"I don't think homosexuality has to serve a dramatic purpose; it's like saying blacks in movies should only play slaves or drug dealers."
This is the most ridiculous false equivalency I've seen anywhere in a long, long time. Saying homosexuality has to serve a dramatic purpose is not inherently offensive to homosexuals. Saying blacks should only play slaves or drug dealers is, on the other hand, just racist and this comparison is idiotic. Homosexuality in cinema is fairly new, and we are still a long way from it being widely accepted. Even as supposedly liberal and open-minded as film-goers allegedly are, there is still a certain shock value for the average viewer. The average person has probably seen, in their movie-watching lifetime, a good thousand violent deaths to every one scene of men kissing? I'm not saying that is right, I'm merely suggesting that is makes it a fair question as to why and how gay sex is used in a film. I personally think it is placed in movies to give them "progressive cred" and make the filmmakers appear edgy and brave, when really, they just shoehorned it in so they can pat themselves on the back about how evolved they are.
To make a more accurate comparison, I highly doubt anyone would shout HOMOPHOBE! just for questioning the content if this was a scene between two women that was jammed into the movie for no apparent reason. In fact, people would bend over backwards to say it objectified women, it was done to appease male lust, had no business in the film, etc. But put two dudes in and you're somehow a true artist.
reply
share