queer eye for the straight guy

[©brad]

first, let me make it clear that i find reality tv both unimaginative and annoying- overproduced, shallow shows that rely on low-brow, shock appeal.. blah blah blah, u get it.

that being said, i like this show, as do many of my straight, homophobic fraternity brothers (although they wouldn't admit it in public). i find it quite amusing. it also makes me realize how clean and hip gay men r.

anyone else dig it?

btw, anyone catch the new simpsons tonight? it was most excellent. (classic simpsons establishing shot #44321-- homer and his two new gay friends go into a gay club called "One Night Stan's")

[Gold Trumpet]

I like it too. Funny, I only got to start watching it through my rural grandmother loving it and telling my mother who forced me to watch a few episodes. Its very funny and even though what those guys wear will likely be out of date in 5 years, they give great tips. The best is the one that shows you how to find out if pants fit you on the waist without trying them on. Saves me so much hassle when at the store.

[Jeremy Blackman]

I haven't seen it, but from what I've heard, I'm kind of uncomfortable with it. It's bound to spiral into unrealistic stereotyping (if it hasn't already), especially if getting those stereotypes acknowledged and carried out makes people feel comfortable and gets ratings. What if we had, for example, a show like "Feminist Eye for the Bigoted Guy"? It would just fall into the same trap.

[©brad]

I haven't seen it, but from what I've heard, I'm kind of uncomfortable with it. It's bound to spiral into unrealistic stereotyping (if it hasn't already), especially if getting those stereotypes acknowledged and carried out makes people feel comfortable and gets ratings. What if we had, for example, a show like "Feminist Eye for the Bigoted Guy"? It would just fall into the same trap.

i kinda felt the same way when the show had first come out (hehe, come out) and ppl were talking about it. however, after watching a couple of episodes, its hard to deny the show's charm and wit.

[Pedro]

I haven't seen it, but from what I've heard, I'm kind of uncomfortable with it. It's bound to spiral into unrealistic stereotyping (if it hasn't already), especially if getting those stereotypes acknowledged and carried out makes people feel comfortable and gets ratings. What if we had, for example, a show like "Feminist Eye for the Bigoted Guy"? It would just fall into the same trap.

i kinda felt the same way when the show had first come out (hehe, come out) and ppl were talking about it. however, after watching a couple of episodes, its hard to deny the show's charm and wit.

yeah...there are some stereotypes, but they're not in each of the character.  the chef guy, for example, doesn't really fall into the negative stereotype of a gay man.  

and they're really hip too, yes.  you can learn some good stuff from it.

[godardian]

I haven't seen it, but from what I've heard, I'm kind of uncomfortable with it. It's bound to spiral into unrealistic stereotyping (if it hasn't already), especially if getting those stereotypes acknowledged and carried out makes people feel comfortable and gets ratings. What if we had, for example, a show like "Feminist Eye for the Bigoted Guy"? It would just fall into the same trap.

I think the South Park metrosexuals/"crab people" episode is lot more astute and enlightened than Queer Eye, which demands at least a degree of skepticism.

I'm hesitant to criticize something that seems to be making homosexuality less of a foreign/scary concept to people who have apparently never heard of it before or imagine that they don't know any gay people, but Queer Eye is very one-dimensional. I'm gay, and I have plenty of gay friends, and I don't personally know anyone remotely like the smarmy, shallow materialistic, desexualized token gays the show's producers have found to be its ambassadors (possibly because my circle consists of people I can relate to, and I can't relate to those attributes, even if I do share a sexual orientation with the person bearing them).

What I'm most uncomfortable with, as I've said before, is that so many people mistakenly think that homosexuality is an "alternative" sexual "lifestyle," as if we who are other than heterosexual picked up our sexualities at a Pottery Barn and don't have the same emotional/sexual complexity and legitimacy as heterosexuals. I think the show tends to lend way too much credence to that very mistaken and very popular conception.

So, I'm ambivalent at best. I guess minstrelry is one step closer to real understanding and acceptance, and it is nice to see that straight guys are less threatened and more secure than many of us tend to give them credit for, but to me, as a gay person who has never experienced bashing or blunt discrimination but who has often felt like a second-class citizen, the whole phenomenon is really no better than an awkward phase, an adolescent stage in our culture's progression toward a grown-up understanding of sexuality.

[RegularKarate]

I think the show is just fine.  I think assuming it will lead to stereotypes is just paranoia.  It's not like they're characters... they're real people.

The show is alright.  I watch it sometimes, I used to watch it more when it first started, but it got a little boring.  A few of the QE men are funny, the rest just try to be.

Also, I get a little annoyed by the way a lot of the "Guests" act.  Sometimes they play up the "I'm okay around gay people thing for the camera", a little gross and embarrassing.  Some of them just don't know how to act... like they know that they're supposed to "Tolerate" other people's lifestyles, but really don't know how to act around those other people... it's kind of like when you see a real loner around a girl for the first time in a long time... they just don't know how to stand and act.  It's (once again) embarrassing.

PS, that wasn't the new Simpsons you're referring to, that was the rerun... the new one was the one with Homer's mom.

[Jeremy Blackman]

It's not like they're characters... they're real people.

Come on, this is reality TV. It's not really real.

Don't you think there's an element of sensationalism? Aren't these people selected according to, umm, certain things?

[aclockworkjj]

although I don't have a problem with this sorta stuff...it's a good show...I don't like reality tv becoming gay tv.

It's like the cool thing...like a "bi" girl....

Similar to how I feft about the sundance channel, I dunno how it is now, but a year ago when I got rid of it...it was becoming "the gay movie channel"....

like i said, i don't mind it, but it's hard for me to related.

ps. cbrad's a frat boy?

[©brad]

I'm hesitant to criticize something that seems to be making homosexuality less of a foreign/scary concept to people who have apparently never heard of it before or imagine that they don't know any gay people, but Queer Eye is very one-dimensional. I'm gay, and I have plenty of gay friends, and I don't personally know anyone remotely like the smarmy, shallow materialistic, desexualized token gays the show's producers have found to be its ambassadors (possibly because my circle consists of people I can relate to, and I can't relate to those attributes, even if I do share a sexual orientation with the person bearing them).

What I'm most uncomfortable with, as I've said before, is that so many people mistakenly think that homosexuality is an "alternative" sexual "lifestyle," as if we who are other than heterosexual picked up our sexualities at a Pottery Barn and don't have the same emotional/sexual complexity and legitimacy as heterosexuals. I think the show tends to lend way too much credence to that very mistaken and very popular conception.

i can undertand that. however, why must these 5 guys carry the burden of representing all gay men? any level-headed person knows that not all gay men act like this.

So, I'm ambivalent at best. I guess minstrelry is one step closer to real understanding and acceptance, and it is nice to see that straight guys are less threatened and more secure than many of us tend to give them credit for, but to me, as a gay person who has never experienced bashing or blunt discrimination but who has often felt like a second-class citizen, the whole phenomenon is really no better than an awkward phase, an adolescent stage in our culture's progression toward a grown-up understanding of sexuality.

isn't one step forward better than none at all?

[TheVoiceOfNick]

I love this show, and think that it will really pave the way for general acceptance of gay people in society... I mean, sure, there was Queer As Folk, and there have been many gay characters on TV, the guy from Melrose Place, Will from Will and Grace... but I'm of the thinking "the more the better"... so the QE guys play up the stereotypes and multiply them by 10, but that's what makes it funny and gives the show its charm... when other producers want to make shows about gay people, they'll be able to more easily now because of this show... and that's definetly a good thing.  I'm hoping for shows in the future that feature more serious gay topics.  I'm not gay, but I believe in equality for everyone... and because of its popularity, this show is a good catalist for gay revolution in America.

[godardian]

I'm hesitant to criticize something that seems to be making homosexuality less of a foreign/scary concept to people who have apparently never heard of it before or imagine that they don't know any gay people, but Queer Eye is very one-dimensional. I'm gay, and I have plenty of gay friends, and I don't personally know anyone remotely like the smarmy, shallow materialistic, desexualized token gays the show's producers have found to be its ambassadors (possibly because my circle consists of people I can relate to, and I can't relate to those attributes, even if I do share a sexual orientation with the person bearing them).

What I'm most uncomfortable with, as I've said before, is that so many people mistakenly think that homosexuality is an "alternative" sexual "lifestyle," as if we who are other than heterosexual picked up our sexualities at a Pottery Barn and don't have the same emotional/sexual complexity and legitimacy as heterosexuals. I think the show tends to lend way too much credence to that very mistaken and very popular conception.

i can undertand that. however, why must these 5 guys carry the burden of representing all gay men? any level-headed person knows that not all gay men act like this.

So, I'm ambivalent at best. I guess minstrelry is one step closer to real understanding and acceptance, and it is nice to see that straight guys are less threatened and more secure than many of us tend to give them credit for, but to me, as a gay person who has never experienced bashing or blunt discrimination but who has often felt like a second-class citizen, the whole phenomenon is really no better than an awkward phase, an adolescent stage in our culture's progression toward a grown-up understanding of sexuality.

isn't one step forward better than none at all?

No, it's true that TV is probably as unfair to most people it depicts as it is to gay guys on Queer Eye. I'm not staunchly against the show's existence- I just have some criticisms. It probably does do some mind-opening along its merry little way, which I applaud. And yes, one step is better than none at all. I just said I was ambivalent.   I feel the same way about Queer as Folk- a total misrepresenation or narrow representation, but it's rare that TV finds its away above that for any group of people.

There are also a few shows that I think get it right, in their separate ways: Friends, Six Feet Under, Roseanne once upon a time (which was even better than the others because it was a show about "ordinary" people that included gays and lesbians under that description, plus it was back when bringing up the subject was still rather controversial).

[aclockworkjj]

i think even will and grace is a bad portrayal (tho the episode with matt damon was hilarious).  maybe that is my beef with it...not so much the show's content as much as the shitty "gay portrayal".

[©brad]

I'm hesitant to criticize something that seems to be making homosexuality less of a foreign/scary concept to people who have apparently never heard of it before or imagine that they don't know any gay people, but Queer Eye is very one-dimensional. I'm gay, and I have plenty of gay friends, and I don't personally know anyone remotely like the smarmy, shallow materialistic, desexualized token gays the show's producers have found to be its ambassadors (possibly because my circle consists of people I can relate to, and I can't relate to those attributes, even if I do share a sexual orientation with the person bearing them).

What I'm most uncomfortable with, as I've said before, is that so many people mistakenly think that homosexuality is an "alternative" sexual "lifestyle," as if we who are other than heterosexual picked up our sexualities at a Pottery Barn and don't have the same emotional/sexual complexity and legitimacy as heterosexuals. I think the show tends to lend way too much credence to that very mistaken and very popular conception.

i can undertand that. however, why must these 5 guys carry the burden of representing all gay men? any level-headed person knows that not all gay men act like this.

So, I'm ambivalent at best. I guess minstrelry is one step closer to real understanding and acceptance, and it is nice to see that straight guys are less threatened and more secure than many of us tend to give them credit for, but to me, as a gay person who has never experienced bashing or blunt discrimination but who has often felt like a second-class citizen, the whole phenomenon is really no better than an awkward phase, an adolescent stage in our culture's progression toward a grown-up understanding of sexuality.

isn't one step forward better than none at all?

No, it's true that TV is probably as unfair to most people it depicts as it is to gay guys on Queer Eye. I'm not staunchly against the show's existence- I just have some criticisms. It probably does do some mind-opening along its merry little way, which I applaud. And yes, one step is better than none at all. I just said I was ambivalent.   I feel the same way about Queer as Folk- a total misrepresenation or narrow representation, but it's rare that TV finds its away above that for any group of people.

There are also a few shows that I think get it right, in their separate ways: Friends, Six Feet Under, Roseanne once upon a time (which was even better than the others because it was a show about "ordinary" people that included gays and lesbians under that description, plus it was back when bringing up the subject was still rather controversial).

i'd agree w/ u on six feet under and roseanne, but friends? i mean, i can appreciate the show for what it is, but what do u think the show is 'getting right?' i definitely think roseanne is an honest portrayl of a lower middle class family, but 'friends' is not at all. they liv in apartments in manhattan that would costs thousands of dollars per month! on what? coffee shop waiter's salaries?

the show is a grossly inaccurate portrayl of new york city. it looks and feels like L.A. seinfeld is a show that feels like a new york show. even sex and the city does (altho i have problems w/ that show as well)

[Sigur Rós]

I love homosexual people..... I guess that makes me gay