Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-k
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:Pucc-I:Pucc-K:ag5
From: ag5@pucc-k (I'm so happy)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: What, no comments on "Consenting Adult"?
Message-ID: <922@pucc-k>
Date: Sun, 10-Feb-85 12:51:49 EST
Article-I.D.: pucc-k.922
Posted: Sun Feb 10 12:51:49 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Feb-85 06:17:34 EST
References: <1308@bbncca.ARPA>
Organization: The Neutron Dance
Lines: 66

<>

>It was wildly erratic in its handling of gay sexuality, from the nadir
>of the kid's (whatshisname?) "first experience" cruising a guy in the
>diner and then accepting a "ride home", a scene filmed in an almost
>comically unsavory Rechyesque manner, to the apotheosis of a squeaky-clean
>relationship between the kid and an equally blond, WASPy student with
>straight, white teeth.  

	I agree here ... Jeff (whatshisname!) went from "Am I?" to "I am"
to married in what seemed like minutes ... I should be so fortunate!
But then again, this film isn't about Jeff and his relationship; it's
about how his family and friends deal with his homosexuality.

	BTW, the fact that Jeff and his SO are kinda WASPy seems to be a 
*positive* aspect of the film.  People have these wonderful images of us 
as pink and purple swishes with broken pumps.  Jeff and his lover kinda 
stepped on that image.

>			Sex?  They might as well be angels, so incorporeal
>their relationship.  This must be safe-sex in the 80's.  I'm not looking
>for extended petting scenes, of course, but it would be nice if TV could
>show casual affection between two men without aiming for either of these
>extremes.

	What *exactly* are you looking for here?  Considering that this
*is* a touchy subject for many people, I wasn't expecting more than some
hand-holding and the like ...

>What's more, everyone's reactions seemed slightly out of kilter, as if
>we were looking at the 60's set in the eighties.  "Mom, I'm a ho-mo-sex-u-al"
>just doesn't seem to ring true these days.  Also, while I can grant that
>some gay teenagers are still isolated and alone, if this movie purports
>to present what is reality for most gay young people (and let's face it:
>TV movies aren't serious art, they are latter-day miracle plays), it would
>have been much more realistic to show him investigating his local campus
>rap group, maybe reading some local gay newspapers, to establish a better
>self-definition before coming out to his parents.

	You're forgetting here that he *thought* he wanted to change,
which is why he told his mom.  Remember that she arranged for a psycholo-
gist on his behalf (indeed, that first scene with his mom and the psycho-
logist was interesting; the doctor did present the facts behind "curing"
homosexuality in a no-nonsense way).  It's entirely possible that there
was *no* local campus rap group (as there wasn't around here until recently),
that there were no local gay papers (there are none here in West Loserville)
and the like ... (Gee, maybe I *did* see him at a party last night!  :->)

	I feel very strongly that, while many of Steve's criticisms 
of this movie were valid, he is looking at it from the wrong viewpoint.
He seems to believe that this movie is meant for a audience composed of
both gays and straights ... it seems to me that the movie was definitely
meant for straights as a step toward better understanding of their gay
peers.  

	At least in this part of the world, the showing of the movie itself
was a miracle; I expected some local redneck folk  would find their way to the local station management
and have them replace that showing with something else ...

-- 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Henry C. Mensch |  User Confuser  | Purdue University User Services
{ihnp4|decvax|icalqa|purdue|uiucdcs|cbosgd|harpo}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
                 "Hope is the thing with feathers."