#never talk about safe sex and he even talked about his concerns to the showrunner because he thought it was irresponsible since yk young

[maddy-ferguson]

Ngl, I really think that these bylers that are crying 24/7 about "purity culture" or whatever, are playing dumb when they start with their "but Nancy and Steve were 16 and 17 in that scene of s1!!!1" like... We got introduced to these characters at that age and the people playing them were already adults. So yeah, sorry but I think it's easy to see why most viewers would be uncomfortable with a more sexual scene of Mike and Will and it's not automatically homophobia, I think that would be the case with any of the kids since we got introduced to these characters when they were 12 and the actors were babies as well. We literally saw those kids grow. And I'm not saying byler should only get to peck or hold hands, It'd be cool if they have their epic kiss or whatever, but Will hasn't even had his first kiss yet and some of these people are already talking about sex scenes, like... Be for real 😭

funny you should say that...because i've used the nancy was 15-16 in season one argument (last tag) before while also saying that i understand why people find the sex part of their sexualities uncomfortable to discuss. and i wanna reiterate that, again, i totally understand that people feel like they've seen them grow up etc etc and that they still think of the actors themselves as children even thought they're not anymore.

i don't think it's all homophobia because like you said, people would probably feel the same about lucas and max and discussions of sex (i don't know if anyone is discussing that because there's much less discourse to have there and you can't argue that people are homophobic if they disagree with you) but i don't think it would be justified either. the "but we knew the characters when they were little" argument makes me think me of an ancient disney channel/abc show that old people and girl meets world fans who watched it for the first time in the 2010s will know, boy meets world (1993-2000). classic comic of age show, look at these kids. and eric in the back (he's fifteen).

they're eleven at the start of the show and then, what happens in any coming of age story happens, you guessed it...

they grow up. this is them in the later seasons, when the main characters are still in high school i think. they grow up, they talk about sex and about having sex at prom in season five and then they don't have sex right away because they figure it's not the right time yet or something like that, and then they have sex later and get married, the details don't matter. but my point is, who watches a show for five seasons, over years and years and gets upset at the main characters having sex because "this is crazy they used to be children"? isn't that the point of coming of age stories that cover multiple years or that focus on the latter years of adolescence, that they're not children forever and that at one point the characters "come of age" which usually includes their first sexual experiences?

i don't think the having sex part is particularly important in stranger things but also it doesn't have to be for it to be portrayed (see jonathan and nancy), teenagers have sex, it's just the way the world works. i'm not advocating for sex scenes of any kind especially because stranger things isn't a show that features a lot of sex in general, the only "explicit" sex scene being nancy and steve in season one with cuts to barb dying, but i genuinely don't think the duffers would have any qualms about portraying teenage sexuality in general with the party. if they did, they wouldn't have included erica threatening lucas to tell dustin what she found under his bed (it wasn't the communist manifesto) and they wouldn't have had max looking at a shirtless steve for an amount of time that's supposed to make the audience laugh. it's been 7 years. if they do a time jump, the babies will be about 17, played by actors who will all be around 20, the age natalia was when filming season one. the characters are teenagers, babies grow up. it happens to the best of us. i get why people would find it uncomfortable and maybe i would find it uncomfortable too but i wouldn't be scandalized. the duffers had no problem having a child actor portray everything will goes through in seasons one and especially two, i really feel like sex is fine and...not traumatizing or hard to watch compared to every single thing will's gone through lol. and again, i'm not even expecting them to have sex lmao, but i wouldn't cry myself to sleep if they revealed that everyone in the party actually knows what sex is.

last question: do we have any indication that jonathan had talked to more than one other girl (the girl at the halloween party being the one girl i'm counting for him) before he got together with nancy. i'm just asking because of your last sentence, because if we don't he should have slowed down also😭

#yes i'm back to calling people old for no reason. <3 #saying that they will all be around 20 isn't a stretch because noah's turning 19 in 4 months and they haven't begun filming yet. thank you #i'm not mad at you anon sorry for not really agreeing with you and again i get where you're coming from and i don't even expect them to #have sex and if they did i would expect it to be implied like jonathan and nancy but yeah #what i mean when i say it's not particularly important in st is that i don't think they need to have sex for will's arc to be complete or #anything😭 #i would've been happy with jonathan and nancy only kissing in s2 like idc yk it's a detail #i'm not advocating for sex scenes means HERE in this case i'm not anti-sex scenes in general lmao #i didn't watch bmw over years and years i watched it in like. a month and a half maybe i really was not crying when cory started wanting to #have sex and i was 15...an impressionnable kid who knew what sex was...disheartening i know💔 #<- that wasn't me making fun of you anon lmao again i get where you're coming from i just respectfully disagree #i looked up the episode where they have sex and (spoiler alert lol) cory and topanga end up only having sex on their wedding night i think? #and that's not the episode in s5 i'm talking about but they consider having sex and talk about it so still bringing that one up #i found an article about something rider strong (shawn) said about not liking this episode because while they talk about sex at length they #never talk about safe sex and he even talked about his concerns to the showrunner because he thought it was irresponsible since yk young #viewers and all that and he was like maybe you don't get it different generations mine grew up with aids and everything this is really #important and he brushed him off! i thought that was interesting. this has nothing to do with st #ask

[harpersplay]

Genuine non-troll white woman here - you wrote "So I already knew that Good Girls was a white feminism phantasmagoria...But, jesus fucking christ, y'all are just showing your true colours lately. The way you talk about a MOC in relation to a white woman is disgusting." Not asking you to call out specific people or posts or start any kind of flame war but what would be a general example of what you are talking about? I follow a good chunk of people and I'm not seeing this maybe b/c I'm not following the same people, maybe out of willful blindness, maybe I'm not recognizing it - again, b/c of ignorance, etc. Just trying to understand what you mean - and not do it obviously, if I am doing it.

I apologise for taking a longish time to answer this. Honestly, I wasn't sure I wanted to get into it. Anyway, I'd first like to say that this is all my opinion. What bothers me might not bother someone else. BIPOC are not a monolith. Even subsections aren't. Not all Mexican trans men are a monolith. Neither are all Japanese lesbians. You get the idea. And that's not even including people like Ben Carson or Caitlyn Jenner—people who support and work for policies that actively harm the marginalised group of which they are a part. Secondly, I know this isn't your intention, but asking POC to tell you what is ok to do and what is not is a slippery slope to "my [blank] friend said this was ok." Finally, the fandom is quite small so it is pretty hard to give general examples. I don't know if it's more trouble to quote specific posts or not, because some will think it is about them anyway. Anything I'm going to mention I've seen on Tumblr, Instagram, Reddit and/or Twitter. But there are definitely popular Tumblr blogs that all push the same narrative. Oh, and one last thing, I haven't seen any of what I'm referring to from people I follow.

Ok, let's go. For a very long time, mainly WOC have pointed out the racial problems within the show and the extremely dismissive attitude about those problems from mainly white women. And while these same women have written thousands (even tens of thousands) or words about Beth (it's always Beth) and her struggles and the amazingness of such a complex female character (ymmv), they brush aside commentary about racism as either nitpicking, not understanding the show is about the 3 women (tell that to all the white men with fleshed-out storylines), or misogyny. The last is especially hostile because they are often talking over Black women and misogynoir is a very real fucking thing that couples the fun of being hated for being a woman with the delight of good old-fashioned racism. They espouse the idea that people having a problem with Beth are all covert & overt misogynists. But talk out the other side of their mouths that they can't possibly be racist even when they support racism in the show or ignore concerns brought up by fans of colour. And that is just the absolute height of hypocrisy. Because by the former they acknowledge that people in a marginalised group (women) can still be anti- that group (a phenomenon with which I agree). But in the latter, suddenly they don't understand that concept.

Specific to the post you are responding to, fans that purport to like Brio write about the relationship in ways that reveal how much of their enjoyment comes from Rio being inferior to Beth. It's all about what he can do for her, how he acts against his best interests for her, how he literally denies himself sexual pleasure for her. Those are all meant to show how in love he is with her. But the show never bothers to tell us why. And, no, this is not because the show is so deep. Other romantic relationships they have scenes that are explicit about the characters' feelings. But Rio, after being shot, after being betrayed, after being mocked, is just so in love with Beth....because. (MYSTERIOUS!) And the Beth stans are more than fine with this because they think everyone should be as obsessed with Beth as they are. But it's bad storytelling. And, in this particular case, it gets into very dicey racist tropes. A white women treating her Latino lover like an afterthought is not the same as a white women treating her white lover like an afterthought. It just isn't. And if some of these fans are as smart as they pretend to be, they know that. They just don't care. Much like the showrunners.

There was so much talk defending the drawn-out Boland marriage because why can't we understand how hard it is for Beth—who is, at various times, claimed to be emotionally abused by Dean or staying with him because it is safe and comfortable—and we don't appreciate how difficult it is for her (I may be one of the few divorced people talking about this show on Tumblr, so this has always made me laugh). Yet there was nothing but glee when Rio flipped on his brousin (who was written as both abusive and safe) for Beth. Where was the empathy for Rio and how hard it was for him? Especially because, unlike Beth, he didn't even have one parent? Hadn't the Beth stans used her very tragical history™️ to explain away her every shitty act? idk, not having any parents and going to jail (as a minor?) and being betrayed by your family seems pretty tragic. But I didn't see them all of a sudden excusing Rio's bad behaviour. Because, feminism or something?

What about Beth's feelings? Last season she spent trying to have him killed. This season she spent looking annoyed by him. Throughout both she talked down to him in a specific white woman way that every BIPOC has experienced, even if some of them are cool with it. There were multiple opportunites for Beth to talk about her feelings with Ruby and/or Annie, but the writers made the deliberate choice to always make it about sex (and god, the immature way they had these three grown women talk was fucking obnoxious). She spent the last 2 seasons also wanting him out of her life to the point that a majority of her actions in S4 were motivated by getting to Nevada with her husband and kids. Beth doesn't care about Rio but Rio needs to put Beth above everything because he's just so in love like he's never been before (which is blatant Marcus & Rhea erasure). And anyone who doesn't think Beth would have just as happily been sitting on that bench plotting how to "run the city" (hahahahaha!) with Nick if the situation worked out differently hasn't been paying attention.

So, what do we have? A white woman who is constantly excused (by the loudest portion of the fandom) for all her ill treatment to her Black BFF & her Black husband, her Asian coworker, her Latina "friend," and Rio (among others) because her life is hard and who is not required to even be nice to her supposed "endgame". And a MOC who is expected to accept being treated poorly by the white woman because he loves her.

And, a last thing, this attitude grossly crossed over into talk about real people when the fans—who self-righteously claimed to be above anon sources or talking about the actors—latched on to the narrative and enjoyed blaming the MOC actor for the cancellation of the show, even dragging his insignificant (in terms of influence) Black wife into it. All while conveniently ignoring that the creator/showrunner is a white woman. The star & producer is a white woman. The people making the decisions at NBCU & Netflix were white women. All white women with so much more power than the Latino actor.

Shit, did I answer your question? I know this is a lot. But I could honestly make mulitple posts on each issue I touched on here. Basically, white people ain't slick, be they content creators or fans. We see how & what y'all talk about. We see that Rio not having a last name is not a big deal to you and we know why that is. So we're fucking tired. And we're over a show that had so much potential crapping all over their POC characters to prop up a white woman. And we're repulsed by the white women in the fandom who use their tears to seem oppressed and who toss around the word misogynist because POC dare call a Karen a Karen.

#nbc good girls #good girls nbc #racism in the text #racism in fandom #fragile whiteness #white feminism #what fandom chooses to talk about #and what it chooses to ignore #anon asks

[oneshortdamnfuse]

There’s a lot of cute underrated things about Kenny and Dylan. They’re not a well-fleshed out pair, and they never will be because the show got cancelled as sitcoms often did in the early 2000s. (There was no such thing as Netflix and other services rescuing cancelled shows, and even if they could -- there were plenty of issues with the show itself that would warrant cancelling. It’s not the perfect show, but it did have a pretty perfect m/m couple on it!)

For one thing, the context is important. This was a couple from an early 2000s show on a cable network when the majority of LGBT+ representation was available through subscription LGBT+ channels such as Logo, mature rated series/movies on other popular subscription networks like QAF and The L Word on Showtime, and/or through teen dramas through channel subscriptions like Degrassi and South of Nowhere like TeenNick (previously ‘The N’).

There were quite a few groud-breaking titles from the early 2000s and years prior, but there’s no comparison with the accessibility we have today. Teens in the early 2000s and years previous would often illegally stream movies and tv shows online, stay up until weird hours when their parents were asleep, and other such things to be able to watch LGBT+ oriented shows. It was unheard of to have major LGBT+ characters on mainstream television.

Furthermore, television wasn’t the greatest place for Middle Eastern/North African characters - it still isn’t the best - but the early 2000s was an overly patriotic hellscape that put a lot of MENA actors into terrorist roles (Rami Malek included...) To have a positive representation of a Middle Eastern Muslim character who is gay on a television show was seriously unheard of. (Note: this doesn’t mean there aren’t concerning stereotypes of Kenny & his family.)

Given they were on mainstream television on a cable network, there were certain limitations in what they could show. However, they explored quite a few important topics with what they could show. Kenny knowing he’s gay. Kenny expressing his attraction to men regularly!  Kenny not being okay with sex yet. Kenny being explicitly told about safe sex. The dangers LGBT+ face when coming out, such as homelessness. How allies can help in such situations.

etc.

This was a big deal because a lot of the shows available were about fear and sex, which are valid topics of exploration but movies and television were saturated in it to the point of abusing certain tropes like bury your gays. Kenny and Dylan provided a more ordinary look into the lives of LGBT+ teens, allowing them room to be... well... teens. To go on dates. To fall in love. To talk about sex in the awkward way young people do. To be inexperienced.

To be whole people with their own interests.

The War at Home is by far not the best show on the planet when it comes to representation, but somehow it did a few things right in a point in time when we needed to be able to see characters like Kenny and Dylan. The showrunners did not always say the best things about the character(s) -- don’t ask me to source, it would have been a long time ago, but the characters have their own legacy now that is at least heart-warming to a lot of people.

Kenny and Dylan are a sweet couple. They’re just teens in love. Not in a super out of control passionate way as demonstrated by a lot of on screen couples in the early 2000s that generally hypersexualized teenagers. Just your average teens who dated. Used chatrooms like many teens did at the time. Read comics and watched LOTR. Felt awkward when home alone together. Looked happy to see each other. Not overly sexualized. No cheating story lines. No tragedy.

What Kenny experienced was rough and real for many teens, getting kicked out of their house for their identity. But. It was handled surprisingly well. It did not end in tragedy. Kenny had a good support system, and he had a good support system from his boyfriend as well, which, having an interracial gay couple, not just a gay couple on television was a big deal especially in the prejudicial hellscape that was the early 2000s Bush era.

#kenny al bahir #the war at home #long post cw #aklsjdlasjdlajkdklasjd sorry for the long post #i have feelings sometimes

[freifraufischer]

Warner Bros. TV Group has launched an investigation into allegations of inappropriate behavior by Andrew Kreisberg, an executive producer on the CW shows “Arrow,” “Supergirl,” “The Flash” and “DC’s Legends of Tomorrow,” Variety has learned. Kreisberg, who has been suspended by the studio, has engaged in a pattern of alleged sexual harassment and inappropriate physical contact over a period of years, according to 15 women and four men who have worked with him.

“We have recently been made aware of allegations of misconduct against Andrew Kreisberg,” said Warner Bros. TV Group in a statement to Variety. “We have suspended Mr. Kreisberg and are conducting an internal investigation. We take all allegations of misconduct extremely seriously, and are committed to creating a safe working environment for our employees and everyone involved in our productions.”

Kreisberg strongly denies the allegations in this story.

None of the 19 sources for this story wanted to be named for fear of retaliation. Many of the women are current or former employees in a range of positions on those shows, and they cited fear of retaliation from either Warner Bros., the studio that makes those dramas, or from the companies and individuals associated with those programs.

“We were recently made aware of some deeply troubling allegations regarding one of our showrunners,” said Greg Berlanti and Sarah Schechter, who head Berlanti Productions which oversee Kreisberg’s shows. “We have been encouraging and fully cooperating with the investigation into this by Warner Bros. There is nothing more important to us than the safety and well-being of our cast, crew, writers, producers and any staff. We do not tolerate harassment and are committed to doing everything we can to make an environment that’s safe to work in and safe to speak up about if it isn’t.”

All the men and women who spoke to Variety describe similar incidents of inappropriate touching and endemic sexual harassment; they often told the same stories and corroborated each other’s accounts.

According to sources who either witnessed this behavior or were subjected to it, Kreisberg is accused of frequently touching people without their permission, asking for massages from uncomfortable female staff members, and kissing women without asking. Almost every source cites a constant stream of sexualized comments about women’s appearances, their clothes, and their perceived desirability.

Kreisberg told Variety, “I have made comments on women’s appearances and clothes in my capacity as an executive producer, but they were not sexualized. Like many people, I have given someone a non-sexual hug or kiss on the cheek.” He denies that any inappropriate touching or massages occurred.

None of the sources Variety spoke to reported Kreisberg to Warner Bros. human resources, on the assumption that they would pay a price for that, given how important his position was at the company. “Going to HR never crossed my mind, because it seems like nothing’s been enforced,” one woman says. But as word spread of this story, human resources began interviewing the women on his staff.

Many women said they found the work environment created by Kreisberg to be so hostile and “toxic” that they leave a room when he enters it. Kreisberg reiterated his denial that he gave any staffers unwanted attention.

“I have proudly mentored both male and female colleagues for many years. But never in what I believe to be an unwanted way and certainly never in a sexual way,” he said. But sources paint a different picture.

“The workplace feels unsafe,” one woman says, a sentiment echoed by others. Said another, “He scares people.”

Last year, a high-level female producer who works with Kreisberg brought her concerns about his inappropriate behavior and his harassment of employees to a senior executive at Berlanti Productions, the company owned by mega-producer Greg Berlanti, who oversees all of the series Kreisberg works on. “There was zero response,” this woman says. “Nothing happened. Nothing changed.”

Sources close to Berlanti Productions says Berlanti was never made aware of any allegations about Kreisberg’s behavior, and if he had, he would have directed them to human resources.

A male writer who worked for one of the CW shows Kreisberg has run says, “It was an environment in which women — assistants, writers, executives, directors — were all evaluated based on their bodies, not on their work.”

This male colleague says that he talked to Kreisberg about his behavior a few times, but “it had no impact,” the co-worker says. So the writer came to understand that “sexual harassment and demeaning women was just pervasive there — like white noise in the background,” he says.

This male colleague has known Kreisberg for some time, and about six years ago, he says he also wrote Kreisberg an email to try to get him to change. After these attempts, he says, Kreisberg often would not speak to him for days, or he would ignore what was said.

Asked if any colleague, anyone from Berlanti Productions or anyone from Warner Bros. ever told him that he should not make sexually harassing comments to women, Kreisberg said, “No.”

According to many interviewed by Variety, Kreisberg’s problematic behavior, particularly around women, got worse once he had a great deal of authority as an executive producer on several shows.

“The power went to his head,” says a male writer. “It became clear to me that it would be very dangerous, career-wise, for me to confront him about his behavior.”

Two women say he would talk about how he hired staffers based on their looks, and one quoted him as saying, “You should have seen the other dogs we interviewed for that position.” Kreisberg denies saying this.

“Younger women were constantly belittled and subjected to nasty comments,” says a writer who has worked with Kreisberg.

A high-level producer at a CW show says that a young woman who worked in two successive lower-level jobs was the object of Kreisberg’s “obsessive crush,” and left due to his unwanted attention, an account confirmed by more than a dozen other sources. This former employee did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Kreisberg says that he has devoted attention to younger staffers “as a mentor, yes, to both men and women. In a sexual way, no.”

One woman who had a professional relationship with Kreisberg says that, after a while, the texts that he was sending her took a turn. “It was clear he wanted more than a work relationship,” this woman says. The situation made her uncomfortable, because she did not want anything other than a professional connection with him.

One male writer says that Kreisberg called him into his office to view footage of a woman who was coming in later that day to audition. In the video, the woman was topless.

“My mind went blank. I don’t know what I said,” says the writer, who notes that Kreisberg was grinning. “But my internal reaction was, ‘Why would you show me this — it’s wildly inappropriate!’ I could not get out of there fast enough.”

Kreisberg says that “in doing research on the internet about a prospective actress, we found that she had a role in a premium cable network show. It was not a X-rated show. We clicked on the video and she was topless.”

A woman reports that when a female co-worker walked into his presence, he said, “Wow, you look so tired that I don’t even want to have sex with you anymore.” The woman’s children were present and heard the remark. Kreisberg denies having said this.

Every source agrees that the staffers who received the harshest treatment were usually women. But men were not immune.

A young male “Arrow”-verse staffer recalls that he one day stopped by to see a female colleague, and leaned down on her desk as he talked to her. Without the man’s knowledge, Kreisberg came in, placed his hands on the man’s posterior and began pretending to have sex with him, saying something like, “Well, if you’re offering.” Kreisberg denies that this occurred.

“He laughed, and we all laughed, but I felt very uncomfortable,” this employee says. “I have never had anyone put their hands on me like that in a work situation. He did it because he feels like he can do whatever he wants.”

One female colleague says that Kreisberg “joked” about waking up next to her, while another junior staffer recounts Kreisberg telling a group of employees, in reference to a work trip involving her and Kreisberg, “What happens in Vancouver, stays in Vancouver.” He once asked an array of women for their bra sizes, says a source, citing an impulse to buy a bra for his wife. Kreisberg denies making these comments.

Another woman says that she was asked, in the presence of one other woman, to lie on Kreisberg’s office floor while he assumed a push-up stance over her. Then he asked her to pretend to choke him.

“It was for research, he said,” according to this employee. “I didn’t feel like I had any right to say, ‘This is weird.’” This woman recounts that he mimed having sex with a copy machine once when she and another woman were in the room. She quit over his behavior and the atmosphere it created.

“It is not uncommon in writer’s rooms that we act out what we want production to film,” Kreisberg says. “There was never any sexual intent or overtones.”

Kreisberg and another high-level male producer, at one point, looked at photos of naked women in the presence of two women, one of whom spoke to Variety. Kreisberg says the photo incident did not happen.

Women say that they avoided having to sit on a couch next to him. Multiple women called that place in the room “the hot seat,” because Kreisberg would keep getting closer and closer to the woman next to him, no matter how many times she moved away from him.

Several sources talked about dressing as plainly as they could; one woman says that she even stopped wearing V-neck shirts. “You would have to watch what you said, what you wore, to try to stop being subjected to sexual innuendo,” says one woman.

“As an assistant in this industry, there’s nowhere for me to go,” recalls one woman who ended up quitting. “So I just took it.”

#supergirl

[serenagaywaterford]

#5 - now don’t hold back, how do you really feel about Nick? Haha... yeah, Max so far hasn’t been great, thinking back, there was only the one scene with Eden that was somewhat memorable for me. Nothing else really stood out. There is still time though, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. I don’t dislike him as much as you do, I think he’s served a purpose, provides really the only comfort June has in this world. Don’t think of him as June’s hero, but someone June uses to survive...

People like a ship on a show, I get that. This one is really the only logical one. When you are stuck together in this world, it’s only natural. Even when Luke is still in the picture technically. But I just don’t care... for me a happy ending for June is for her to be reunited with her daughters, and have Moira/Emily in her life (don’t think Janine makes it to Canada). Either Luke/Nick or both in her life is a nice little bonus, but not essential.

--------

LMAO. I keep all my Nick hate repressed in a little hard ball in my tummy (mostly cos I don’t care for fandom drama) but sometimes the wordvomit just spews when I feel safe on my blog haha. Everyone needs their release, right? LOL. I just sort of wish they’d cast a better actor. I probably would still have some of the same issues, but not to such a high level.

I agree. I think we’re talking about the same Nick/Eden scene? (I’m thinking the one at the pool where he’s trying to talk her out of doing the Dumb Teenage Thing she wants to do. (I love Eden sfm, ngl.) Is that the one you’re thinking of too?) I will admit, that is probably only the second time I have ever really enjoyed his acting or a scene with him. It’s the only time I’ve ever enjoyed a scene with him that doesn’t also have Serena in it. Cos, the other one I really liked was when he confronts Serena about June’s mental health. The tension there was so good. Again, he wasn’t on Yvonne’s level but it was a good enough scene writing and directing-wise that Yvonne could carry it easily and Max rose up a little to meet her. Almost. I’m biased, ofc.

Don’t get me wrong, I may be completely bored by the character/actor BUT I do recognise his integral purpose to June’s story, and appreciate that June does need/deserve/want comfort and only he can do that for her. He is (was, arguably, cos I personally think he’s served this purpose and it’s done) totally necessary to her survival, especially from a psychological standpoint. I just resist other people calling him a fucking hero. He’s not. June is. He’s her sidekick. He’s part of what makes her able to overcome certain circumstances, and lbr, without him, she’d probably be dead or in the Colonies cos Fred ain’t ever knocking her up. It’s more fandom’s obsession with treating him like the centre of the THT universe and everything about June revolves around him and it’s just disgusting to me to take a story about women, and especially a particular woman, and center it on a MAN.

((((Cos he’s cute, allegedly.))))

I never had a huge issue with it in the book, cos characters are made to play certain roles in assisting the protagonist. But I honestly have no understanding how anybody could read the book and go, “Hmm, this is good and all, but it’ll be so much more interesting to make it all about the guy, Nick.” 

[Caveat... I am completely aware of how hypocritical I’m being, lol. I read the book and Serena was a somewhat interesting character but nowhere near as fascinating as she is on the show, lmao. At least, imo, she’s a woman, in a story that should be about women.]

Not to mention, Luke exists. And June still deeply loves him. Clearly. As soon as Nick even mentioned him, her mind went to him and Hannah. Whether I think they can work again (I don’t) outside Gilead, meh. Luke exists. Luke wants June back. June probably will attempt to make it work with him again as a family. Nick is not her “soulmate”, imo. I don’t want some epic romance bullshit for this show.

Now, in all fairness, Luke doesn’t exactly get a free pass from me either. I don’t really like the guy. (For different reasons. I think the actor is perfect actually for the role and does it very well.) I just find the character of Luke, sort of like a wet rag. Again, he’s another character that just sort of slides on by, not really caring and not taking the women’s concerns seriously (esp obvs in convos with Moira) and then just sulks a lot. Like, a lot. I get trauma gets handled differently by different people but Luke rubs me the wrong way. Even before Gilead. He seemed to have no issue being “the man of the house” and stepping into that patriarchal role. AGAIN, if we’re coming back to complaints about Serena not having any foresight, here’s another character that didn’t really care what was happening until it affected him personally. Now, that’s not to say criticisms of Serena for those reasons aren’t warranted; they totally are (She is at the far extreme end). But there are a whole host of characters who also gave no real shits about anyone else until they were personally affected by the system (Nick and June also fall on this spectrum, and arguably Nick is way down with Serena in terms of this, whereas Luke and June are not as bad, and June is certainly not as bad as Luke. Where was he at the protests? Hmm?). That’s sort of the whole point of the flashbacks about the rise of Gilead? We all sort of just go along with things, no matter how bad they are for others... until it personally affects us??? And often then, it’s too late to fix it. It’s the insidious rise of fascism in a nutshell.

People like a ship on a show, I get that. This one is really the only logical one. When you are stuck together in this world, it’s only natural.

Exactly! It is completely understandable and natural. And I enjoy seeing June regain parts of herself and find some pleasure and freedom through it. And you would latch onto anybody who can offer that. But Gilead, and especially June’s world, is a very, very small part of things and she has little access to anything else. Of course, a man being kind to her and protective of her and giving her good sex, hope, comfort, respect, affection, love, etc etc. is good. What else does the poor woman have? Fred? Serena? Rita? That’s her entire world. In that house. But what happens when that world expands? 

And I do completely understand shipping them. It does make total sense. And I gotta say, shipping canon pairings is such a relief. (I rarely have that opportunity lmao but when I did, it was so NICE.) 

Honestly, there isn’t much else to choose from in THT. It’s easy enough to keep shipping out of it but fandom is inherently shippy and full of straight fangirls, I think. It’s gonna happen. If AO3 is anything to go by, the majority (by an overwhelming amount) is June/Nick, with June/Serena second*, and June/Luke and June/Fred trailing those two. I get it.

(* I actually think this number would be higher if 2x10 had not happened the way it did. Specifically if it had not been Serena suggesting it (or at least had the lead up been better written). I saw a surge of interest after 2x08 especially but wham! 2x10, and then it’s just like, “HOW??? This is so wrong now, when it was only problematic before, now it’s like woah no way.”)

I agree about the happy ending. It’s June, free, with her daughters. Moira is absolutely essential to be in June’s life. I will not accept it otherwise. They are not allowed to kill Moira. She must be there. If it’s just June, Moira, Hannah, and Nicole, that’ll do.

Emily, eh. For me, I’m not that attached to the character and I want her healing more than anything, wherever that is. There’s another one who I’m not convinced would be able to just slide back into life with Sylvia and Oliver. (She had mentally given up on them way before she even was mutilated. it’s gonna be an incredibly hard road for her.) I want Emily alive and working towards being less traumatized. Minimum. I think she should have died way back, but since they’ve kept her alive this long and via such completely idiotic means, she has to stay alive now.

ITA about Janine, sadly. This may be sacrilege, but I’d rather her make it thru the series alive than Emily? I don’t dislike Emily by any means but I just enjoy Janine more. I find her more interesting. Eek. Is that bad?

I’d rather not have Nick around, simply cos it’s too much potential for stupid TV love triangle drama, and you know the showrunners won’t be able to resist playing on that. OR, going down the “June is pining for the love she left behind and that’s why it doesn’t work with Luke” route (BARF!). OR, alternately, presenting it as some super-cool post-monogamy hippie commune thing where people can just get on and there's no such thing as jealousy. Either way, I don’t want it. So I’d rather just knock out Nick in a blaze of glory, doing something incredibly brave and selfless for the CAUSE. Not just for June. I’m sick of his whole “for June only” shtick. Other women exist. Other women need your help too. I personally think it would perfect for him to die helping other women who specifically are not June nor connected to her. It would show some growth. If he dies for June specifically, I don’t think that shows any growth whatsoever. I’d argue that him dying For June just proves he’s not learnt anything, because it’s still just about what he wants and how things affect him.

But hey, I don’t think they will kill off Nick at all. He’s too much of a fan fav. I would like them too, but I don’t get what I want on TV. And probably only 7 people would watch the show I’d write, lol.

#long post #please don't have this post show up in searches or tags #and i'm tired of using asterisks lol #i don't want fangirls on my case lol #(i have no issue defending myself but i'd just rather not have to bother lmao) #Anonymous

[travisandersondatingblog]

Are STDs Stigmatized on TV?

“You are what you eat.” You know the phrase. If you consume massive amounts of donuts, you will become a literal donut. Just kidding, you know what we mean though. If you eat well, you will live well. The same can be said for what you’re feeding your brain, i.e. your media consumption. Propaganda is a real thing Y’all, and we’re here to talk about it.

We’re here to talk about the way media intake affects our brains. Captain Planet taught us to care for the environment, Full House taught us to always do the right thing, and modern television has taught us that STDs do not exist outside of a punchline.

We first must ask the question:

Do STDs Even Exist in the Television World?

In some shows, yes. STDs are an actual topic of conversation, but it is oh so rare. We see TV characters get it on pretty regularly. A lot of times, this can be the climax (pun intended) of the show. Some may say that television has gotten a bit too steamy. We, on the other hand, are all for normalizing and destigmatizing sexual health. So… we don’t really care what you’re doing per se, we just want you to be doing it safely and in an open/informed way.

In 2017, fans pointed out that the popular HBO show Insecure did not do the best job at showing its characters’ decisions when it came to safe sex. There was no pause for any kind of discussion about sexual status or protection before engaging in casual sex.

Prentice Penny, showrunner of Insecure, responded to the criticism on Twitter saying, “I really hope people can watch #InsecureHBO without asking if they use condoms. In the writer’s room, we always assume they do.” He goes on to say, “I guess because we are a TV show and it’s fictional. And there’s a lot of things we don’t show but people assume it anyway. We are not a PSA, documentary, non-profit organization. I’m done discussing this.”

It doesn’t necessarily fall on one show’s shoulders to spread public awareness on any issue that their fans seem to be interested in. Equally, even though no show portrays every single time that someone burps or flushes the toilet, it’s not like we assume that they literally never do these things. However, it is concerning how few storylines, in general, include anything to do with safe sex at all.

Does Television Talk About Safe Sex?

The best example of a show that loves sex but hates talking about safe sex, may be Game of Thrones.

Secure and Confidential STD testing services

The fastest results possbile - available in 1 to 2 days

Get Tested Today

Westeros obviously isn’t a real place, but there certainly seems to be lots of sexy time, and there don’t seem to be any repercussions outside of the occasional pregnancy and penis removal. This is especially weird because aren’t the GoT writers trying to kill off characters at every chance possible anyways? Apparently there have been subtle implications of condoms being used, however, condoms don’t protect from all STDs, and there weren’t exactly convenience stores on every corner of those long journeys, so our bet is they either had to pack them and lug them around across the countryside, or simply do without.

So anyway, yeah, in 2017, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill did a study which analyzed a sample of popular television programs and found that 0.02 percent of sex scenes feature any kind of conversation around contraception. That’s kind of crazy right?

But don’t All Sexually Active Adults Use Condoms?

A national health report released by the CDC in 2017 revealed that only about one-third of those who are sexually active in the U.S. use condoms. While that may seem like a dismal statistic, it’s actually pretty high compared to the .02 percent of times that condoms were featured on screen surrounding sexual activity. But just imagine how many more people would be encouraged to wear condoms if they witnessed their favorite characters doing the same! Now, this is not to say that television should be a moral compass for your personal life, but we do subconsciously pick up what we digitally consume. We want to be like our TV idols. I think we’ve all gone to our hair salon at one point or the other, stating that we want to look like Rachel from Friends. In the words of my ever-so-wise hairdresser, “We can cut your hair like that, but your face will still look the same.”

What’s the Big Deal?

So I know what you’re probably thinking at this point, “Well STDcheck.com, STDs aren’t really that common, so what is even the point of showing them on tv?” We’re glad you asked.

The CDC estimates at least 20 million new cases of STIs occur per year, and ASHA (American Sexual Health Association) measures that one in two sexually active individuals will contract an STI by the age of 25. The estimated total direct cost of STIs to the U.S. is about $16 billion. That’s right: It costs us money to have STIs!

And how much does it cost to show our favorite TV characters talking about safe sex? Nada. Zilch. Nothing. Taking this route could easily reduce the growing rates of STDs and could save the U.S. literally billions of dollars.

Are TV characters immune to STDs?

All TV characters must be immune to sexually transmitted diseases, as we’ve established that they don’t use protection (unless you’re really sticking to your guns that we should all just assume they use protection).

But yes, back to the question, everyone in the TV world is immune. Let’s go through three examples.

Barney Stinson from How I Met Your Mother was said to have dated a total of 200 women by the fourth season of the show, with five seasons after that, it’s reasonable to believe that number went up drastically. While it should be noted that he actually does use a lot of condoms, these do not always protect against STDs. Being as experienced as he is, you’d really think he’d have some sort of conversation with his numerous lovers about his status.

Jerry Seinfeld from Seinfeld was said to have dated 73 women throughout the course of the show. There is an episode with a condom mishap for George, but their main concern is pregnancy! You would think that Jerry would be a little more knowledgeable, and warn his friends of the other dangers of not having safe sex.

Don Freaking Draper from Mad Men. Obviously, he had lots of sex, right? He (officially) slept with a total of 17 women throughout the course of the show, but we feel that there may have been more. A lot of this sex was super spontaneous, like, he had just met them. In the 50’s/60’s there definitely wasn’t as much awareness surrounding safe sex, so the show could technically have just been being historically accurate. Side note, Betty Draper does get lung cancer from smoking all the time, so there are some health consequences in the Mad Men world. Just nothing in the nether regions.

Notice anything missing in this list? Oh yeah, women! We had a hard time finding a super sexually active female TV character to add to this list. Maybe because women aren’t usually written as players? Or sexually active? Never to fear, we have a few femme fatales to discuss, but we’re saving them for last.

TV Shows That Do Talk About STDs, Get it Wrong

Yes, now we’re getting to the brass tacks of the matter. When TV does discuss STDs, it is incredibly misinformed! Again we’ve got three stellar examples of misinformation being spread when it comes to STDs.

Girls is a TV show that’s all about destigmatizing all kinds of things when it comes to women’s reproductive health. They even talk about peeing after sex to avoid UTIs! The “protagonist” of the show, Hannah, is tested for HPV. This is strange, as most women under 30 are encouraged to screen for cervical cancer using a Pap test instead of testing for HPV.  She tests positive for HPV and is extremely distraught. She exclaims that she will now need her cervix “scraped out,” though this is not a medical treatment for HPV at all, in fact, there is no treatment for HPV. Hannah accuses her boyfriend of giving it to her, and he informs her that he was tested the week before and that he’s clean. Funny enough, there is no form of HPV testing for men.

Michael Scott of The Office is well known for blowing things wildly out of proportion. Upon the development of a cold sore in The Office episode, “Sex Ed,” Michael calls all of his former lovers to inform them that he has herpes and to find who gave it to him. Dwight Schrute encourages Michael to seek revenge from whoever transferred the disease. The entire episode is written with the viewpoint that Michael is acting ridiculously. One of his ex-girlfriends even states, “you don’t have herpes, it’s just a cold sore.” Obviously, Michael should have been tested to be sure that he even had herpes or HSV. Herpes can lie dormant for years, and it can be contracted by even receiving a kiss from a relative as a child. To assume that one of Michael’s ex-girlfriends must have given it to him was just silly, and let’s not even talk about seeking revenge (We’ll save that for another blog post). “Just a cold sore” is herpes. Herpes is very common and really not that big of a deal. Doctors often discourage getting tested unless you show symptoms because the emotional trauma is said to often be of higher impact than physical.

Dr. Gregory House of the TV show, House, is a pretty quirky dude. He deals with an assortment of abnormal medical conditions throughout the show. In one particular episode called “Clueless,” he diagnoses a man with herpes and informs the man that his wife is cheating on him with their son’s karate teacher. House has never met the wife or the karate teacher. So, the couple comes back to House and demands to know which one cheated, the wife stating that she has never slept with the karate teacher. House explains that herpes can also be transferred through the use of infected toilet seats. The husband accepts this as a resolution, but the wife says that it’s not possible, and is still in disbelief. House proclaims the husband the cheater, as only a cheater would believe such a thing, and view it as an easy out.

So we’re clear herpes can not be spread by a toilet seat, but it’s also most certainly NOT only spread by cheaters! This is one of the biggest lies that television has spread regarding STDs. When a TV character contracts an STD, it is often because they did something wrong. Anyone can contract an STD, and it does not necessarily make you a cheater if you are in a long-term monogamous relationship. Many STDs can be transmitted outside of sex.

Does TV Ever Get it Right?

We all know the age-old phrase, “when in doubt, look to the Golden Girls.” Just kidding, we just made that up, but it’s actually pretty true.

Betty White’s character, Rose, receives a letter in the episode “72-hours” where she is informed that she may have contracted HIV from a blood transfusion six years prior during gallbladder surgery. It takes 72 hours for her to receive results, and during those 72 hours, she gets a glimpse at what life with HIV may be like. Sophia, the oldest of the Golden Girls begins to avoid using Rose’s bathroom, or even any of the dishes that she’s ever used. Blanche consoles Rose, stating, “ AIDS is not a bad person’s disease, Rose. It is not God punishing people for their sins.” Sophia conceded, “I know intellectually there’s no way I can catch it, but now that it’s so close to home, it’s scary.”

In the end, all four of the golden girls visit the hospital together for support. Rose is given the clear and ultimately does not have HIV, but the episode reinforces the idea that HIV is not just a “gay disease” and that it can truly happen to anyone.

This episode aired in 1990, when there was still a great deal of stigma surrounding people with HIV and Aids. So, who’s really more woke, a show made in 1990 or modern television? Either way, just remember that TV is not real life. Just because your favorite character doesn’t get tested, doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t! It’s important to be aware of your status. If you aren’t, get tested today!

The post Are STDs Stigmatized on TV? appeared first on STD Exposed - Sexual Health Blog.

from Meet Positives SM Feed 3 https://ift.tt/2XCJ8Cw via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Meet Positives SM Feed 3

[wavenetinfo]

The Americans showrunners Joe Weisberg and Joel Fields take our questions about the season 5 finale and some high points from the acclaimed FX drama’s penultimate season. (Note: Spoiler alert for anybody who is not yet caught up.)

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: So before we can talk candidly: Is Henry here? JOEL FIELDS: Not to our knowledge, but we have not swept for bugs today!

Whew, okay. First I want to start with something I loved this season: The darkroom scene a few episodes back was amazing. Just terrific editing, the music choice, performances. You made reading a pastor’s diary riveting. FIELDS: That’s a scary scene to write. If Chris Long isn’t your producing director, it’s especially scary, but we knew we were in good hands. The entire team delivered sensationally. But when you sit down and decide to hang really the entire landing of the episode, and a key transformational moment in your big season and series-long stories, you’re hanging them on the audience reading photographed pages from a diary, it’s a real challenge. I remember sitting right here in The Vault — this is where we do our writing — and we were talking about how that was going to be filmed, and how close you could get to the photos and what you could expect the audience to read. It’s a real testament to the filmmakers on the show how powerfully that landed. And it really captured what we hoped to capture — Philip (Matthew Rhys) and Elizabeth’s (Keri Russell) experience of reading that with their daughter and catching the landing of those phrases.

As writers, do you think Pastor Tim’s (Kelly AuCoin) assessment of how much damage Philip and Elizabeth are doing to Paige (Holly Taylor) is correct? JOE WEISBERG: That’s a foundational question for the whole series. I don’t think we can say whether he’s right or wrong. It’s certainly a valid perspective, and he’s not the only one would think that. I think, in a sense, the jury’s out. We have to find out what becomes of Paige if that way of looking at it proves to be true. I think certainly the choices Philip and Elizabeth have made have run the risk that will prove to be true, but that doesn’t mean it will prove to be true.

Now that Tim’s left the country, is he off the show, or will we see him again next season? FIELDS: You should know us well enough to know you’re not going to get a straight answer.

Likewise, have we ditched Elizabeth’s tai chi hippie and Philip’s lousy lover in Kansas? Unless I missed something, they vanished midway through the season. FIELDS: They’ve been ditched for this season. But after that, it’s safe to say you’ll get the same answer out of us as always. WEISBERG: Philip and Elizabeth are still running them. You know how it is on this show, they’re running all sorts of operations, and we don’t always follow each that closely. I think Philip is still running Charles Duluth. I also loved the beat in the penultimate episode where I fully believed Paige was going to hang herself from the garage beam when she was setting up her punching bag. Was that a deliberate fake-out? BOTH: Whoa! Wow! WEISBERG: You’re the first one to say that.* That is interesting. That had not occurred to us! FIELDS: That’s great. We really like to believe there’s a lot of subconscious work that goes into the show. We were just looking for the most realistic way for her to be practicing. WEISBERG: And if that had happened, then Pastor Tim would have been right in that case.

Also: Why did Philip have to kill the nice Nazi lady’s husband? Couldn’t they have just visited her earlier in the day? FIELDS: One of the ironies is if Elizabeth had her way, they would have put a bullet in her head and gotten out of there, and he wouldn’t have died. But because Philip had to know, things dragged out. WEISBERG: The plan was to get out of there before he got home. That’s what you get when you hesitate.

Now before the season, I asked you if this would have a ramped-up pace as it’s the last one before your final season, and you guys said something I have never heard from showrunners: That if anything, you were slowing down. And I thought maybe you were kind of being self-deprecating, but you weren’t! WEISBERG: I know there’s been some criticism, but at least you can credit us to sticking to our word.

There has been some. You had a major story line about illegal groceries. Do you feel like you perhaps hit the brakes too hard this year? FIELDS: There’s certainly been some criticism. At some level, you just have to take your lumps. I don’t think we were expecting quite this much of a backlash, so it’s been a little upsetting. Here’s what we’re telling ourselves: Let’s wait until it’s all over. Let’s wait for everybody to have seen it in context. And we’re hoping with that perspective, the response to that will be a little more muted. But we don’t know, maybe not.

Let’s talk more about the finale. Couldn’t they ask the Center to let them deactivate until Henry graduates high school, and then they come back? Or is that just not an option in their world? WEISBERG: They don’t have that in their plan.

Our suspicion of Stan’s (Noah Emmerich) jazzercise girlfriend (Laurie Holden) went through the roof in the finale when she encouraged him to stay in his job. But what isn’t clear is whether that triggered any suspicion in Stan. It kind of looked like a lightbulb went off in his eyes there, maybe? WEISBERG: Why would it? There’s no reason Stan would suspect her. Philip’s got a lot of reasons to suspect her, but there’s no reason to occur to Stan. He may suspect her of wanting him to spend more time at home.

One thing that occurred to me in that final scene with them. Does Elizabeth actually love Philip? Has she ever said “I love you” on the show? FIELDS: I can’t remember if she’s never said it or she’s said it once. WEISBERG: She said it once, last season. FIELDS: There’s no question in our minds she does love him. There’s a definite love that’s grown over time, and we think this season has been one in which their marriage is stronger than it’s ever been, and they love each other deeply. WEISBERG: We’ve always thought she didn’t love him at all in the 15 or 20 years they were married since the show started, and then change happened that started turning that course… In the final scene, this extraordinary thing happens when Elizabeth says she can’t go back. They both wanted to go back. She can’t go back fundamentally because of who she is. It’s about her being patriotic and true and faithful to her cause. And instead of being angry at her or blame her, Philip accepts her and even loves her for it. You see the way that’s performed, the disappointment going along with acceptance. I think it’s a very special and moving marriage moment where one partner accepts the other at a very difficult and heartbreaking time.

Some of the edits in the finale seemed to suggest Philip was reluctant to transplant his children to another country, while Elizabeth was more like, “Damn I’m going to miss having all these shoes and kitchen appliances.”   FIELDS: Our read was not that she was going to miss them, but that there was something about them that weighed on her. That they were not her values. That represents America to her. That those are not the things you should hope for. I think both of them were realistically concerned about how their children would adapt. That conversation with Pastor Tim was interesting to us because he’s the only one they would talk to about it. But you’re right that they would see it differently.

I can imagine a final season where Stan never finds out about the Jennings, that you just never drop that other shoe, simply because it’s something the audience so expects. FIELDS: Yeah, we’ve always tried to stay away from story conventions, not just for the sake of staying away from them, but because we’ve been more interested in figuring out what would really happen — which is often not the same as what the story conventions are.

Finally, this question is stupid, but I’ve always wanted to ask: Wouldn’t their wigs come off during sex? Was hair-pulling not discovered until 1990? FIELDS: We actually tried to answer that question in season 3 or 4, when he takes his wife off with Martha, and we made that point about how hard it was to pull off. WEISBERG: There’s glue and lots clip; those things are on. FIELDS: They’re sex-proof. WEISBERG: The KGB has a whole facility where they test wigs for sex resiliency.

*This interview was conducted before the penultimate episode aired.

31 May 2017 | 3:16 am

James Hibberd

Source : EW.com

>>>Click Here To View Original Press Release>>>

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); May 31, 2017 at 09:46AM