. The public doesn't accept their ability to hold genuine relationships and they are much more absent in society than the homosexual male (often present in a feminized form as the comic relief). Lesbians are much harder for the public to accept outside a sexualized capacity (ask Ellen's THREE canceled sitcoms) and they're even oddly absent from scientific studies which seem to always focus on the gay male.

I'm absolutely serious. What you say is not reality. Lesbians are definitely more acceptable in popular culture than gay male sexuality. Most lesbians I know readily admit that. The relationship aspect of lesbian couples isnt given the same validity as straight couples but just the image and idea of 2 women being together is totally more acceptable. Trashy or not MTV reality shows are a huge part of popular culture. All TV is mostly about sex and hooking up. Just look at movies. Lesbian movies are 100 times better than gay movies. Because people are willing to put way more money behind them. The only gay movies with any production quality are about AIDS, suicide, and murder.

Look at Brad and Angelina. She is admittedly bisexual and has had relationships with women. She's still one of the biggest actresses in Hollywood. You think the same would be true for Brad Pitt if he used to date guys?

[falconfan]

I'm absolutely serious. What you say is not reality. Lesbians are definitely more acceptable in popular culture than gay male sexuality. Most lesbians I know readily admit that. The relationship aspect of lesbian couples isnt given the same validity as straight couples but just the image and idea of 2 women being together is totally more acceptable. Trashy or not MTV reality shows are a huge part of popular culture. All TV is mostly about sex and hooking up. Just look at movies. Lesbian movies are 100 times better than gay movies. Because people are willing to put way more money behind them. The only gay movies with any production quality are about AIDS, suicide, and murder.

Look at Brad and Angelina. She is admittedly bisexual and has had relationships with women. She's still one of the biggest actresses in Hollywood. You think the same would be true for Brad Pitt if he used to date guys?

Dude... wow... just because the situation is different doesn't make it better nor does it mean lesbians are "more acceptable"
than gay males to mainstream society. The only way lesbians are "acceptable" is if they have double Ds and are making out in a pool and actual lesbians are not just some poseable Barbie dolls. The fact the mainstream media has found itself able to exploit the eroticism of lesbian sexuality and market that to its heterosexual male audiences doesn't mean they're taken any more serious than gay males. In fact if you're upset by the fact a gay boys secret crush was used for a punchline or two I don't comprehend how you're not also upset by the fetishized portrayal of lesbians in the very examples you readily point to as evidence of their 'acceptance.'

They're far scarcer on network television and reality TV in general. When they are apparent as in television or cinema it's more often then not to show the character as some sort of dangerous seductress or slut. Do not make the mistake of accepting presence as acceptance.

[aijalon18]

Dude... wow... just because the situation is different doesn't make it better nor does it mean lesbians are "more acceptable"
than gay males to mainstream society. The only way lesbians are "acceptable" is if they have double Ds and are making out in a pool and actual lesbians are not just some poseable Barbie dolls. The fact the mainstream media has found itself able to exploit the eroticism of lesbian sexuality and market that to its heterosexual male audiences doesn't mean they're taken any more serious than gay males. In fact if you're upset by the fact a gay boys secret crush was used for a punchline or two I don't comprehend how you're not also upset by the fetishized portrayal of lesbians in the very examples you readily point to as evidence of their 'acceptance.'

They're far scarcer on network television and reality TV in general. When they are apparent as in television or cinema it's more often then not to show the character as some sort of dangerous seductress or slut. Do not make the mistake of accepting presence as acceptance.

You are just wrong on this issue. Its not all about porno lesbians. Gay men interacting in a sexual way is not as acceptable period. Whether they are hot, fat, shirt, tall, blind or deaf. Ellen's sitcoms failing might have nothing to do with her sexuality. It might have more to do with the fact that she doesnt look like Jennifer Aniston. Lots of people have been in shows that have failed a hell of a lot more than Ellen. Debra Messing was on a shitload of failed pilots before Will and Grace. And Ellen is hugely successful now despite not being a hot lesbian with double D's.

You still have no rebuttal to the point that Angelina can have a successful acting career and do sexy roles after dating women yet Brad could NOT do the same if he dated men. Just look at all the absurd and offensive interviews that James Franco and Sean Penn went through for sharing a kiss in Milk. On every show pretty much the hosts asked "OMG was that so weird?" "wasnt that so uncomfortable?" "How can you do that?" Did they ask Sarah Michelle Gellar and Selma Blair that when they kissed in Cruel Intentions like 10 years ago?

Or a common example, if you go out to clubs or parties girls dance all over each other, and no one really cares. If guys did the same it would cause a scene. The idea of 2 guys being together is far more jarring to people. it's just a fact. Your argument is just weird.

[falconfan]

You are just wrong on this issue. Its not all about porno lesbians. Gay men interacting in a sexual way is not as acceptable period. Whether they are hot, fat, shirt, tall, blind or deaf. Ellen's sitcoms failing might have nothing to do with her sexuality. It might have more to do with the fact that she doesnt look like Jennifer Aniston. Lots of people have been in shows that have failed a hell of a lot more than Ellen. Debra Messing was on a shitload of failed pilots before Will and Grace. And Ellen is hugely successful now despite not being a hot lesbian with double D's.

DUDE that makes NO SENSE. Ellen's first sitcom "Ellen" succeeded for four season (during this whole stretch of time she didn't look like Jennifer Aniston). In the fourth season finale, Ellen's character came out as a lesbian. When season five began ratings dropped, a parental advisory warning was slapped on it, and the series TANKED not making it to ever see a season six.

The woman since had to more pilots, both in which she played a lesbian, neither of which secured a season long run. Cut to the talk show which succeeded wildly.

So what changed here? Not her appearance. Not her brand of humor. But the context of her character. Anytime and everytime Ellen was playing in a show which focused on her life as a lesbian it failed miserably (initially even earning her a parental advisory!). Just a year after Ellen got blown out of the water Will & Grace frolliced on the screen managing not only to land in the legendary NBC Thursday night line up but also to snag an Emmy nomination.

You still have no rebuttal to the point that Angelina can have a successful acting career and do sexy roles after dating women yet Brad could NOT do the same if he dated men. Just look at all the absurd and offensive interviews that James Franco and Sean Penn went through for sharing a kiss in Milk. On every show pretty much the hosts asked "OMG was that so weird?" "wasnt that so uncomfortable?" "How can you do that?" Did they ask Sarah Michelle Gellar and Selma Blair that when they kissed in Cruel Intentions like 10 years ago?

Well I don't know what they asked Michelle Gellar and Selma Blair, I wasn't reading their interviews then. I can't say in certainty that they were asked these questions. But I'd be very surprised if Denise Richards or Sarah Michelle Gellar or Neve Campbell Or Selma Blair or any of the other actresses who have shared lesbian kisses haven't been asked what it was like or what it felt like. And the fact Angelina gets a pass on having had a lesbian relationship is directly linked to her status as a sex symbol and the sexualization of lesbianism. So no it doesn't hurt that she's bisexual but when it REALLY counts people are no more accepting of lesbians. Surely you wouldn't imagine that we'd be any more likely to elect a lesbian to public office than a gay man?

And come ON you can't pretend that there aren't gay actors who have and still do succeed.

T.R. Knight, Luke MacFarlane, Neil Patrick Harris, and B. D. Wong are all doing very nicely for themselves on primetime network TV.

John Barrowman has carved himself out a nice role as an action hero.

And being gay hasn't seem to hinder the careers of either Ruper Everett or Nathan Lane. Hell being gay REVIVED the career of Lance Bass.

Pointing out Angelina is bisexual proves nothing. It allows males to see her as possesing a sexually arrousing trait (lesbianism) which can be used to their benefit, as evidenced by the bisexual woman's ability to also be with a man. You'll also note that despite looking incredibly hot always Angelina rocketed into the A list caliber more or less during her Mr. and Mrs. Smith period when onlookers could firmly believe she was primarily heterosexual as evidenced by her affair with Brad Pitt.

Or a common example, if you go out to clubs or parties girls dance all over each other, and no one really cares. If guys did the same it would cause a scene. The idea of 2 guys being together is far more jarring to people. it's just a fact. Your argument is just weird.

Dude, I'm not denying that people aren't taught to percieve lesbianism differently than two men what I'm saying is turning the actions of two loving individuals into nothing more than a purely erotic act meant to titulate a third party is no better than teaching someone to be disgusted by it. Lesbians are no more accepted. They're not taken any more seriously. And the inclusion of a lesbian character has no more or less impact than the inclusion of a gay male. You can just ask Dr. Hahn (Grey's Anatomy) about that. Her lesbian ass was uncermoniously sent packing for having the audacity to try and have a series lesbian relationship. Meanwhile elsewhere on ABC Kevin and Scotty confess their love (Brothers and Sisters) and Lee and Bob live under one roof (Desperate Houswives). I don't think there is a double standard but if there is one, there's more than enough evidence to argue it's in favor of the male/male and against the female/female

[StlKj]

I also don't think he was the first gay character. In All Hell Break's Loose Pt. 1 wasn't that one girl a lesbian? She said she touched her girlfriend and she died. I guess you could take it as being the girlfriend=close friend thing but that's not how I did.

Didn't imply he was the first gay character. He was the first substantial gay character. Yes, she was a lesbian. She was tough enough to make it to the final four, but she was dispatched almost immediately after being given nothing to do. We never even saw her use the power she apparently had. And who did she kill with it? Oh, gee, another lesbian. Nothing like a Kung Fu Lesbian Grip.

Corbin's death did not have to be so graphic either. They could have easily chosen to have him impaled from behind, and then showed blood coming out of his mouth. No, we saw a character slowly push a metal rod through his throat--viewed through Corbin's own camera, no less. Then they just lingered on his corpse several times.

Certainly, heteros die on this show all the time. Not saying gay people shouldn't die as well. But when you have only really had two, and they are handled in such matters, it just feels, to me, a little second-class citizen-esque.

[aijalon18]

DUDE that makes NO SENSE. Ellen's first sitcom "Ellen" succeeded for four season (during this whole stretch of time she didn't look like Jennifer Aniston). In the fourth season finale, Ellen's character came out as a lesbian. When season five began ratings dropped, a parental advisory warning was slapped on it, and the series TANKED not making it to ever see a season six.

The woman since had to more pilots, both in which she played a lesbian, neither of which secured a season long run. Cut to the talk show which succeeded wildly.

So what changed here? Not her appearance. Not her brand of humor. But the context of her character. Anytime and everytime Ellen was playing in a show which focused on her life as a lesbian it failed miserably (initially even earning her a parental advisory!). Just a year after Ellen got blown out of the water Will & Grace frolliced on the screen managing not only to land in the legendary NBC Thursday night line up but also to snag an Emmy nomination.



Well I don't know what they asked Michelle Gellar and Selma Blair, I wasn't reading their interviews then. I can't say in certainty that they were asked these questions. But I'd be very surprised if Denise Richards or Sarah Michelle Gellar or Neve Campbell Or Selma Blair or any of the other actresses who have shared lesbian kisses haven't been asked what it was like or what it felt like. And the fact Angelina gets a pass on having had a lesbian relationship is directly linked to her status as a sex symbol and the sexualization of lesbianism. So no it doesn't hurt that she's bisexual but when it REALLY counts people are no more accepting of lesbians. Surely you wouldn't imagine that we'd be any more likely to elect a lesbian to public office than a gay man?

And come ON you can't pretend that there aren't gay actors who have and still do succeed.

T.R. Knight, Luke MacFarlane, Neil Patrick Harris, and B. D. Wong are all doing very nicely for themselves on primetime network TV.

John Barrowman has carved himself out a nice role as an action hero.

And being gay hasn't seem to hinder the careers of either Ruper Everett or Nathan Lane. Hell being gay REVIVED the career of Lance Bass.

Pointing out Angelina is bisexual proves nothing. It allows males to see her as possesing a sexually arrousing trait (lesbianism) which can be used to their benefit, as evidenced by the bisexual woman's ability to also be with a man. You'll also note that despite looking incredibly hot always Angelina rocketed into the A list caliber more or less during her Mr. and Mrs. Smith period when onlookers could firmly believe she was primarily heterosexual as evidenced by her affair with Brad Pitt.



Dude, I'm not denying that people aren't taught to percieve lesbianism differently than two men what I'm saying is turning the actions of two loving individuals into nothing more than a purely erotic act meant to titulate a third party is no better than teaching someone to be disgusted by it. Lesbians are no more accepted. They're not taken any more seriously. And the inclusion of a lesbian character has no more or less impact than the inclusion of a gay male. You can just ask Dr. Hahn (Grey's Anatomy) about that. Her lesbian ass was uncermoniously sent packing for having the audacity to try and have a series lesbian relationship. Meanwhile elsewhere on ABC Kevin and Scotty confess their love (Brothers and Sisters) and Lee and Bob live under one roof (Desperate Houswives). I don't think there is a double standard but if there is one, there's more than enough evidence to argue it's in favor of the male/male and against the female/female

You make no sense. Obviously lesbians face discrimination. But it is significantly less than gay men. If many lesbians agree with that I dont get why you are trying to argue. Sure the Ellen show's downfall likely had to due with homophobia. Lesbians do face homophobia but less than gay men. Will &Grace is a terrible example. Will had the most inactive dating life and served mainly as Grace's gay who would support her through her romances.

All your other arguments fall flat. Rupert Everett has said many times that his sexuality has hurt his career tremendously. Lance Bass has said the same thing. He wanted to do acting and many agents have told him to his face he cant be marketable because he is gay. If you do any research you can find out both. T.r., Luke, Neil, and BD all play supporting characters. None of them are leading men.

And lastly, do you think a song called "I Kissed a Boy" by a male vocalist could possibly be a number 1 smash. Definitely not. And Katy Perry's song is not about fetishizing lesbianism. It really is about girls doing something for themselves not to entertain or amuse guys.

[StlKj]

Certainly, heteros die on this show all the time. Not saying gay people shouldn't die as well. But when you have only really had two, and they are handled in such manners, it just feels, to me, a little second-class citizen-esque.

Sigh. I can't stop the edits.

[falconfan]

You make no sense. Obviously lesbians face discrimination. But it is significantly less than gay men. If many lesbians agree with that I dont get why you are trying to argue.

Just because you say 'most the lesbians I know agree!' doesn't even remotely resemble evidence that "many" lesbians agree. You seem to be missing the very basic concept I'm putting out which is basically that being tolerable because people view you as a sexual outlet/going through a phase doesn't equate to acceptance.

Sure the Ellen show's downfall likely had to due with homophobia. Lesbians do face homophobia but less than gay men. Will &Grace is a terrible example. Will had the most inactive dating life and served mainly as Grace's gay who would support her through her romances.

That's ridiculous. Will had homosexual relationships. Not to mention the existence of Jack. But more over for Ellen to be literally labeled as "containing offensive material" by the federal government and thensuddenly be sent off into the TV wasteland after four years of prior success is HUGELY different than Will and Grace getting a freaking EMMY nom for it's Pilot! CLEARLY the public, or at least the network, was more accepting of a sitcom about a gay man than one about a lesbian. And for you just write that off with 'oh he doesn't have that many boyfriends anyway' is just silly especially when in the series it's being compared too Ellen only had I'd say 2 love interests.

All your other arguments fall flat. Rupert Everett has said many times that his sexuality has hurt his career tremendously. Lance Bass has said the same thing. He wanted to do acting and many agents have told him to his face he cant be marketable because he is gay. If you do any research you can find out both. T.r., Luke, Neil, and BD all play supporting characters. None of them are leading men.

These arguments mean nothing because I'm not arguing that there ISN'T discrimination against gay men. I'm saying that the discrimination against gay men is not greater than the discrimination against lesbians. In order to prove your claim you need not simply prove that gay men in Hollywood face repression (a point I don't dispute) but to prove that lesbians in Hollywood have succeeded above and beyond gay men (a point I do dispute) So if these gay men have declared they face discrimination in order to prove your point you'd need to provide statements in which lesbians claim their sexuality did NOT hinder them. You've pointed out that many of the gay men play supporting roles; then your task is then to show that lesbians play lead roles in prime time television.

I'm saying not that gay men don't face discrimination but in general there are less roles out there for lesbian, less reconginition, less of a presence (mainly because of our male centric society views issues with males as innately of more importance). Lesbians like Wanda Sykes and Portia De Rossi have reached the same heights in supporting roles, coniciding with my assertion that they're equal. And some lesbian/bisexual roles (almost ALWAYS bisexual to allow the male viewer to retain his ability to fetishize the character) have begun to crop up like Thirteen on House. But if you feel like looking at the statistics on the GLAAD website only 26% of the LGBT characters on network TV are women (and 6% are transexuals male to female but that's a whole different discussion). 66% of the LGBT characters are gay males,11% are lesbians, 14% are bisexual women. Only 3% are bisexual men (probably the most berrated group from both sides of the aisle) When you make the jump to cable there are still more male LGBT characters 53% than women 44% (the remainder is once more trans characters). As far as gay male characters, they still make up the majority 51%. Lesbian characters shoot up to 36% on cable (which couldn't have anything at all to do with the graphic nature of cable stations which allow for the increased eroticizing or lesbian relations)

It's also notable that the lesbian shoe seems to fall second the "L Word" didn't come around until AFTER "Queer As Folk" "A Shot At Love" didn't appear until LONG after "Boy Meets Boy." Our societies sexist nature just leads them to deal with male side of the equation first.

And lastly, do you think a song called "I Kissed a Boy" by a male vocalist could possibly be a number 1 smash. Definitely not. And Katy Perry's song is not about fetishizing lesbianism. It really is about girls doing something for themselves not to entertain or amuse guys.

If you don't think that song is about fetishizing lesbianism then you must think that the Madonna/Brittney/Christina kiss was a step forward as apposed to the shameless attempt to expolit sexuality to create controversy... but anyway back to the dearest Mrs. Perry.

Well first off the video begins with a montage of various female body parts and then pans up from Katy's highheels to reveal her petting a pussy(cat) while coyly flirting with the camera. And continue cuts to her assorted body parts firmly entrenches the video in a sexual world.

She also right off the block informs us that she was drunk off her ass. Then after telling us of the scandalous act she hides herself behind a fan (a long time symbol of feminity) and sings "I hope my boyfriend don't mind it." Making clear her submission to the male hierarchy and alluding to her intent to actually be with a man despite "kissing a girl" and liking it. She goes on to make very clear that there was no substance to her act of lesbianism "Don't mean I'm in love tonight/No I don't even know your name/It doesn't matter/You're my experimental game" Shortly after we're reminded of Katy's overriding heterosexual intent/desire in the chorus, which also reminds us once more that she's not in love (She just loves being naughy!!!! Giggle giggle how silly giggle). Now there has been sexual imagery this entire video but perhaps it has reached its peak in stereotypical male fantasy of a pillow fight. And we're back to the chorus (which is discussed before so I won't reiterate it's importance). And the video ends and guess where she is... guess..... IN BED WITH A MAN.

Silly Katy just has naughty lesbian dreams in which she worries about her boyfriends approval about her emotionless, erotic, naughtiness....

PLEASE this is not any sign of acceptance of lesbians at all. It's the male centric society basically allowing the female to have sexual contact with other females when it is meaningless and when there is a guarentee that the woman returns home to the male. Really dude you're a bright guy. How can you NOT see this? It's blatant. The male ego doesn't have to feel threatened by these 'lesbian' relations because they are devoid of any substance. They exist only as a sexual outlet that entices and excites the male. As such they are allowed. But that is a far cry from saying lesbians (REAL LESBIANS not some Double D distortion of vapid whores) are accepted by society.

[falconfan]

Sigh. I can't stop the edits.

Well I get what you're saying. But I think it's just circumstances surrounding the specific characters. I mean all the special children had to die and I'd say the girls death was far less gruesome than that of Andy and Ava.

As for Corbett, like I said the more tragic the death... the more powerful the death echo sequence. At least that's how I see it from a writer's POV.

[aijalon18]

Falcon this will be a neverending argument, which i do not want. We will never change each others minds so I'm gonna drop it and enjoy supernatural.

[Nik2]

Aijalon dear, why do we have to rate forms of bigotry? Can't both gay and lesbian sexuality be equally disturbing to the dominant culture and therefore equally "unacceptable?" Sure it's in different ways, but that doesn't mean one is necessarily better off than the other.

I agree with you that gay male sexuality is very threatening to American masculinity and the hetero-normative culture, but I also agree with falconfan that the eroticism of female sexuality is not an indicator that genuine lesbian relationships are in any way "more accepted" by the dominant culture. The portrayals of lesbians in most pop culture or dominant culture discourse is incredibly essentialized and mostly caters to a straight male fantasy (i.e. engineered and intended to arouse straight male sexual interest and climax, with almost no regard for female pleasure). Even a lot of "girl on girl" porn is clearly geared towards straight men. This should not be seen as "acceptance."

If anything it's not unlike white culture appropriating vestiges of black culture, not to illuminate it but rather to neutralize it, to subjugate it within the realm of dominant culture experience. Minstrelsy is a good example of this (both in its original form and even now in its more invisible and therefore more insidious form). White suburban kids using black slang and affecting an urban culture that is presented in rap videos (not by genuine rap artists but by those who have conflated their music with capitalism and exploitation) -- these kids are not forming a critical and historical understanding of a marginalized culture that had to create its own art and method of speaking truth to power, no, they are merely co-opting it and making it "cool" so it can be part of their experience.

And this is what the dominant masculine, hetero-sexist culture has done with female sexuality and media portrayals of lesbianism. It's the very same thing. They're basically producing lesbian minstrelsy and that may be seen as more "visible" but it's certainly not a sign of acceptance.

Look at it this way. In general, American straight women can look at two gay men in real life or on TV (Brokeback Mountain became a hit mostly because of a large straight female following of fans) and they get it. There's a synaptic click. A resounding connection. They are not looking at this homosexual interaction to get off, or to imagine themselves in the middle of the two men or to (and this is what heterosexual culture does to female sexuality) make it part of their experience. They enjoy it for what it is. They can laugh, cry, talk about it, cheer the boys on, empathize, you go girl, whatever. But there's a crucial separation, a fundamental understanding that they are the spectator. They get that this experience does not include them.

Meanwhile, American straight men look at two women together and they can't imagine that it doesn't include them. It's always about joining them, or trying to have a threesome, or getting off etc.

And come on, you're smart enough (because you've proven your intelligence to me elsewhere) to know that just because some lesbians can't see this problematic "visibility", and are fooled into thinking that this indicates some kind of acceptance by heterosexual culture (just as some blacks are fooled into thinking they have been accepted by the white dominant culture) doesn't make it true. If anything it just exacerbates the already existing problem. To put it bluntly: people of color, women and gays can be just as bad towards (and apathetic to the ongoing marginalization and essentialism of) people of color, women and gays as whites, men and straight people can be.

[aijalon18]

I agree that straight women can look at 2 men and think of the relationship as a valid relationship more readily than straight men looking at lesbians. But straight men generally dont look at straight love stories and think about how this amazing love is captured on film either. Men think about everything more sexually than women.

And I always agreed that real lesbian relationships and families were not more acceptable than gay ones. My only point was the imagery and visibility of 2 women together is more acceptable than 2 men. I wasnt really talking about the relationships. That's what it started out as.

But also, as a bisexual you cannot deny that if you told girl you were interested in that you have dated men in the past, most girls wouldnt be ok with that. But on the other hand if a girl told her man that she has dated women, many more men wouldnt have a problem with it. And its not just because they imagine 3somes in their future. A lot of straight people think women being attracted to women is more "natural". Ive heard this a million times.

[falconfan]

I agree that straight women can look at 2 men and think of the relationship as a valid relationship more readily than straight men looking at lesbians. But straight men generally dont look at straight love stories and think about how this amazing love is captured on film either. Men think about everything more sexually than women.

And I always agreed that real lesbian relationships and families were not more acceptable than gay ones. My only point was the imagery and visibility of 2 women together is more acceptable than 2 men. I wasnt really talking about the relationships. That's what it started out as.

But also, as a bisexual you cannot deny that if you told girl you were interested in that you have dated men in the past, most girls wouldnt be ok with that. But on the other hand if a girl told her man that she has dated women, many more men wouldnt have a problem with it. And its not just because they imagine 3somes in their future. A lot of straight people think women being attracted to women is more "natural". Ive heard this a million times.

Dude, this is probably the last thing I'll post on this topic because as you've posted we're not going to agree. But PLEASE stop relying entirely on anecdotal evidence when I'm providing you with facts and figures. this started in a very simple way. You basically said that the addition of a lesbian character in a primetime network TV show didn't count as being important. You more or less devalued the significance of portraying lesbians because they 'are more accepted.' And I pointed out how little sense that made considering that there are less depictions of lesbian than gay men in mass media and when they are included its typically as sexual objects. So the inclusion and portrayal of a lesbian is no more or less significant than that of a gay male.

[Nik2]

But also, as a bisexual you cannot deny that if you told girl you were interested in that you have dated men in the past, most girls wouldnt be ok with that.

Um...what? I have told girls this and I've had girls be fine with it. I hate to sound cocky but for the sake of this argument, let me dispense with modesty: I've never really had a problem getting girls. Yes, even when they know I'm bisexual. It's an individual thing. And either way this doesn't really refute my earlier points now does it? You're trying to qualify something (lesbians are more accepted by the dominant culture than gays) that can't be qualified.

[Nik2]

My only point was the imagery and visibility of 2 women together is more acceptable than 2 men.

Fair enough. But that "imagery" is a problematic one. It's usually not really an image of true female-female bonding, but rather a neutralized imagine constructed to satisfy the desires of straight men. It becomes all about male pleasure rather than female pleasure. And this makes it non-threatening to the dominant culture but only because they've arrested it and appropriated it!

If anything gay male sexuality (in terms of images) being seen as more "threatening" indicates that on some ironic level, the dominant culture is allowing gay male sexuality to be what it is (i.e. all about two men) and therefore, by viewing homosexuality as "threatening" the dominant culture as at least acknowledging homosexuality. I know it sounds weird but think about it: in order to be disturbed by something, you have to implicitly concede that it is a disruption in what you think is the social fabric. Not seeing lesbians in this way, is not because they're more "accepted", but because their experience is not acknowledged and therefore can't even be feared by the dominant culture. In this way then, female sexuality -- real female sexuality, not the fantasy created by and for straight men -- is actually more invisible.

And this is why it's impossible to qualify and compare these two. Neither gay men nor gay women are fully "accepted" in our society in any meaningful way yet. And to use examples like men being OK with the image of two women together is a facile argument, and one that ignores the implications and context of that "acceptance."

[willsboy84]

^^^ you all make interesting points, but can we talk about what REALLY matters... how fucking CHOICE Sam Winchester was looking in last weeks ep. usually i'm all about Dean, but Sam was just so ON!!!! i dunno what it was. i guess the shirtless thing didn't hurt...although they really could've shown a bit more skin.

[falconfan]

^^^ you all make interesting points, but can we talk about what REALLY matters... how fucking CHOICE Sam Winchester was looking in last weeks ep. usually i'm all about Dean, but Sam was just so ON!!!! i dunno what it was. i guess the shirtless thing didn't hurt...although they really could've shown a bit more skin.

Shirtless Sammy is always VERY VERY nice. I mean I'm totally a Jensen man but body wise Jared totally wins out.

[aijalon18]

Um...what? I have told girls this and I've had girls be fine with it. I hate to sound cocky but for the sake of this argument, let me dispense with modesty: I've never really had a problem getting girls. Yes, even when they know I'm bisexual. It's an individual thing. And either way this doesn't really refute my earlier points now does it? You're trying to qualify something (lesbians are more accepted by the dominant culture than gays) that can't be qualified.

I guess its a matter of opinion and i don't have a psychology journal. So i'm not gonna continue to argue the point. But I will correct myself in a way. I think it is the type of girls you date. Ill be honest that there are cultural differences when it comes to people's accepting of sexuality. Speaking as someone who is multiracial, I think ethnic minorities tend to be more sexually conservative. For example, I think if you dated mostly black girls they would not be ok with you having been with guys. Most people translate that and other things as black people being more homophobic but imo they tend to more close-minded about sex and sexuality in general for different cultural reasons.

And to be fair Mr. Nik, I was referring to the average American. You dont necessarily socialize with guys and girls who go to a community college in arkansas or work at waffle house. You're around people who go to Yale and are very educated. Obviously they tend to be more open-minded.

But back to SUpernatural for people who are gonna get pissed about how this thread got hijacked. i always thought the WInchesters will find out they have a long-lost sibling. I doubt John was on the road all that time without knocking someone up.

[willsboy84]

But back to SUpernatural for people who are gonna get pissed about how this thread got hijacked. i always thought the WInchesters will find out they have a long-lost sibling. I doubt John was on the road all that time without knocking someone up.

that would be so cliche, but i've kinda wondered about that. sexy as he is, i could definately see John pulling in quite a bit of ass out there on the road.

[Nik2]

For example, I think if you dated mostly black girls they would not be ok with you having been with guys.

And to be fair Mr. Nik, I was referring to the average American. You dont necessarily socialize with guys and girls who go to a community college in arkansas or work at waffle house. .

You really should stop making assumptions dear. Especially about my life.

1. I grew up partly in NY and you may or may not know this, but I've spent way more time forming strong friendships with ethnic minorities and underprivileged kids because of the work I've done and because well, I dunno, I always got along better with them (it's also that these people of course appeal to my socialist tendencies). Two of my closest friends grew up in Harlem for example. Yes I have friends at Yale but I also have friends from the other side of the tracks so to speak.

2. Uh...I think I've made it pretty clear that in real life I'm almost exclusively attracted to people of color. My betrothed is South Asian and yeah, I've been involved with Black girls, Biracial girls and Latinas. Again, it's an individual thing because the ones I've dated have been OK with it and seemed to have no problem fooling around with me.

But, I should let you guys get back to drooling over these two boys because they're hot and because I don't really watch this show.

[falconfan]

But back to SUpernatural for people who are gonna get pissed about how this thread got hijacked. i always thought the WInchesters will find out they have a long-lost sibling. I doubt John was on the road all that time without knocking someone up.

Funny you say that I've heard rumors of a MAJOR spoiler... Don't know what it is. Avoided it intentionally. But the way it was talked about there was some insinuation that it could be something like that.

I would not be a very big fan of that decision. I'd have to see how it was done but it would feel like a jump the shark moment. I would expect any illegitimate children to severely hate them and want nothing to do with them if one were to exist.

[aijalon18]

You really should stop making assumptions dear. Especially about my life.

1. I grew up partly in NY and you may or may not know this, but I've spent way more time forming strong friendships with ethnic minorities and underprivileged kids because of the work I've done and because well, I dunno, I always got along better with them (it's also that these people of course appeal to my socialist tendencies). Two of my closest friends grew up in Harlem for example. Yes I have friends at Yale but I also have friends from the other side of the tracks so to speak.

2. Uh...I think I've made it pretty clear that in real life I'm almost exclusively attracted to people of color. My betrothed is South Asian and yeah, I've been involved with Black girls, Biracial girls and Latinas. Again, it's an individual thing because the ones I've dated have been OK with it and seemed to have no problem fooling around with me.

But, I should let you guys get back to drooling over these two boys because they're hot and because I don't really watch this show.

You are right sir, I should not make assumptions about your life. But I think many more women are less ok with it men. That's all I should say. But I think that has more to do with females being generally more easily threatened and insecure in relationships than anything else.

As far as the Jensen and Jared I really dont drool over them. I personally don't find Jensen hot at all. And Jared changes from episode to episode depending on what his hair is doing. I mostly like the show because I'm into most things Supernatural. I also really liked Buffy, which is nothing like Supernatural.

[Nik2]

I also really liked Buffy, which is nothing like Supernatural.

Of course not. Supernatural is good and well made but Buffy is one of the greatest television shows of all time. No comparison.

[falconfan]

Of course not. Supernatural is good and well made but Buffy is one of the greatest television shows of all time. No comparison.

And they have entirely different tones. Though Supernatural has been become more Buffy-esque in recent seasons (in no small part do to the edition of Angel producer (and fucking genius) Ben Edlund

[theReckless]

I'd have to see how it was done but it would feel like a jump the shark moment.

It would seem that's the intention. I've heard things about another upcoming 'parody' episode.

Anyways, I think this season has taken quite a sharp turn for the worse since 'Heaven and Hell' and I really hope it improves soon. These stand-alone episodes seem so out of place given the way they started the season, and the recent plot lines seem like a mash-up of ideas that they've already done. I think the way they're handling the main arc is also becoming questionable.

[falconfan]

It would seem that's the intention. I've heard things about another upcoming 'parody' episode.

Anyways, I think this season has taken quite a sharp turn for the worse since 'Heaven and Hell' and I really hope it improves soon. These stand-alone episodes seem so out of place given the way they started the season, and the recent plot lines seem like a mash-up of ideas that they've already done. I think the way they're handling the main arc is also becoming questionable.

I really think that it just feels wrong because these three episodes have been separated from the rest of the season by unreasonably long hiatuses. In a season arc this is generally where the stand-alones would fall. The only one I really had an issue with was "Family Remains." It really bothers me that the same man who wrote such FANTASTIC episodes like "In The Beginning" and "Mystery Spot" could pen such garbage.

[falconfan]

HOLY FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just saw the trailer for the March 12th episode and all I can say is HOLY FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! It seems that all of you who've been wishing they'd drop the episodics will be pleased because it looks like this upcoming episode will include not just the return to the Dean/Angels storyline but the resurfacing of Allistair and Ana.

Check it out: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgVAM-PpMPU&eurl=[/ame]

[aijalon18]

That preview does look good. I like how much Sam's character has changed since the show started. For a while it seemed like they didnt know what to do with Sam. But now it seems like Dean's character has gotten a little stale. I also like that the nature of Sam and Ruby's relationship seems to be getting interesting soon. I didnt like how at first it seemed like they had sex one time and then it's just turned into nothing. I'm not expecting a fairy tale for those 2 but it should be explored a bit more imo.

One a side note, I also wanted to point out the hypocrisy of Sam having problems with Ruby possessing a woman's body but not with Uriel and Castiel doing the same thing.

[falconfan]

That preview does look good. I like how much Sam's character has changed since the show started. For a while it seemed like they didnt know what to do with Sam. But now it seems like Dean's character has gotten a little stale. I also like that the nature of Sam and Ruby's relationship seems to be getting interesting soon. I didnt like how at first it seemed like they had sex one time and then it's just turned into nothing. I'm not expecting a fairy tale for those 2 but it should be explored a bit more imo.

One a side note, I also wanted to point out the hypocrisy of Sam having problems with Ruby possessing a woman's body but not with Uriel and Castiel doing the same thing.

Well I think they started both the boys as kind of seterotypical figures, and intentionally so, and have been growing them since. I think they had a lot of trouble figuring how to show Sam's issue. Like he gives that one speech in an episode early this season about how Dean can't understand what it's like to have evil in him and that's such a private and internal thing that I think it was very hard for them to communicate to the audience. I aslo think they have Dean in a super interesting spot right now. I hope they play that scene right because he's bound to justify the torturing to himself by saying that Alistair is bad so it's OK but at the same time weren't all the people he tortured in hell and languishes about? It's his turn to really let the good old Winchester revenge juices flow.

As for the hypocrisy I think that in the first episode Dean asked Castiel about that and Castiel told him that the man choose to serve God so perhaps that's why Sam doesn't care, because it was a choice.

I also am glad to see them exploring the character of Castiel in more depth. I'm really fond of him.

[BigDestiny]

Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgVAM-PpMPU&eurl=

FUCK ME! I'd heard we'd be disturbed when we found out the reason the angels needed Dean, but I never guessed it was because they needed the best torturer hell-money can buy.

[falconfan]

FUCK ME! I'd heard we'd be disturbed when we found out the reason the angels needed Dean, but I never guessed it was because they needed the best torturer hell-money can buy.

I'm not sure if they really do. Remember at the end of "It's The Great Pumpkin, Sam Winchester" Castiel told Dean that he would be tested. That their orders were to follow him... these things indicate to me that they probably want to use Dean in a bit more of an executive capacity and that this episode might be one of those tests.

[Fucker29]

HOLY FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just saw the trailer for the March 12th episode and all I can say is HOLY FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! It seems that all of you who've been wishing they'd drop the episodics will be pleased because it looks like this upcoming episode will include not just the return to the Dean/Angels storyline but the resurfacing of Allistair and Ana.

Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgVAM-PpMPU&eurl=

THANK FUCKING ZOD!!! 'BOUT TIME!!! Finally some interesting Supernatural episodes!

[falconfan]

Well last week was fucking AWESOME as promised. It was a stroke of genius to bring Tessa back and I'm glad they're getting Castiel more heavily involved. Was sad to see Pamela go though... she really was a fun character to have in their back pocket.

Can't wait to see what's in store tonight.

[neoachilles]

Okay, tonight kicked sooo much ass! It's good to see a little action from the angels. There's nothing wrong with an hour of Castiel.

But I guess next week is gonna be another filler episode.

[falconfan]

This is so amazing. So fucking amazing. It is so far beyond amazing that its.... there is no words. I have no words. This episode is so fucking incredible. It's complexity is just.... it's beautiful it is a fucking work of art. This series has just transcended itself so many times over. I mean this show has fucking eclipsed the entire CW network long ago but this level has made it so blatantly clear it's... MY GOD

And as a lover of Dean I would've loved for him to be the one to take out Alistair but as it is never having done it never able to get closure he is going to be SOOOOOO fucked up. My god I need to hug him like NOW.

This is amazing. So very very amazing.

[neoachilles]

I wanna know what going to happen next. Is Ruby playing Sam? What's really going on among the ranks of the Heavenly Host?

[falconfan]

Of course you do that's the point :P That's the way TV use to be done back in the day It keeps you coming back, questioning, seeing how the characters and stories evolve.

I for one have always thought that Ruby's playing Sam. Or maybe I've just always wanted to think that but the pan up to her sinister smile was clearly put there to lead us to believe that.

As for what's going on upstairs I guess we can't know.

[aijalon18]

I liked this one. i dont think Ruby is playing Sam in the sense that she wants him to die or fail. I think she just always wanted him sexually and basically wanted him under her thrall. Now it seems like he is addicted to her and her blood. I'm pretty sure she's gonna die soon though. The fangirls never want either of the brothers too be with someone.

Dean is just such a mess. He needs to get it together soon.

[falconfan]

I liked this one. i dont think Ruby is playing Sam in the sense that she wants him to die or fail. I think she just always wanted him sexually and basically wanted him under her thrall. Now it seems like he is addicted to her and her blood. I'm pretty sure she's gonna die soon though. The fangirls never want either of the brothers too be with someone.

Dean is just such a mess. He needs to get it together soon.

There's only one more season after this and this ones almost over. I don't forsee Ruby going anywhere though I wouldn't write it off. Anna is also still around for a reason too. The fangirls don't get to run the show. Viewer reception was a large part of why Jo got canned but the character also didn't work. She was just very inconsistent and not at all useless. Kripke had said before that after Jo they realized that they couldn't put characters whose sole motivation was to be helpful to the brothers or they'd come off as annoying tag alongs.

I've always thought Ruby going after Sam was because she saw him as the powers that would be and wanted to secure her seat at his right hand. I've always got the feel she sees him as her ticket to the top of the demon heap. I mean she clearly played him at least to some extent in the past and I wouldn't strike the chance that she's still doing it. That being said, this doesn't mean that she hasn't developed genuine feelings for him in the process but there always gonna be something a little shady about our girl.

Dean is a mess and it's wonderful! They're screwing him up so badly but I mean you can not blame the man. He's just been getting hit with punch after punch for years now.

[neoachilles]

^^ I totally see where you're coming from on Ruby, Falconfan. She's found her meal ticket, and now she's got a death grip on it. But she is corrupting Sam, all in the name of the greater good, or so Sam thinks.

As for Dean, let's be real. You don't spend 30 years in hell being tortured, and finally torturing others, then get dragged back to Earth--and have everythng go back to the way it was before. It's not as if just because he was pulled out of the flames, everything's gonna be five by five.

[falconfan]

^^ I totally see where you're coming from on Ruby, Falconfan. She's found her meal ticket, and now she's got a death grip on it. But she is corrupting Sam, all in the name of the greater good, or so Sam thinks.

As for Dean, let's be real. You don't spend 30 years in hell being tortured, and finally torturing others, then get dragged back to Earth--and have everythng go back to the way it was before. It's not as if just because he was pulled out of the flames, everything's gonna be five by five.

Well not only that you have to toss on there that the person he most loves in the world and went to hell to save just might be the anti-christ, he discovered an entirely new sadistic streak in himself that he had long suppressed, and now add on to that the fact that he just learned that he A) is a complete disappointment to the man he lived his whole life serving and B) may have caused the end of the world and he should be more fucked up than anything.

[Sammie13]

Intense episode tonight. I felt so sorry for cocky Dean at the end...it was really a heartbreaking scene.

Am I the only one who finds Castiel's voice hot? I would let him read the phone book to me.

[neoachilles]

Ohh, I just want to kiss all of Dean's pain away...and then fuck him. Sam, too...and Castiel while I'm at it (is it a sin to want to do the dirty with an angel?).

[falconfan]

Ohh, I just want to kiss all of Dean's pain away...and then fuck him. Sam, too...and Castiel while I'm at it (is it a sin to want to do the dirty with an angel?).

Tell me about it. I haven't felt this bad for him since Sam died. After that scene as well as the last one tonight I was just like damn... I just need to hug you because your life sucks so much.

[falconfan]

Oh and add to that list that he's also learned that he learned that his mother, the woman he idolized his entire life, made a deal with a demon and that his whole life is the very worst thing she could've hoped for him. It's like the goal of this season is fuck up Dean as much as possible... and I like it.

[neoachilles]

Oh and add to that list that he's also learned that he learned that his mother, the woman he idolized his entire life, made a deal with a demon and that his whole life is the very worst thing she could've hoped for him. It's like the goal of this season is fuck up Dean as much as possible... and I like it.

And here we have a major difference between the Winchester brothers. On the one hand, we have Dean who finds himself being dragged ever deeper into hell, both literally and figuratively, by forces beyond his control. Then we have Sam, paving his own road to hell with his good intentions. Dean was corrupted through torture and outside contrivances. Sam's corruption is more willful, he's choosing to embrace the dark side (though it is possible that he is being used as well).

[snapcat]

I thought this was the best episode in a long time. The show definitely is on track. I don't mind the filler episodes as much - as long as they don't have lots of them. Sometimes it's fun to just suspend the mythos and enjoy Dean and Sam chasing demons.

[falconfan]

I thought this was the best episode in a long time. The show definitely is on track. I don't mind the filler episodes as much - as long as they don't have lots of them. Sometimes it's fun to just suspend the mythos and enjoy Dean and Sam chasing demons.

I think that's the point to. I mean that's the heart of the series. That's where they hooked us. That's what it's been. The two of them and their interactions and relationship. I'm quite sure they didn't want to lose that. Just like no matter how complex the backstory of the X-files got, no matter how much crazy unexplainable shit Scully saw, in between cannon episodes it was still her being 'I'm a scientist this can't be right' and Mulder being alll 'The truth is out there.' Because that's what the show was ABOUT (and fell apart without). It was about that dynamic, that relationship. It's those inbetween episodes that endear you to the characters, lead you to understand the characters and make the cannon episodes SO much better. Because if its just all cannon well like I said it gets real frustrating real soon and you hate all the main characters (Jack, Kate, and Locke anyone?) because they come off as annoying, dumb, and melodramatic.