Does a explicit gay scene in the media affects you in a bad way?

[AProudLefty]

Yo dudes and dudettes sup yup this be happenin in the 80's. The fear mongering of gay people been there yo dudettes.

[Doc Dutch]

It does if it's gratuitous. That goes for any overt sex scene in media. If there's a reason for it being included, no problem, but often times of late such scenes are tossed in for no apparent or given reason. Gratuitous sex scenes in media are basically soft porn and nothing more.

For what purpose, Terry? Is it a Jewish Globalist socialist plan to turn you gay or is it all about the money?

Let's be honest; APL didn't see that ad on Tucker or Sean. Fox News has ads about "buy gold" and old people medicine.

Sane, educated people understand corporations place their ads where they believe the ads will profit them most. Same goes for the type of ads it runs.

Is there any doubt they'd show a young naked woman with her legs spread to sell soda pop if they thought they could get away with it? It's all about the money. Anyone who believes anything else is a fucking moron.

Now tell me you want the Feds to do something about corporate greed.

[ThatOwlWoman]

My OP is not about tastefulness, it is about how certain people were raised to react to those innocent acts.

They don't see them as innocent though. Their upbringing taught them to find two same sex people showing physical affection as "abomination," "disgusting," "against nature," etc.

The first time I ever saw two guys walking along holding hands was in 1969, in San Francisco. We were there with the parental units on vacation. I saw my dad visibly stiffen but he said nothing. It was shocking to 16-year-old me, mostly because I didn't really know anything about homosexuality plus I felt the bad vibes from Dad. But I didn't think it was gross and still don't. I still don't like super "vigorous" public displays of affection though, no matter who the involved parties are. IMO these things are personal and private and precious and not to be publicly shared.

[T. A. Gardner]

Your usage of the term, "gratuitous", shows you do not understand my point.

I guess I'll have to clarify my point further, even if I have already attempted to do so in a few posts.

It is you that doesn't get it. You want a binary answer, yes or no. I set conditions and exceptions to qualify my answer. You apparently don't like or won't accept that.

[AProudLefty]

It is you that doesn't get it. You want a binary answer, yes or no. I set conditions and exceptions to qualify my answer. You apparently don't like or won't accept that.

*Sighs*

Okay I will further attempt to explain my point since a few people are not smart enough to get it.

[ThatOwlWoman]

You are very lucky. The Fundamentalist Christianity was the main religion at that time (60 to 80). (Course there are the next religions that are close to it). The Moral Majority was the height of it. As I have stated many times, I attended Liberty University. One of the requirements was that I have to go to Thomas Road Baptist Church every Sunday morning. There was one particular Sunday when my mom and other relatives came to visit me and we all went to Jerry's service on that period where the "Don't ask, don't tell" shit started under the Clinton Administration. As we were listening to Jerry bitching about Clinton (uh huh where have we ever heard that before???), he started talking about that policy after ranting about gay this, gay that. Then he made a weird movement.

To be continued......

+10 Internet points to whoever guess the next part correctly.

Was it some kind of evil eye gesture?

I was raised as a Lutheran by devout parents; never once heard anything about homosexuality, hate, or any of that from our pastor.

[ThatOwlWoman]

Yo dudes and dudettes sup yup this be happenin in the 80's. The fear mongering of gay people been there yo dudettes.

That's disgusting.

[T. A. Gardner]

*Sighs*

Okay I will further attempt to explain my point since a few people are not smart enough to get it.

Again, you don't get it. The example you used in the OP wouldn't bother me in the least.

[AProudLefty]

They don't see them as innocent though. Their upbringing taught them to find two same sex people showing physical affection as "abomination," "disgusting," "against nature," etc.

See this, T. A.? She got the point clearly!

It is you that doesn't get it. You want a binary answer, yes or no. I set conditions and exceptions to qualify my answer. You apparently don't like or won't accept that.

You might need to learn from our very own wise Owl Lady. Hoot!

The first time I ever saw two guys walking along holding hands was in 1969, in San Francisco. We were there with the parental units on vacation. I saw my dad visibly stiffen but he said nothing. It was shocking to 16-year-old me, mostly because I didn't really know anything about homosexuality plus I felt the bad vibes from Dad. But I didn't think it was gross and still don't. I still don't like super "vigorous" public displays of affection though, no matter who the involved parties are. IMO these things are personal and private and precious and not to be publicly shared.

.

I suggest that you learn from this Owl Jedi Master.

[Doc Dutch]

Well yeah. However, if the children were left alone without brainwashing, hate and any other ugly stuff during 50-80's, do you think we would have this problem today?

"This" problem? Who knows. Other problems? Most certainly. While "The Lord of the Flies" is fiction, what happened in New Orleans and other disaster areas when civil order collapsed is real...and why authors like William Golding have fact to base their fiction upon.

Children need "brainwashing" to civilize them. The form that behavior takes depends upon the culture in which they are raised. Consider watching "The Cult of the Suicide Bomber" free on Tubi.com for a negative example of brainwashing children. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0817498/

What our culture needs is more tolerance. Forcing people to hug each other is not teaching tolerance. It teaches bullying.

[AProudLefty]

Again, you don't get it. The example you used in the OP wouldn't bother me in the least.

Wait a minute.... you actually think my OP was directed at people like you?

[AProudLefty]

"This" problem? Who knows. Other problems? Most certainly. While "The Lord of the Flies" is fiction, what happened in New Orleans and other disaster areas when civil order collapsed is real...and why authors like William Golding have fact to base their fiction upon.

Children need "brainwashing" to civilize them. The form that behavior takes depends upon the culture in which they are raised. Consider watching "The Cult of the Suicide Bomber" free on Tubi.com for a negative example of brainwashing children. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0817498/

What our culture needs is more tolerance. Forcing people to hug each other is not teaching tolerance. It teaches bullying.

There's training and there's brainwashing. Learn the difference.

Hint: One damages.

[Hawkeye10]

I was recently looking at a list "20 best romance movies"....a good half were gay/trans...almost all the rest had the men either be shits stupid or irrelevant.

There were maybe two movies for men who afore women where they were not being dismissed or demeaned.

It was so sad.

[AProudLefty]

That's disgusting.

I know right? It's a toxic sewer that just keeps on flowing and flowing with no sign of stopping.

I have a very, very few authors who are my favorites who understood/understand the essence nature of evil and horror. Stephen King is one of them. He understands the essence of evil. He can sense, smell, taste, hear and touch it. It's revolting and he wrote about it anyway cause yeah.

[Doc Dutch]

There's training and there's brainwashing. Learn the difference.

Hint: One damages.

I'm a behaviorist. Buy a vowel.