Then how do you know???Originally Posted by Beach Bunny
Then how do you know???
He might just be super friendly, but pics like this are all over the `net.
Adam Lambert kiss
Before the final American Idol show that would determine the winner, Fox News (sorry, it is the only American TV news channel I get on my cable in Thailand) brought up the question if the "Christian vote" would make a difference; for Kris Adams came from a small town in Arkansa, attended church, represented family values...blah blah blah. When the Fox commentators were bringing up whether the "Christian vote" would make a difference, they suggested that "flamboyant" Adam Lambert was more popular and was predicted to win.
THEN when Kris Adams won, nothing was mentioned, NOTHING... was mentioned on FOX news shows about the Christian vote making a difference. What I heard from Fox was that people like voting for an "underdog".
_______________________________________
Fox news made a big deal when Miss California was asked about gay marriage in the beauty pageant and tried to blame that she didn't win the Miss America title because of her answer . (Miss CA said that she didn't support gay marriage.) What about the other finalists that didn't win? Fox was focussing how Miss CA's good value system represented many Americans.. Then a week later, it came out that Miss California had posed in some "racey" photo shots when she was in highschool ---promotion photos for modeling. Was she criticised for that by Fox News ? (Would the church call this good family values?) Fox News overlooked it and said that dirt was being dug up on her by the gay community.
[quote=Gone Fishing]Then how do you know???[/quote:2x02hqh9]
I do watch the news, you know. You don't have to watch a second of American Idol to have an idea what is going on.
The news, presumably, being FOX news - that explains a great deal!!
(No offence, but I am a little worried that my agreeing with you recently, and even defending you in your discussion with Wes - not that you are not able to do so perfectly adequately yourself - may be misinterpreted)
No FOX news on UBC (thankfully).
IMHO - There were probably a couple of things going on with the selection of Kris Allen as the winer of american idol.
1st - IMHO the guy is just fantastically handsome, clean cut, with an all around nice guy personality. IMHO - these type shows are more like high school popularity contests with the winner determined by gushing good looks.
2nd - Researchers on gays and lesbian in society - (mostly in the US - and yes at the risk of sounding like a self-important fat head -- this is part of my research area-- I am still willing to send you my vita GF if you think I am full of shit.) - have a fancy word Heterosexism, which basically means that heterosexuality is seen as the sexual norm or standard. The wikipedia link below gives a good overview.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosexism
Even the most liberal and tolerant people often have residual negative feelings toward homos- it is basically latent negative feelings which translates into discrimination toward gays and lesbians.
It is not unlike aversive discrimination or unconcious discrimination toward people of color.
Given the winners good looks and rampant heterosexism in society I am not surprised by the result.
But again just my well informed humble opinion.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and they all stink.
I gather that Adam's sexuality was made a point of on Fox News (which I too, BB, do not get with True but I did not see any mention of it on BBC/CNN although I could easily have missed it), which could explain the whole thing.
It seems more likely that it has nothing to do with homophobia on the part of American Idol as the thread title suggests, but that it was a rather clever marketing ploy by Fox (who also own American Idol); by raising the homosexual flag on Fox News they raised the interest of the so-called "family Christians" enough to get them to vote in American Idol (and at least watch the final, even if they may not have watched previous rounds), virtually doubling the numbers from previous votes and so allaying any fears that sponsors may have had that the programme's popularity had peaked and was heading for a dive if Simon Cowell and Paula Abdul leave as judges.
As Wikipeda very clearly state in the reference given above (in an article which they rate as a "stub - Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition" and consequently is anything but "a good overview"): "While heterosexism is sometimes confused with or eclipsed by the word homophobia, heterosexism refers to a bias toward heterosexuality, while homophobia refers to antipathy towards homosexuality (or gay men and lesbians)". Pissyboy is, as usual, "confused"; whatever one's sexual preference, heterosexuality is not only "seen as the sexual norm or standard", statistically or by any other measure it is the sexual norm.
As has been said before elsewhere, we all have very different views on what constitutes good looks (personally I do not see Kris Allen as either "fantastically handsome" or "clean cut", particularly with his attempt at a moustache in the final), but the opinion that the vote is "determined by gushing good looks" more than any other factor is simply absurd - unless one considers, for example, the other top two previously mentioned here (Clay Aiken and Ruben Studdard) to be in that category.
I will stand by my humble opinion that Kris Allen is fantastically good looking - because that is what it is... just my opinion. And that the winner of american idol is about gushing good looks... Again IMHO....
On the second point... I have read the original research that is cited in the wiki article. The article is a good overview of heterosexism and a nice starting point to think about the issue. I suspect that you have not read the original research and really cannot make a sustentative evaluation of the material. I have copies of the the research, I can send you pdf files of the published papers if you would like to read up on the issue.
GF you state the following (notice I quoted you exactly тАУ I did not change or add words to your post - a policy you should try to follow - IMHO you do need better role models) - "whatever one's sexual preference, heterosexuality is not only "seen as the sexual norm or standard", statistically or by any other measure it is the sexual norm."
Heterosexism, Heteronormativity, Heterocentrism - etc.. whatever you want to call it is rampant in the US. Most people believe that a heterosexual relationship is superior to a homosexual relationship. It seems, you agree with my posting тАУ GreatтАж I am glad you see my wisdom and keen insights and agree that heterosexism exists. Norms change and evolve and that is why it is important for gays and lesbians to become more visible and open as a step toward greater acceptance.
I hope you are not implying that you believe that heterosexuality should be the sexual norm for society. That is the impression I got from your posting. If you do think that heterosexuality should be the norm, then I think that is tragic as it speaks of internal homophobia, and self-hate.
It is kind of sad that you might hate yourself so much.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and they all stink.
Well, Pissyboy, if I am impressed by nothing else of yours I am impressed by the breadth of your taste - after all, there are few people who could honestly say that Kris Allen, Clay Aiken (although he came 2nd) and Ruben Studdard all had "gushing good looks"!!
I have not, as I have no interest in the subject; I am quite satisfied with Wiki's own view of their own article, that it "Provides very little meaningful content". There would, in any case, be no need for you to send me the research, as links to it are provided by Wikipedia, as usual. I did actually find the "Daily effects of straight privilege" (http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~hyrax/person ... vilege.htm ) quite amusing, if only because although I am sure they apply to many (possibly even most) gays none have ever applied to me. I would have liked to take the test by the Heterosexism Enquirer - "helping to fight against heterosexist attitudes" - (http://www.mun.ca/the/themain.html )to see if my attitudes were heterosexist, as you imply they might be, but unfortunately the test was discriminatory and was only "for heterosexuals...& for those who may have internalized homophobic stereotypes"; I still took it, however, and as I scored 6/372 on the test I " must be an individual who thrives on diversity, inclusiveness, & acceptance. You actively go out of your way to ensure that you respect & acknowledge everyone no matter what their sexual identity... and, you may be a social activist." (Flattering, but way off the mark!). I would have scored 0, but I lost 6 points to question 13:
"Considering the menace of overpopulation, how could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual?
a. Good question! It would be quite frightening if everyone on the planet reproduced. (0)
b. At least the continuation of the species is guaranteed with heterosexuality! (6)"
Sesquipedalian terms are only impressive when properly used: there is no such thing as a "sustentative evaluation" (an evaluation cannot be "sustentative", which explains why such a pairing has never been used in any article published on the net, for example) - possibly you misheard something when you were cleaning out the toilets and you mean an objective evaluation.
Indeed I did - but you have ignored what I said and introduced "Heterosexism, Heteronormativity, Heterocentrism - etc.. whatever you want to call it" instead!!!
Becoming "visible and accepted" has nothing to do with changing "the sexual norm" - little research (or intelligence, so even you may manage it) is required to realise that at present "by far the greatest amount of sociosexual behaviour is heterosexual behaviour" (Encyclopedia Britannica) and that whatever the influence "gays and lesbians" may have on the rest of the world it is rather unlikely that the majority of the population will ever be anything but heterosexual, so making it "the norm". This has nothing to do with homophobia, superiority or inferiority - becase something or someone does not match "the norm" does not necessarily make them inferior - you are, as I suspected "confused".
I have given some definitions of "the norm" and "heterosexuality" below - you may find it useful as most "college professors" who conduct " research in the area of gays and lesbians in the workplace" might be expected to know this and your lack of knowledge may catch you out.
There are only a few parts of your posts I agree with (namely, to use your own descriptions of yourself, that you are "happier living through denial and delusion тАж a self-important fat head" and "full of shit"), so this not one of them.
Norm:
1. a standard or model or pattern regarded as typical; "the current middle-class norm of two children per family"
(hypernym) standard, criterion, measure, touchstone
2. a statistic describing the location of a distribution; "it set the norm for American homes"
(synonym) average
(hypernym) statistic
(hyponym) age norm
(classification) statistics (WordNet 2.0)
an established standard or average: as a : a set standard of development orachievement usually derived from the average or median achievement of a large group b : a pattern or trait taken to be typical in the behavior of a social group (Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary)
: average : as a: a set standard of development or achievement usually derived from the average or median achievement of a large group b: a pattern or trait taken to be typical in the behavior of a social group c: a widespread or usual practice, procedure, or custom <standing ovations became the norm>(Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
A standard pattern of behaviour that is considered normal in society (Encarta Dictionary)
A person who spends leisure time passively or idly ... from the name of a cartoon character created in 1975 by Alex Stitt (Australian slang, Oxford Dictionary)
Heterosexuality:
of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward the opposite sex b: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of opposite sex ((Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
Encarta: sexual desire or sexual relations between people of opposite sexes (Encarta)
Heterosexuality refers to sexual behavior and attraction to people of the opposite sex, or to a heterosexual orientation. As a sexual orientation, heterosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, physical or romantic attractions primarily to "persons of the opposite sex" (Wikipedia)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote