This years "Dancing
With the Stars" saw a deliciously abundant amount of inter-racial partnering.
From Macy Gray/Jonathan Roberts to Michael Irvin/Anna Demidova or singer Mya
with Dmitry Chaplin, the show was a mixed race fiesta. Its about time America's interracial couples get the representation they deserve! Even if it has to be on a reality
show with fake partnerings.
So the question becomes, where are the same gender partners?? Think about it. Homophobes are
afraid that federally recognizing same sex unions will lead to a larger gay
rights agenda or 'social acceptance of homosexuality.' If they are trying to
prevent the government from passing laws because they are afraid that it might
lead to civilians endorsing gays, then lets get Americans to endorse gays first!
Then they'll have no arguments against it.
Here's the plan: If ABC were to put a same-gender couple on "Dancing With the Stars" (I suggest two girls for several reasons), the controversy alone would generate millions of viewers! Americans would endorse homosexuality by watching the show, even if they disagree with the morality of it. We've already done it with Queer Eye, now let's go mainstream on ABC! And the stars would be HOT. They would be the first openly sexualized gay partners on TV (think of the sexy dancing...). ABC would make boatloads of money and no doubt continue with a same gender couple on the next season. By the end of the show's run, "Dancing with the Stars" will have proven that Americans embrace homosexuals. The homophobes would lose any argument about homosexuality being a "sexual perversion only present in societal outcasts" or whatever hateful words they are using at the time.
WRITE TO ABC AND TELL
THEM TO PUT SAME GENDER PARTNERS ON NEXT SEASON'S "DANCING WITH THE
STARS".
Vicki Dummer
SVP Alternative Series
ABC Network
500 S. Buena Vista St.
Burbank, CA 91521-4551
SVP Alternative Series
ABC Network
500 S. Buena Vista St.
Burbank, CA 91521-4551
John
Saade
SVP Alternative Series
ABC Network
500 S. Buena Vista St.
Burbank, CA 91521-4551
SVP Alternative Series
ABC Network
500 S. Buena Vista St.
Burbank, CA 91521-4551
While I agree with the sentiment, I think it would not be practical to have two gays dance together for the following reason:
ReplyDeleteBallroom dancing requires that one partner lead and another partner follow (usually the man leading and the woman following, but I'm not opposed to the reverse). Mastering ONE of those takes a significant amount of time (more time than the show even allows), so who then in a same sex partnership would lead the dances? Probably the "instructor," right?
Well...picture learning how to play piano for twenty years, then getting placed in front of an audience and told to switch hands. That's what it would be like for a trained female dancer to all of a sudden learn how to lead.
I agree with the overall message, but maybe this would work better on a show like...The Bachelor? Why not have men or women competing for the affections of someone of their own sex?
Also, here's another thought. One could argue that it would be WORSE for the gay community to feature two men or women dancing together. As it is always awesome (and a sign of good acting) for a gay individual to portray a straight character on TV (think the new lead in White Collar), it is just as cool to see a gay person dance with the opposite sex (since by dancing, they are in fact adopting another persona...not unlike acting). It shows versatility. I don't think just because someone is gay they should have to dance with someone of the same sex.
Thoughts?
- J.D.
Wow I am so infuriated by that last comment I almost can't write a response.
ReplyDeleteLadies and gentlemen meet our enemy! People that think they are liberal but are really stuck in old ways.
J.D., the idea that ballroom dancing has one man and one woman in the partnership is an idea that was put into your head by the homophobic mainstream. If you look at the actual facts - there is simply one person leading and one person following (you even mentioned that the roles reversing from the norm doesn't bother you). If switching the leader and follower's gender doesn't bother you, then why would having two men or two women bother you? You wouldn't even have to necessarily change the costumes (one of the women would be the leader and would wear a traditional "man's" costume).
J.D., please think before you post.
Also - who said that the same gender partner would be made up of gay people? It could be straight people just dancing together sexually..you know..that "acting" thing. Its just to get people more comfortable watching two men or two women do something sexual together.
ReplyDeleteAlso - there are about a million straight characters that gay people play on TV. Since at least 25% of the men in hollywood are closeted homosexuals and about 2% of characters on TV are gay, one can assume that gay actors almost ALWAYS have to portray straight characters. Is your argument against Dancing With the Gays really that gay people should portray MORE straight people because its a "good" thing and shows "good" acting? Come on...
ReplyDeleteYou definitely misinterpreted almost everything I said. Read my post again. I was simply stating that I COMPLETELY AGREE with your post and would love to see two individuals of the same sex dancing together on national TV, but delineated why I think it would be TOO DIFFICULT on a show like DWTS. You have a problem if you're already labeling one of your biggest supporters as your "enemy" due to misinterpretation. The biggest "enemy" in this non-debate right now is yourself. Read what I wrote again with an open mind.
ReplyDeleteI definitely did not misinterpret even one WORD of what you said. You are totally missing the point. You ARE the enemy. You said yourself in your post that you think its okay for women and men to switch roles, so wouldn't that require the same amount of time to re-learn the other sex's role in the dance (leader vs. follower). How is that any different? You are EXACTLY the enemy because you have no clue how homophobic you are really being.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I am going to try to clarify ONE MORE TIME, and then I will just stop reading your blog.
ReplyDeleteIn a same sex partnership, either the PROFESSIONAL or the STAR would have to learn the dance moves of what is traditionally the other sex's steps. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS. I am simply trying to explain to you why it is not practical on a competition show format.
Lets just assume we are talking about two women to make this conversation easier. Since one person must lead and the other must follow, who do you suggest do the leading? My instincts were to suggest the professional since they have more experience. I think it would be wonderful for two women to dance together - I was simply saying that it would be BEYOND DIFFICULT for the woman professional to suddenly undo all her training and learn to lead instead of follow for the purposes of the show.
Same with two men. The male professional already leads, so that's easy, but it means that the male star must learn to follow. DWTS is entertaining, yes, but it also gives the stars the tools necessary to enjoy ballroom dancing their entire lives. If the male star is only taught to follow, he won't be able to lead anyone (female OR male) after the show ends.
Like I said, I am all for having gender stereotypes reversed on national TV to bring this issue to the forefront - I just don't think that DWTS is the vehicle to do so.
If you insist on calling me THE ENEMY, I don't know what else to say to you. I don't appreciate you calling me homophobic. I voted no on Prop 8 and I'm as much for gay rights as you are.
- J.D.
You're totally missing the point. DWTS is EXACTLY the show to bring gender and sexuality equality to the forefront. Do you realize that there are gay proms all over the country? There are gay ballroom dancing classes, gay ballroom dancing clubs and PLENTY of gay dancers. There are more then enough gay (or even straight) men and women that would be more then willing to learn whichever position (leader or follower) that they have to for the show. The fact that you think it would matter is what makes you the enemy. That and the fact that you keep on insisting that I don't get what your saying. J.D., I've understood EXACTLY what you are saying since the very beginning. I just disagree.
ReplyDelete