TLC's new show: My Husband is Not Gay With Mormons - MERGED

[Rebelwife]

As the exwife of a deep-in-the-closeted man (not Mormon, but a non-denom fundie "pastor" of a church-in-a-singlewde), I have this to say to those women:

That song is awesome! :clap:

[StellaMarie]

So I hang out on a snark site (and enjoy myself) and have a subscription to US Weekly -- I hardly have a moral high ground here -- but this show concept bothers me.

Maybe it just pushes the line a bit too far for me. Like, the Duggars and the Honey Boo Boos have [had in the latter case!] a veneer of being happy and healthy, if "kooky." So you know TLC is taking advantage of them but at least you feel like they're getting something out of it too and you kind of get over it. But I don't think that any logical person thinks that this is a healthy arrangement for the couples involved and people must be suffering -- and TLC is profiteering from it.

I saw the Lisa Ling documentaries too (wasn't there a follow up, too?). I thought they were was really interesting. The difference, of course, is that she shows different points of view and, importantly, treats her interview subjects with respect.

[Mecca]

Will Xgay Greg make a special appearance to counsel the young men?

Greg will counsel these young men at a McDonald's. That is where his office is, of course.

[DGayle]

I will never turn on TLC again. Every pair if eyeballs on them in a place that can have ads means more they can charge for ads. If you tune in, you're helping them make money on their bigotry. I think this is official proof TLC is an anti-gay station.

[Mary C Doates]

Priscilla and David Waller weren't featured?

What about XGayGreg and the charming DeDe? I'm sure they'd be happy to claim to be Mormon in exchange for t.v. exposure and a motorcoach.

[Antimony]

If this one dude is truly attracted to his wife, as he says, (without a qualifier like "as friends", I guess, because the clips are short), then he really sounds like he could just be bisexual and this really isn't a problem, at all? (For just that one guy.)

Also, I love snark, I get it, but it really annoys me when FJers want to talk about how liberal/progressive/less homophobic they are and then decide that calling David Waller gay just cause he seems stereotypically gay isn't homophobic or stereotyping. Because it is. And if there is any evidence that isn't people just deciding that that voice/dress/hair is 'gay', I'm not seeing it and it's just another form of homophobia.

I think TLC makes their money by finding things that are unusual and this is certainly one of them -- I think it is interesting, at least. I also think it's incredibly interesting that these people aren't in the business of denial because they are saying out right that they're attracted to men. It's not ideal but it does seem better than outright suppression. Either way, the man saying you give something up when you're gay is right -- you sacrifice something (family, friends, sometimes the potential to have children, jobs, some rights) by being open about it and you sacrifice things by being closeted and I liked the honesty in that clip.

[Kira]

If this one dude is truly attracted to his wife, as he says, (without a qualifier like "as friends", I guess, because the clips are short), then he really sounds like he could just be bisexual and this really isn't a problem, at all? (For just that one guy.)

Also, I love snark, I get it, but it really annoys me when FJers want to talk about how liberal/progressive/less homophobic they are and then decide that calling David Waller gay just cause he seems stereotypically gay isn't homophobic or stereotyping. Because it is. And if there is any evidence that isn't people just deciding that that voice/dress/hair is 'gay', I'm not seeing it and it's just another form of homophobia.

I think TLC makes their money by finding things that are unusual and this is certainly one of them -- I think it is interesting, at least. I also think it's incredibly interesting that these people aren't in the business of denial because they are saying out right that they're attracted to men. It's not ideal but it does seem better than outright suppression. Either way, the man saying you give something up when you're gay is right -- you sacrifice something (family, friends, sometimes the potential to have children, jobs, some rights) by being open about it and you sacrifice things by being closeted and I liked the honesty in that clip.

According to an article about this show, the men don't label themselves gay OR bisexual. I don't know if I would say the situation these men are in better than outright suppression, but atleast the wives know. I don't think TLC is the right network for a documentary like this. I predict that the couples will be ridiculed and their marriages will suffer.

[Belugaloo]

Also, I love snark, I get it, but it really annoys me when FJers want to talk about how liberal/progressive/less homophobic they are and then decide that calling David Waller gay just cause he seems stereotypically gay isn't homophobic or stereotyping. Because it is. And if there is any evidence that isn't people just deciding that that voice/dress/hair is 'gay', I'm not seeing it and it's just another form of homophobia.

Yep. I've been thinking this since I started reading here! The snark on David has always been so confusing to me, since FJ'ers are all supposed to be liberal, open minded, feminists, etc. I wouldn't expect such stereotyping from the people here!

[Antimony]

According to an article about this show, the men don't label themselves gay OR bisexual. I don't know if I would say the situation these men are in better than outright suppression, but atleast the wives know. I don't think TLC is the right network for a documentary like this. I predict that the couples will be ridiculed and their marriages will suffer.

They likely don't believe either of these sexualities are real but if that one man is actually attracted to his wife and men, I don't really see the problem unless he's more concerned about the extra-marital attraction, but I'm also bisexual myself so *shrug*

[FloraKitty35]

That song is awesome! :clap:

I love Unknown Hinson, I got into his music, because of the Squidbillies cartoon on Adult Swim.

[chapstick]

Someone above mentioned that this show might have been ripped from Josh Weed and I wonder if that's the case. I checked his blog recently and he's got some strange series of posts about a bad thing that happened to him related to his blog and life story. The blog was very quiet for a long time and now all of a sudden there is this sudden surge of posts around the same time that the news of this new show is coming out.

[PurpleSheepleEater]

I think the idea behind this show is gross. It's promoting self hatred, self denial, lying, homophobia. It's preying on women and making them look weak and desperate. The whole idea of marrying someone for approval instead of for love is terrible. Worst of all, this is MAINSTREAM Mormonism. These people are not some right laying side of something like the fundies are of christianity. This is what normal Mormon men are expected to do if they desire men and this is what normal Mormon women are expected to do to help them. That is fucking scary and dangerous in my opinion.

[CallmeChaCha]

... Also, I love snark, I get it, but it really annoys me when FJers want to talk about how liberal/progressive/less homophobic they are and then decide that calling David Waller gay just cause he seems stereotypically gay isn't homophobic or stereotyping. Because it is. And if there is any evidence that isn't people just deciding that that voice/dress/hair is 'gay', I'm not seeing it and it's just another form of homophobia. ...

This post by thoughtful summarizes how some of us, or maybe just her and I, feel about this. I also don't see how people are being homophobic.

viewtopic.php?f=67&t=17278#p556392

I love the new rule.

This thread has drifted a bit, and, as someone who has made quite a few LOLDougs, LOLKirks, LOLEGGs and comments about David Waller, I want to clarify why I think it's not gay-bashing.

To me, it is only the irony, the contrast, that makes it snark-worthy. These men are self-righteous to the nth degree, and specifically smug about their Superior Manliness (especially Doug). They are bigoted against anyone who doesn't fit their rigid mold of sexuality, family and Christianity, and want the US to legislate against gay rights.

And these anti-equality bigots keep showing themselves in ways that are stereotypical of how someone bigoted against gay men would view gay men. And they publish photos of themselves snuggled up to (and/or gazing adoringly at) another man. It's a bit hard to not notice.

To me, its like just about everything else that makes us go :shock: or :roll: here on FJ. I see it as being the same category as Michelle being a shitty mother but wanting so much attention for being a perfect mom, or crappy parents with a huge child/adult ratio being nasty about daycares, or shitty homskoolin' dolts criticizing schools or secular homeschoolers, or child-beaters pontificating about how they are saving their beloved children, or people who have been smugly touting the superiority of the courtship model and still show no sign of finding a spouse as they grow middle-aged, or socialized-medicine-bashers begging for money for their medical bills. And on and on.

It's because they are smug, self-righteous gay-bashers, not because people here think being a gay person is bad. There's a certain "Wow, dude, if you knew how that made you look, you'd hate you!" :lol: element to it, and it is hard to resist commenting.

Tabitha2, you said:

I hope you don't feel I'm picking on you, but this was hard to ignore. We snark on dozens (hundreds?) of people here, and, as far as I remember, only Doug Phillips, exgayGreg, Steve Anderson, Kirk Cameron and David Waller get this particular kind of snark (sometimes adding people in whom they seem especially interested, like BRADRICK and Waller's friend Robert Staddon).

Correct me if I'm forgetting someone. Even if I'm forgetting a lot of people, can you see that it's not accurate to say that everyone who is despised gets that treatment?

And David, for all that he is a smarmy twit, has actually gotten a fair amount of sympathy in the "maybe he's gay" comments. In fact, Greg, Doug and Kirk have even gotten a bit. Steve -- well, it's hard to be sympathetic to the Pisser for any reason.

But I think a lot of us believe that not only they, but the world, might be better off if they'd been allowed to be whoever they really are, gay or straight. We say that about a lot of people being raised in Fundie hell, or choosing it, for lots of reasons besides their sexuality.

I have no idea if there have been people sitting back all along, thinking that snarking on self-righteous, possibly hypocritical people, in this particular way, was a sign of prejudice against gay men. They may think I am a horrible person.

But, believe me, I have not an ounce of bias against anyone due to their actual or possible sexuality. I would be willing to bet that's also true of everyone who has participated in those jokes.

Should it continue? I don't know. I'm definitely not from the "Waaa waaa waaa, I don't wanna be PC because I love my offensive jokes too much!" school, so I can give it up if need be.

But snarking on hypocrisy is something I want to do here, and that's the only reason I've snarked on the weird images of the Manly Men Who Hate Homosexuality, but present themselves as living stereotypes of what they claim to battle.

Curious, let me know if we should start another thread to discuss this -- don't want to distract from the original focus of this one, which was important.

[Idolatry]

I will never turn on TLC again. Every pair if eyeballs on them in a place that can have ads means more they can charge for ads. If you tune in, you're helping them make money on their bigotry. I think this is official proof TLC is an anti-gay station.

I'm not so sure I agree. Sister Wives and that Muslim in America show got horrible edits, and sometimes I think the Duggars are getting a terrible edit too.

The best outcome would be Breaking Duggar. That would be the highlight of ten years of TLC for me.

[Antimony]

This post by thoughtful summarizes how some of us, or maybe just her and I, feel about this. I also don't see how people are being homophobic.

viewtopic.php?f=67&t=17278#p556392

...Just because the person you're making fun of is more homophobic, doesn't make these comments less homophobic. They're still upholding a stereotype and mocking it, even if you apply to just one person.

I'm not a gay man but I am a queer woman. And I, yeah, kind of look like one. But if Michelle, somehow, cut her hair into a pixie cut, dyed it blue and started wearing combat boots and I saw comments mocking her for those things, that would be very personally hurtful because a lot of this is making fun of him for these things outside of the context of the beliefs (like this thread, which was not related to him at all and many comments on threads about their videos.) Especially about his voice, which isn't an aspect he could uphold or stop -- then it is really just mocking based on a stereotype.

Even if David were closeted and gay and homophobic, I don't think it'd be funny, I think it'd be very very very sad. I dislike this trope of "internalized homophobic is hilarious irony to be mocked" because it really perpetuates the hate and it's a flaw I see the queer community starting to recognize and starting to try to fix.

The Duggars and the Wallers, etc, are aggressively homophobic but I think this particular brand of snark could fall under the 'microagression' category or other tropes. It's easy overlooked even by people with good intentions but it builds up and can be very hurtful when tons of people do it but it doesn't make it something that is just a-okay, if that makes sense.

[Mama Mia]

...Just because the person you're making fun of is more homophobic, doesn't make these comments less homophobic. They're still upholding a stereotype and mocking it, even if you apply to just one person.

I'm not a gay man but I am a queer woman. And I, yeah, kind of look like one. But if Michelle, somehow, cut her hair into a pixie cut, dyed it blue and started wearing combat boots and I saw comments mocking her for those things, that would be very personally hurtful because a lot of this is making fun of him for these things outside of the context of the beliefs (like this thread, which was not related to him at all and many comments on threads about their videos.) Especially about his voice, which isn't an aspect he could uphold or stop -- then it is really just mocking based on a stereotype.

Even if David were closeted and gay and homophobic, I don't think it'd be funny, I think it'd be very very very sad. I dislike this trope of "internalized homophobic is hilarious irony to be mocked" because it really perpetuates the hate and it's a flaw I see the queer community starting to recognize and starting to try to fix.

The Duggars and the Wallers, etc, are aggressively homophobic but I think this particular brand of snark could fall under the 'microagression' category or other tropes. It's easy overlooked even by people with good intentions but it builds up and can be very hurtful when tons of people do it but it doesn't make it something that is just a-okay, if that makes sense.

I think you're absolutely right. Thank you for pointing it out, it made me think about how those kinds of jokes and assumptions would come across to someone who is homosexual.

I admit I do sometimes think these jokes are funny, there's a lot of offensive and completely non p.c. Stuff I think is hilarious. But that doesn't make it right. Especially when it's in the context of real people, and especially when the point is supposedly how un-enlightened/hateful they are.

The thing I am trying really hard to stop doing is to assume that someone who seems to fit the stereotype of a " flamboyant" ? " effeminate" ? (Those words look offensive too when I type them!) homosexual man is actually gay. Or that a particularly " butch" or "masculine" woman is a lesbian. It's kind of surprising how ingrained that thought process is - for me anyway.

I don't get, in general, the whole --" well, it's okay to say dishonest/shallow/ misleading judgements about them , because they're hypocrites" :think:

But in this case, I don't think it's even that, or that people are being anti-gay or homophobic or aggressive --- so much as that people are so used to assuming that people who "act gay" must be gay, that they don't realize that's an inaccurate - and insulting- mindset. I don't think people do it intentionally, or at least I don't think I do, but it's one of those things that's so ingrained that you don't realize it til it's pointed out.

So , tldr, thanks for pointing out the problems with those assumptions and jokes.

[DarkAnts]

One of my gay exmoromon friends was told that it was told that some men have strang urges but it was important to not act on them. I have even heard that it's ok to be gay in the church of you live the principle or are celibate.

[Peas n carrots]

I think the thing with David Waller is that he would be the first person in line to persecute gays, when in fact he comes across as a stereotypical gay man himself. I think it's the irony that many FJ'ers like to snark on, not so much the fact that he pings gaydars. Though the range of snark lies on a bell curve and isn't necessarily linear either.

I have a friend who comes off as very stereotypically gay - has effeminate mannerisms, lived for many years in San Francisco, loved Broadway musicals and loves fashion. Another mutual friend had a one night stand with him and confirmed he was really into women, and he just recently married a lovely lady. I have another friend who comes off as a stereotypical straight male - lots of flannel and cargo shorts, into football and beer. And also into men. So you can't really tell what's on the the inside of the box!

[Daenerys]

I have a friend who comes off as very stereotypically gay - has effeminate mannerisms, lived for many years in San Francisco, loved Broadway musicals and loves fashion. Another mutual friend had a one night stand with him and confirmed he was really into women, and he just recently married a lovely lady. I have another friend who comes off as a stereotypical straight male - lots of flannel and cargo shorts, into football and beer. And also into men. So you can't really tell what's on the the inside of the box!

I was informed at school that my Dad was 'totally gay' because his favourite novel is Pride and Prejudice. Never mind that he's been married to my mother for over 20 years...

[Mama Mia]

I think the thing with David Waller is that he would be the first person in line to persecute gays, when in fact he comes across as a stereotypical gay man himself. I think it's the irony that many FJ'ers like to snark on, not so much the fact that he pings gaydars. Though the range of snark lies on a bell curve and isn't necessarily linear either.

I have a friend who comes off as very stereotypically gay - has effeminate mannerisms, lived for many years in San Francisco, loved Broadway musicals and loves fashion. Another mutual friend had a one night stand with him and confirmed he was really into women, and he just recently married a lovely lady. I have another friend who comes off as a stereotypical straight male - lots of flannel and cargo shorts, into football and beer. And also into men. So you can't really tell what's on the the inside of the box!

I agree with your second paragraph. It's kind of strange that we all think we've gotten past the point where we'd be surprised if someone is straight who " seems" gay, or vice versa. But I guess these stereotypes must be pretty firmly entrenched. Or I guess I should only speak for myself -- my stereotypes are pretty strong. Primarily for the very stereotypical feminine seeming man. I'm not sure why that ones hard to let go of? I've had personal experiences ( co-workers, friends) who everyone ASSUMEd were gay, and were surprised they were straight.

The first paragraph though....I don't know, he's certainly said he's against marriage equality ( or at least the organization he works for is, so same thing) , and I assume is of the thinking it's a sin, " love the sinner, hate the sin" camp.

But he's actually showing less judgmental behavior than we are when we laugh at him for being so seeming so stereotypically gay male in his appearance, mannerisms, clothes, etc. He's not an idiot, he obviously knows what the culture says a macho " manly" straight man is supposed to look, dress and act like. But he's not going out of his way to change himself to be like that.

[nelliebelle1197]

Antimony, my first question to you is how combat boots and blue hair make you a lesbian stereotype. That is pretty much how my straight friends and I dressed in the 80s and 90s. I would likely look at that kind of look and think you were copying us and not terribly original and possibly a poser (and I am sure there were plenty of people from the 70s looking at us and thinking the same thing). The lesbians in my life right now are executives at international corporations, Episcopal priests, lawyers and social workers. One the fancy executives wears pastel suits and has bleach blonde hair. But guess what? People know she is a lesbian. It is just somehow obvious.

That's the thing- I think you are born gay and I just think it is obvious when someone is gay to people who have an ounce of awareness. It is no different than being born black or Asian. It is an inherent, unchangeable, indescribable THING about your youness, if that makes any sense. People are recognizing something in David Waller and Robert Staddon that sets off the alarm, probably more than any other fundies out there. It is absolutely true that most gay men are different than straight men in a million ways, some of which can be obvious- because they are NOT THE SAME AS STRAIGHT MEN - there is something biologically and chemically different in gay men and women because they were born gay. Why is it you can meet someone and usually know accurately most of the time whether they are gay or straight? Because that is who they are on a chemical level. It is not a choice; it is biology.

[thoughtful]

Since my old post was quoted, I do feel compelled to speak up.

I do not have any theories about the sexuality of David Waller or any other snarkee. The "he/she must be gay" stuff annoys me, in fact - nobody really knows what another person is feeling.

My astonishment at the behavior of David and Robert, Doug and Peter, etc., and the temptation to mock them, came entirely from the fact that they were presenting a stereotype that many anti-gay bigots would be quick to point out and condemn.

Since they are anti-gay bigots themselves, the irony was hard to ignore.

It's just something that, like wide stances and the combination of obsession and inaccuracies about Ye Olden Days, struck me as ridiculous about their lack of self-awareness.

[CallmeChaCha]

Come to think of it, I don’t think I have an opinion on DW’s sexual orientation, mostly because I don’t care. I don’t think I’ve watched many, if any, episodes of 19KaC when he’s on. I may have seen a video or two of his and I can say with certainty that I’ve side-eyed the way he expresses himself and I do think his behavior is strange (on all kinds of fronts). I don’t think many of us like stereotypes but some of us still assign them, unfortunately. In fact, I get PO’d when someone sees little ol’ me and thinks I can’t carry a “heavy†box. I don’t ask them why they think I can’t carry it but I assume it’s because I’m petite or because I’m a woman, or both. I mean, would these same men ever look at five-foot-nothing-tall men and ask to carry boxes for them? Probably not. Or am I just stereotyping some more myself? On some basic level, I do stereotype/judge when a man is even a little bit effeminate and I know I shouldn’t because I don’t want to buy into the whole “manly men with big, deep voices, raaawwr!†But when I look at people the likes of David Waller and know that he buys into the “women are meek servants, men are warriors†(or whatever) I can’t help but question his behavior. Why isn’t he trying harder to be manlier? That’s really shitty of me, I know, and if someone asked why I don’t act more like a lady, I would get all “Game of Thrones†on them. I realize the hypocrisy but then again I’m not going around promoting strict gender roles.

However, having said all that, after thinking that most comments about DW were (hopefully) not ill intended, I realized that it doesn’t matter how we intend to say something, it’s how others receive it that matters. I’ll be honest; I don’t give two shits if DW’s feelings get hurt because of the things we say. If that makes me a hateful person, so be it. Like Mama Mia, I didn’t realize it may be hurtful to LGBTQs.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Antimony, my first question to you is how combat boots and blue hair make you a lesbian stereotype. That is pretty much how my straight friends and I dressed in the 80s and 90s. I would likely look at that kind of look and think you were copying us and not terribly original and possibly a poser (and I am sure there were plenty of people from the 70s looking at us and thinking the same thing). The lesbians in my life right now are executives at international corporations, Episcopal priests, lawyers and social workers. One the fancy executives wears pastel suits and has bleach blonde hair. But guess what? People know she is a lesbian. It is just somehow obvious.

That's the thing- I think you are born gay and I just think it is obvious when someone is gay to people who have an ounce of awareness. It is no different than being born black or Asian. It is an inherent, unchangeable, indescribable THING about your youness, if that makes any sense. People are recognizing something in David Waller and Robert Staddon that sets off the alarm, probably more than any other fundies out there. It is absolutely true that most gay men are different than straight men in a million ways, some of which can be obvious- because they are NOT THE SAME AS STRAIGHT MEN - there is something biologically and chemically different in gay men and women because they were born gay. Why is it you can meet someone and usually know accurately most of the time whether they are gay or straight? Because that is who they are on a chemical level. It is not a choice; it is biology.

What did I just read??

I'll agree that sexual orientation is too firmly established to be considered a mere choice.

I'm shaking my head, though, at the idea that gays are somehow different "on a chemical level". It makes it sound like like you can just dip someone in a test tube and label them. It's quite possible that hormones play a role, but nobody has identified any particular gene or biochemical marker that makes someone gay. It's how some people are, and we don't need to reduce it to a physical difference.

I'm also shaking my head at the notion that every gay or lesbian person is easily identified. In my experience, that depends entirely on whether or not they are in the closet. I suppose it's possible that my sister didn't have an ounce of awareness when her boyfriend turned out to be gay, but we had no idea either. She did tend to know first whether someone was gay after that - but it was generally because the old boyfriend had direct knowledge (they stayed good friends).

As for unfortunate 1980s fashions - many of them were deliberately androgynous and pretty much copied gay fashion trends. Says the girl who owned an oversized Wham t-shirt, wanted to dress like Boy George and dated a guy with a New Wave mullet who used more beauty products than I did. Here's a musical interlude:

[nelliebelle1197]

What did I just read??

I'll agree that sexual orientation is too firmly established to be considered a mere choice.

I'm shaking my head, though, at the idea that gays are somehow different "on a chemical level". It makes it sound like like you can just dip someone in a test tube and label them. It's quite possible that hormones play a role, but nobody has identified any particular gene or biochemical marker that makes someone gay. It's how some people are, and we don't need to reduce it to a physical difference.

I'm also shaking my head at the notion that every gay or lesbian person is easily identified. In my experience, that depends entirely on whether or not they are in the closet. I suppose it's possible that my sister didn't have an ounce of awareness when her boyfriend turned out to be gay, but we had no idea either. She did tend to know first whether someone was gay after that - but it was generally because the old boyfriend had direct knowledge (they stayed good friends).

As for unfortunate 1980s fashions - many of them were deliberately androgynous and pretty much copied gay fashion trends. Says the girl who owned an oversized Wham t-shirt, wanted to dress like Boy George and dated a guy with a New Wave mullet who used more beauty products than I did. Here's a musical interlude:

You are right- I did a terrible job of explaining myself. I guess I just really feel that people are born gay (or on a spectrum) and it is just simply part of what they are. Your point about being out of the closet is probably right. I am having a super sensitive gay rights day (half of a gay couple with whom I have been friends for 20 years died unexpectedly last night and the surviving partner is a wreck. I have spent all day working on notifications and it drained me. Also, found out a client is being forced out of the home he shared with his partner for 17 years after said partner died because partner's hateful, homophobic family is evicting him despite the fact he paid half the mortgage. Client threatening to throw away his HIV drugs and die because he lost everything this week and likely has no legal recourse because his name was not on anything. Hateful family is trying to steal his stuff).

Note to self: do not post on emotional topics during an emotional time because what sounds like it might be a DEEP THOUGHT makes no sense. :embarrassed: