Why Does Hollywood Hate Gay Sex?

If you've seen any of the high-profile gay-themed movies from 2011-from Beginners to J. Edgar -they all have one thing in common: The gay sex takes place in the dark .

[fedupwiththemess]

Because its NASTY!!!!!!

[CHAS]

Because they know that people don't want to think about it too much and certainly don't want to see it.

Heterosex was treated the same until recently.

This should not rank highly among things gays need to change.

[snyper]

I don't need to see two people, regardless of orientation" going at it on the screen. I'm not a prude. I just don't think it's necessary to move the story forward in most cases.

[fedupwiththemess]

Because its nasty and gross as hell!!!

[Mr Chung]

Because it's sick, disgusting and NOBODY wants to see it!

[Snickers]

Icky, icky icky. And nobody but porn creeps want to see the heterosex, either. We watch movies to be entertained, educated, and elevated. Sex almost always is gratuitous, unnecessary, and a distraction to the story. Suggested sex is quite enough and even more pleasurable. Normal people don't want or need to be beat over the head with sex.

[Leftatalbuquerqu e]

Wow. What a load of sexophobics posting so far! Anyone ask YOU to dance lately? I doubt it!

Interesting that we live in a culture that approves of two men fighting in a cage until bleeding, or shooting at each other or blowing up hundreds in an explosion, but heaven help two people portrayed enjoying each other's physical powers!

An don't assume that "everybody already knows about it, therefore it need not be portrayed". If everybody was informed, you wouldn't still have teenagers getting pregnant!

I for one think the world needs more sex, and better education regarding it. So there.

[hi hi]

Is it just me, or do (most of) the responses above sound like seven- to eleven-year-olds reacting to the opposite sex?

Mature country, America.

Reread the above with this in mind; it's a howl.

[Snickers]

Leftatalbuquerque wrote:

An don't assume that "everybody already knows about it, therefore it need not be portrayed". If everybody was informed, you wouldn't still have teenagers getting pregnant!
I for one think the world needs more sex, and better education regarding it. So there.

So if they saw gay sex in movies, all the teenagers would be doing that and not getting pregnant? Precisely why gays want it portrayed in movies, seems to me. More of the brainwashing of the American teen about how "cool" gay sex is. That one might backfire on you.

[Snickers]

Leftatalbuquerque wrote:

heaven help two people portrayed enjoying each other's physical powers!

Never, ever have I thought of a man and a woman making love as "enjoying each other's physical powers." Must be another difference between straights and gays.

[McMike]

Well snickers that's because having sex with a woman is like having sex with a flower, something delicate. Having sex with a man is like having sex with a bulldozer. The difference in how hardcore it is couldn't be further apart.

[hi hi]

Aaaaaand the poster "snickers" is rrrrrright back to the usual bullshit: There must be a "national plot" by "the gays" to get this sex into movies. These movies are being greenlighted by studios and worked on by dozens of personnel all of whom cannot possibly be gay. Yet somehow, "the gays" must be "brainwashing" teens, according to snickers.

It is worthy of quite pointed laughter that no evidence of such a plot exists,

while evidence of "CHRISTIAN" PLOTS to force "religion" upon people has existed for centuries and cannot be erased no matter how hard the "religious" try.

Is this projection on these people's part? They openly, parasitically want their views FORCED upon everyone; therefore, by logic, they are seeing the lives of others as occasion for theories which comport with their own worldview.

Somehow, we are told in the posts above, this "plot" might "backfire" because according to a dumbass who is never, ever, ever going on fact or logic (see above), you can CHANGE YOUR ORIENTATION AT WILL and just "become" gay or you can TRICK heterosexuals who know as well as gay people what they want that "gay = good" so as to SUCK THEM IN and turn them "evil." This is the subtext.

I cannot help closing this post by reiterating for the thousandth time that the acts of rape of the church look SO SIMILAR to its members' acts of social rape that one has every reason to believe they've been brainwashed by Satan himself. But don't tell that to people like the above poster, who *of course* will comport said evil as something "good." Fruits of their labors, indeed. Please, take your acts of rape elsewhere and form your own country; America is obviously, patently not interested in your goddamn verbal vomit. Period.

[hi hi]

Every single time, every single time these antigay persons show no respect to gay or pro-gay people in their responses, I will show them absolutely no respect whatsoever in mine, period, end of statement, try me, I dare you, repeatedly, if you do not believe me. You show zero respect, I show zero respect. Go fucking cry about it to your pastor. Seriously.

Seriously.

Learn some respect, end of conversation.

[Mrs R]

Are they already filming the Jerry Sandusky story?

[Snickers]

hi hi wrote:

Aaaaaand the poster "snickers" is rrrrrright back to the usual bullshit: There must be a "national plot" by "the gays" to get this sex into movies. These movies are being greenlighted by studios and worked on by dozens of personnel all of whom cannot possibly be gay. Yet somehow, "the gays" must be "brainwashing" teens, according to snickers.
It is worthy of quite pointed laughter that no evidence of such a plot exists,
while evidence of "CHRISTIAN" PLOTS to force "religion" upon people has existed for centuries and cannot be erased no matter how hard the "religious" try.
Is this projection on these people's part? They openly, parasitically want their views FORCED upon everyone; therefore, by logic, they are seeing the lives of others as occasion for theories which comport with their own worldview.
Somehow, we are told in the posts above, this "plot" might "backfire" because according to a dumbass who is never, ever, ever going on fact or logic (see above), you can CHANGE YOUR ORIENTATION AT WILL and just "become" gay or you can TRICK heterosexuals who know as well as gay people what they want that "gay = good" so as to SUCK THEM IN and turn them "evil." This is the subtext.
I cannot help closing this post by reiterating for the thousandth time that the acts of rape of the church look SO SIMILAR to its members' acts of social rape that one has every reason to believe they've been brainwashed by Satan himself. But don't tell that to people like the above poster, who *of course* will comport said evil as something "good." Fruits of their labors, indeed. Please, take your acts of rape elsewhere and form your own country; America is obviously, patently not interested in your goddamn verbal vomit. Period.

http://www.gcmwatch.com/7409/the-real-gay-age...

http://www.truenews.org/Homosexuality/real_ag...

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/promotinghomos...

[tumbleweed]

Mrs R wrote:

Are they already filming the Jerry Sandusky story?

This creep is a married man who happens to be a child molester. Never heard anyone accuse him of being7829 gay.

[hi hi]

Snickers wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.gcmwatch.com/7409/the-real-gay-age...
http://www.truenews.org/Homosexuality/real_ag...
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/promotinghomos...

I had to rub my eyes. They never quit. It's as if they're driven by the devil to be so obvious that they couldn't advertise evil more effectively.

Look at the sources I was just given. Three of them. One site it nuts; the other two are ULTRACONSERVATIVE SITES with an antigay agenda. Clear for anyone in this world to see by simply looking at the HOME PAGE of the sites.

No wonder the antigay won't dare make these arguments in court. The second one sees the "mission" of these sites, one KNOWS they will be rapist, mendacious devilry.

Yet snickers posted them as sites I should "take a look at" as "proof" of what s/he said.

It defies belief. It seems snickers just PROVED everything I said ABOUT his/her point of view in my post above. Spine-chilling.

[cpeter1313]

Havingh sex with another man is whatever you want it to be; it can be hot and rugged or slow and tender, and all variations in between--just like hetero sex.

Go ask a biker chick if she thinks of herself as a flower.

McMike wrote:

Well snickers that's because having sex with a woman is like having sex with a flower, something delicate. Having sex with a man is like having sex with a bulldozer. The difference in how hardcore it is couldn't be further apart.

[McMike]

Um cpeter, I know very well what the difference is in having sex with a woman versus a man since I have had my fair share of both. When you hold a woman in your arms you're holding this delicate person, one that seems so fragile, but when you have a man in your arms you're holding this figure of power. Comparing a woman to a biker chick is like comparing a mountain to a molehill, both are made up of dirt but they're definitely a different climb.

[cpeter1313]

I'm not comparing a woman to a biker chick; a biker chick IS a woman. Your double standard may work for you, but most women would probably take exception to it. A body that can hanle childbirth can probably deal with your attentions, unless you are just a jackhammer with no t4echnique.

I am built rather solidly, and have occasionally had to be careful with some smaller men. But I don't consider all smaller men to be fragile. Conversely, some big ol' leather guys really love a soft touch.

McMike wrote:

Um cpeter, I know very well what the difference is in having sex with a woman versus a man since I have had my fair share of both. When you hold a woman in your arms you're holding this delicate person, one that seems so fragile, but when you have a man in your arms you're holding this figure of power. Comparing a woman to a biker chick is like comparing a mountain to a molehill, both are made up of dirt but they're definitely a different climb.