[Editorial Note: I hate prefacing my work with an apology or gloss more than anything. I’ve always believed writing should stand on its own merits. But I have to lay out before hand that I’m writing about a tricky subject from a great remove. Gay rights and gay culture are still a controversial subject in America. As a straight male, no matter how passionately I feel about these subjects, I’m still approaching them as an academic. These controversies don’t affect me personally, except insofar as they affect several of my very good friends. So if the analysis of homosexual culture and the gay lib movement that follows is incomplete or overly broad, that’s on me. I won’t apologize for it. But I’ll reiterate that it’s just one man’s opinion.]
Here’s what the Parents Television Council had to say about Glee after the episode “Showmance”:
Parents, please be aware: Glee is not High School Musical: the T.V. Series. Don’t let the singing and dancing and high school setting fool you. This is an edgy, sexually-charged adult series that is inappropriate for teenagers. Unfortunately, Fox has marketed the show heavily at tween audiences. What did those pre-adolescents tune into when the show finally premiered in its regular timeslot on September 9th? A veiled reference to fellatio, a speech denouncing abstinence, simulated sex during a musical dance number, and premature ejaculation. For containing explicit sexual content in a show aimed at kids, yet lacking the “S” warning descriptor in the rating, Glee has been named Worst TV Show of the Week.
Here’s their take on Gossip Girl
:
The CW’s new teen drama Gossip Girl, which airs on Wednesday nights at 9:00 p.m. ET, takes all the foul content from The O.C. while stripping away any of that program’s redeeming features. This far-fetched soap opera about filthy rich teens deals with every vice from drug use to promiscuous sex to violent rape. In the November 7th episode, we see a father with a drug addiction who gets caught and blames it on his teenage son; a teen who watches internet porn to learn sex tips for an evening with his girlfriend; and a high school slacker who convinces his father to purchase a burlesque club.
And here’s the uneasy response to MTV’s adaptation of the UK series “Skins”:
MTV’s rocky road with its racy new television series, “Skins,” continues.
L’Oréal SA and sandwich-chain Subway on Monday brought to seven the number of marketers publicly pulling their advertisements from the program, which has prompted a barrage of criticism because of its depictions of minors engaging in sexual activity as well as drug and alcohol abuse.
Several other high-profile companies—from Taco Bell to General Motors Co.—have distanced themselves from the series on the Viacom Inc.-owned network, which the Parents Television Council dubbed “the most dangerous television show for children that we have ever seen.”
The Parents Television Council seems to be the common denominator here. So what did they say about Modern Family?
Hmm … yellow light. That means “the show contains adult-oriented themes and dialogue that may be inappropriate for youngsters.” Well, true as far as it goes. The PTC’s rubric has always been sex / drugs / violence more than Old Testament values. What did the 700 Club have to say when Modern Family debuted?
The start of fall also marks the beginning of a new season for several TV shows, but this year some viewers are noticing more homosexual characters and story lines.
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) recently released a report saying about 44 gay and bisexual characters are making regular appearances in this season’s show line-up.
“Americans now see gay and lesbian couples marrying, raising families and contributing to their communities,” GLAAD president Jarrett Barrios said.
“[Those characters help American’s] come to accept and better understand their homosexual family members and neighbors,” he added.
“The Modern Family” on ABC is one new show in question. One of the main plots includes a gay couple who adopts a baby.
Another ABC show with a similar plot is “Brothers and Sisters,” which has two male characters who are married.
Other shows with gay and lesbian characters include NBC’s police drama “southland” and the popular prime-time medical drama “Grey’s Anatomy.”
… and that’s it. (Notes on the page indicate that CBN may have devoted some TV time to talking about it, but no further record exists online)
How about Focus on the Family? I’ll bet they have some nasty things to say about Modern Family, right? Right?
It’s interesting to note how natural the show’s gay couple appears to be: While Cameron can be a caricature of stereotypical effeminacy, he and Mitchell are presented as normal people living an acceptable lifestyle. They merely want to be great parents to their adopted girl, and they try to support each other as best they can through life’s trials and tribulations.
Those small facts speak to how much television has changed in your lifetime.
[…]
“As the networks gradually add characters from all backgrounds and all walks of life to prime-time programming, more and more Americans are seeing their LGBT friends and neighbors reflected on the small screen,” GLAAD president Neil Giuliano told USA Today in 2008.
Mitchell and Cameron, then, are now “just” part of the landscape. And that says a lot about how TV has changed and how it—by presenting shows like Modern Family—has helped normalize something society once shunned.
… that’s it? Really? I can almost hear the wistful tone – “oh, remember those good ol’ days when gays were shunned” – but that’s the worst they’re gonna throw at it?
Why isn’t anyone up in arms over Cameron and Mitchell?
If you haven’t been following Modern Family, Cameron and Mitchell are a married gay couple, one of the three families featured in the ABC sitcom. They have an adopted baby named Lilly. Mitchell is a successful lawyer: uptight, concerned about appearances, a touch on the neurotic side. Cameron is a former college football player and theater buff who’s now a stay-at-home dad.
They’re gay. They’re unmistakeably gay. And yet none of the usual suspects seem that concerned.
An easy response to why no one’s that offended at Modern Family is that, while Cameron and Mitchell are gay, they aren’t that gay. Sure, they talk about theater, they enjoy themed brunches, and they gesture with limp wrists. But they’re not … y’know. Fa-LA-ming.
This sort of critique is, of course, dismissive to a wide swath of gay culture. Not every gay male needs to fit a particular, narrow stereotype. To insist on that – or to act surprised when someone steps outside it – reduces identity to a series of signals. And what’s worse, they’re rather blunt signals. Not every gay guy has to be a loud, gossipy Liza Minelli fan.
And yet it’s worth considering, at least from the standpoint of cultural critique. Prior to the late 00s, gay characters on primetime television were primarily about their gayness. Their reason for existing was to be gay in a place. Some of them are simply neurotic and uptight (Will of Will and Grace); some of them are spastic and emotional (Will’s friend Jack, also of Will and Grace). But their sexuality was a defining feature. The point of Will being gay in Will and Grace is so the two title characters can have a long-term friendship without the “will they or won’t they?” ambivalence that two sexually compatible people would have.
Modern Family features two gay characters whose sexuality is not a punchline. At least, no more often than any other character. There are plenty of jokes about Jay and Gloria’s May/December marriage, and Phil and Claire’s sex life has been the focus of a few episodes (including one recent one, on which more in a moment). But aside from the occasional reference to figure skating or a taste in furniture, you wouldn’t know that Cameron and Mitchell are gay.
Our first instinct is to say that that’s a good thing. “Gay” is no longer a character trait, like “selfish” or “ambitious” or “nurturing.” There’s no longer a package of required behaviors and speech patterns that attach to homosexuality. People just are or aren’t gay. If our preferred cultural outcome is to treat everybody exactly the same, this is an improvement.
Our second instinct?
Let’s consider the recent episode “Caught in the Act.”
The episode begins with Phil and Claire’s three kids making breakfast in bed for the two of them to celebrate their anniversary. They open the bedroom door, only to find Phil and Claire doing what married couples do on their anniversary. Nothing graphic is shown, since this is broadcast television. Handheld camera shakiness plus some quick covering up with sheets means we only see a bit of skin. But it’s clear, given the relative positions of Phil and Claire, not only that they were having sex but how they were.
It’s funny. It’s a little bit salacious, but harmless when compared to (say) Glee or Gossip Girl. And it ends on an up note.
We’ve never caught Jay and Gloria in as flagrante of a delicto, but Gloria as a character is defined by her sexuality. The nature of her relationship with Jay – a second wife, a younger and hotter wife – carries with it the implicit assumption of why Jay married her. Most of her outfits show off her rather impressive figure. While there’s more to Gloria than just being a sexy South American chick, it’s impossible to forget for a second that that’s what she is.
Lest we forget.
So Phil and Claire get their sexuality. Gloria and Jay have theirs. What about Mitch and Cameron?
Mitchell and Cameron’s relationship was so Platonic through the first season that a Facebook campaign was started demanding that they kiss. When the two finally did kiss onscreen (S2E2, “The Kiss”), it was such a dry, brief kiss that you could easily have missed it. Ryan Murphy, creator of Glee, called the couple’s lack of affection “ridiculous,” and when the creator of Glee thinks you’re ridiculous it’s time to evaluate your creative choices.
Since then? No sex jokes. No one walking in on them. Not even the occasional smoldering glance. The closest we’ve come to seeing them express their sexuality is when they ogled James Marsden in “Slow Down Your Neighbors.”
No one says that Mitchell and Cameron need to go to the other end of the spectrum – becoming dishy queens whose every sentence drips with innuendo. But given the acknowledged sexuality of every other couple on the show (usually played for comic effect), the monastic relationship of Mitch and Cam stands out. TV audiences are ready to accept a gay couple, it seems, just so long as they’re not too gay about it.
Why is that?
First, the sitcom as an art form is inherently conservative. I don’t mean “conservative” in this case as attached to a party’s fiscal policies. Rather, I mean “conservative” as in “traditional.” Preserving the status quo. Not rocking the boat. Predictable.
Though sitcoms showed married couples sleeping in the same bed as early as the Forties, it wasn’t the TV norm. Lucy and Desi, Dick and Mary, Ralph and Alice – a decade or more of couples who slept in separate beds, despite the practice being pretty rare in America. Babies would arrive in a series and grow into sidekick brats, but the method of making babies was never mentioned.
In fact, how many sitcoms can you name that ran longer than three years that didn’t end with male and female leads marrying off? And having children? Seinfeld’s one example, but Seinfeld is the exception that tries the rule: a groundbreaking instance of post-modern neurotic comedy that challenges us to find something likable in its stars. But even Friends, a sitcom which took place at the same time, in the same city, and with a similarly self-absorbed cast of thirty-somethings, ended its run with every star married and/or pregnant.
What do sitcoms tend to teach us? That you should stick by your family. That you should tolerate other people (except the REALLY weird ones). That you should find a job – preferably one you like, but that’s not necessary – and work hard at it. That you have certain responsibilities that you have to live up to, no matter how painful they may be, and that doing so makes you a better person.
These morals are so ingrained into the sitcom formula that it’s tough to escape them. We applaued Arrested Development and 30 Rock for being mold-breaking comedies, laden with self-reference and irony. But how many episodes of Arrested Development ended with Michael siding with his family – the family that regularly lied, cheated and schemed to get a few more dollars out of the Bluth fortune? How many episodes of 30 Rock end with Jack or Liz forgiving a member of their cast for an egregious mistake?
The morals of a sitcom may not sound that objectionable. And that’s what makes them work. They’re not objectionable. No one’s going to label you a monster for saying “you gotta stick by your family.” But it’s not always true. Watch American Meth, or Precious, or Million Dollar Baby if you want a lesson on when you should abandon your family. Watch The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit or The Smartest Guys in the Room to learn the virtues of walking away from your job. The lessons of sitcoms, as agreeable as they are, present a staid, unchallenging view of life.
Part of this is economics. Sitcoms are the offspring of marketing departments, designed to sell washers, dish soap or mouthwash in 30-second increments. Advertisers hate courting controversy (unless it’s in a calculated attempt to be edgy). So a sitcom can’t be too challenging without alienating its sponsors.
Part of it is aesthetics. A sitcom is meant to run for as many seasons as it’ll stay profitable. Creating a work of art that’ll stretch into perpetuity is immensely challenging. You try writing a 1024-day song. Bringing characters back to stable points – family, work, neighborhood – keeps the narrative focused. So long as there aren’t any radical changes, the writers can keep using the same characters, the same relationships and the same sets.
Whatever the cause, the result is the same. Sitcoms are rarely, if ever, going to break social barriers.
As of this writing, in the United States, gay people have received the right to serve openly in the Armed Services but have not yet received the federal right to marry. Sodomy is no longer a crime – or at least not a prosecuted one – but gay bullying is still rampant in much of the country. America’s attitude toward homosexuality is, to put it charitably, conflicted. Many Americans are fine with acknowledging that gay people exist. They just don’t want to hear about … you know.
Cam and Mitch are an outgrowth of that contradiction – the desire to stay relevant without rocking the boat. Of course they’re gay: look at how they dress! Listen to the way they talk! That’s how pop culture signifies “gay”: a love of musical theater and pastel sweaters. Not in the one thing that actually distinguishes homosexuality – a sexual attraction to someone of the same gender.
Well, isn't this awkward?
So even in a series that can make light of straight sexuality – Phil and Claire’s bedroom antics; Jay and Gloria’s mismatched ages – the writers can’t quite bring themselves to make Mitch and Cam sexual creatures. That’s not their fault. It’s not as if Christopher Lloyd or Steven Levitan are monstrous bigots. But when you have to write 24 episodes in 6 months, you have to rely on the first things that come to mind. And sixty years of sitcoms have given us a wealth of male/female comedy.
So if you want to write something safe that’s guaranteed to get a laugh, you write about the kids walking in on Mom and Dad going at it. Oh no! Everyone can relate to that!
Compare that to my favorite lesbian joke:
Q: What does a lesbian drive to the third date?
A: A moving van.
Get it? Get it? If you know a lot of lesbian couples, you’re probably snickering right now. If not, you can sit while I explain about the stereotype of lesbians to enter into co-dependent relationships very quickly. But you have to already know some lesbians for that stereotype to even make sense. Otherwise, you wouldn’t even recognize the second sentence as a punchline.
So for the large portion of the country that doesn’t know openly gay people, portraying Mitch and Cam as “a straight couple, minus the sex” is a safe choice. It’s something a straight audience can relate to. Mitch is the serious one – oh, but sometimes he’s too serious! Cam is the emotional one – always good for a laugh! The viewers can easily assemble the puzzle pieces, fitting tab A into slot B with no more than … actually, that summons up too many images; just the sort of thing we’re trying to avoid! Oops! Disregard.
But maybe I’m giving Levitan and Lloyd too little credit. Maybe this is a subtle means to make gay married couples more acceptable to mainstream America. Is that plausible? Would advocates for gay rights try to gain acceptance by making themselves bland and neutered?
The Mattachine Society was one of the first major homophilic organizations in America in the Twentieth Century. Formed in 1950, they published manifestos, organized discussion groups and distributed newsletters. Naming themselves after a “society of masques” prominent in medieval France, they drew attention to the masks that gay people wore in order to blend into American society.
But they tried very hard not to be too gay.
Could be a meeting of the Elks, for all you know.
After a Los Angeles newspaper column described the society as a “strange new pressure group [of] sexual deviants,” panicked meetings were held. A conservative faction within the Mattachine Society became prominent, arguing that homosexuals needed to appear inoffensive and normal in order to gain acceptance.
And the Mattachine Society was not alone in this. Other contemporary organizations for gay lib, like the Daughters of Bilitis and the Janus Society, followed in step.
To quote from Thaddeus Russell in A Renegade History of the United States:
[T]he […] major homophile organizations adopted the “politics of respectability” … Members of the organizations wore business suits and conservative dresses. They were expected to adhere to “Ivy League fashion”; no “swishing” and no “bottled-in-blond me, limp wrists and lisping” were permitted. At social gatherings, they showed only “scientific documentaries about homosexuality” … no “muscle movies” were allowed. The groups explicitly banned drag queens and “bull dykes” from their meetings. […] The Mattachine Society adopted a resolution disavowing “any direct, aggressive action” in pursuit of its goals.
The divergence between peaceful conservatives and angry radicals has cropped up in every minority rights movement in the Twentieth Century. Consider Gandhi and Jinna, or Rev. Dr. King and Malcolm X. And the movement for gay rights in the Twentieth Century has been equally divided.
On one side you have the formal organizations like Mattachine and Janus, who sought inclusion, reconciliation and accommodation. On the other side you have the drag queens forming chorus lines to taunt cops during the Stonewall Riots, or setting fire to San Francisco City Hall in the wake of Harvey Milk’s death. In the one hand you have respectability; in the other, rage.
If the characters of Mitchell and Cameron aren’t a cop-out, but are instead part of a “fifth column” meant to subvert notions of what gay marriage looks like, they fit right into the existing dialectic. They’ve inherited the tradition of the Mattachine Society in ending discrimination through normalcy. And maybe they are making progress toward a society where gay marriage is no longer considered deviant.
That could very well be the case. Because I can easily imagine a couple watching Mitch and Cam turn to each other and ask, “Hey – what was all the fuss about?”
