Imagine a world where "gay" is the norm and "straight" the deviation from the norm...

[mjr]

To be perfectly honest, I am a little puzzled as to why you're even here. It just seems strange to be criticizing a film that you haven't watched.

I have to wonder how many others on this thread who are commenting on the film have actually watched it.

I actually think of it as a reversal, like most everything else in this film. Just as people who oppose LGBT rights in the real world do so on religious grounds, so too do those who oppose heterosexual rights in this alternate world. Their religious texts are simply the opposite of ours, at least in this one regard.

No, based upon your comments, it appears to me that you view it as a partial reversal. Because by it's very nature, you have to reverse the percentages. And so what is "normal" for heterosexuals would be "normal" for homosexuals in the film. Would it not?

If it actually matters for me to say this, I happen to be a devoted Catholic myself, and if I felt that this film was disrespectful to my faith, I would never have shared it.

I'm a protestant myself, not that it has to do with anything.

No, you have to make assumptions, because you didn't watch the film and didn't seem to know what it was about. So you basically had to guess.

I made a pretty good guess, based on the title. And I was pretty much right.

Your assumption was that the film took the real world and simply reversed all of the existing population's sexual orientations. Meaning that a person in real life who is part of the straight majority would become part of the gay majority in this alternate world.

Is that the case? Are gays not an overwhelming majority in the film? Is it not logical (hint: it is) to assume that if a person is straight in this world they would be gay in the alternate world? Therefore, my premise there stands.

The alternate reality of this film is a fictional world, populated by fictional people.

As are most television shows and movies.

They are not, and were never presented to be, counterparts to actual people in the real world. For example, the protagonist of the film, Ashley Curtis, is a fictional character. Her experiences are based on real-life stories, but there's no actual "real" Ashley Curtis.

They don't have to be counterparts. And I never implied that they were.

It asks straight people to imagine themselves as themselves, as straight people, and in the persecuted minority, in this alternate world.

But see, that makes no sense. That's like me telling all right-handed people to imagine themselves as being left-handed (as I am).

any more than the idea that this society wouldn't be biologically viable was anything more than a minor side issue.

I disagree. It's not "a minor side issue". Consider: If the straights in the film aren't allowed to sleep with each other (as I'm given to understand) and the gays won't sleep with members of the opposite sex (a possibility which HAS been pointed out), then yes, it would cause a viability issue.


And how exactly would you know that the ideas are superficial and false?

all the while totally ignoring the substance of the film.

No, I'm just not buying it as I understand it's presented.

[NecCat]

But see, that makes no sense. That's like me telling all right-handed people to imagine themselves as being left-handed (as I am).

No, based on the content of the movie, it's actually like you asking all the right handed people to imagine a world where all the tools and equipment are designed for left handed people. To imagine knowing that they have a higher than normal rate of death due to accident, based on attempting to interact with the world the way it would be if they choose to buy into your premise. To imagine having difficulty doing tasks deemed simple by all their peers, and to imagine spending years being judged on their ability to do a necessary simple task (writing) while being hindered as much as possible.

This movie is a thought exercise, one with a goal of trying to really make the viewer understand what someone else's life is like. The fact that you refuse to participate in the exercise doesn't make it a bad one.

No, based upon your comments, it appears to me that you view it as a partial reversal. Because by it's very nature, you have to reverse the percentages. And so what is "normal" for heterosexuals would be "normal" for homosexuals in the film. Would it not?

No, I'm just not buying it as I understand it's presented.

You're trying to argue against something that actually exists by imagining something different exists then claiming the real thing isn't effective or useful because the thing you imagine is neither. It may be a bad exercise, but there is no way for you to be considered credible saying why you think so unless you either experience the exercise and have informed reasons for thinking so, or are willing to accept the explanation of others who have experienced it.

The film was asking people to imagine walking in somebody else's shoes. It was asking straight people to think about what it would be like to be persecuted for their desire to love somebody of the opposite sex, by a gay majority. To try to understand what it's like for those who are gay and lesbian in the real world.

Imagine, as a straight person, being in a world where you were only allowed to have a relationship with somebody of the same gender. Imagine being forced to hide any feelings you have for a member of the opposite sex, being unable to act on the love you have for them without being persecuted, harassed, threatened, assaulted ... I had, of course, heard this argument before, and I had always agreed with it, but it wasn't until I actually saw it playing out (albeit in a dramatized form), witnessing an innocent girl being condemned just for wanting to be with the boy she likes, that I really started to understand. Even now, I cannot claim to really know what same-sex couples must endure, having never experienced it myself.

The experience has been clearly explained but you choose to decide against all available proof - understanding the movie as presented by others or experiencing it yourself - that this movie is somehow going to try to instill in you the experience of being in a majority section of an impossible alternate reality population.

In answer to your question about how many people have seen the movie, I can only speak for myself, but I have only seen some of it. I had to stop watching, I have a bit of an issue with suicidal ideas and decided that I was not ready to experience the end of it. Therefor I won't bother telling anyone my opinion on the end as I imagine it will be.

[mjr]

This movie is a thought exercise, one with a goal of trying to really make the viewer understand what someone else's life is like. The fact that you refuse to participate in the exercise doesn't make it a bad one.

Am I "refusing to participate" because my participation in this "thought exercise" presents a different result than the one that is "expected"?

I'm participating, just in a different way. The whole purpose of a "thought experiment" or "thought exercise" is to, you know, get people to think.

[NecCat]

Am I "refusing to participate" because my participation in this "thought exercise" presents a different result than the one that is "expected"?

Yes. You are participating in a thought exercise of your own invention. Not THIS thought exercise, the one that is experienced through the movie being discussed.

[mjr]

Yes. You are participating in a thought exercise of your own invention. Not THIS thought exercise, the one that is experienced through the movie being discussed.

To discuss a movie, the movie must first be viewed.

To my knowledge, most of the people commenting on this thread haven't viewed it.

I'm commenting on the premise, not the movie itself.

[Kheldarson]

To discuss a movie, the movie must first be viewed.

To my knowledge, most of the people commenting on this thread haven't viewed it.

I'm commenting on the premise, not the movie itself.

One) how do you know?

Two) the premise doesn't matter, particularly in the way you're arguing. In spec fic, you have to accept the premise, the conceit, in order to look at what the author/director is really trying to say. So when we look at a work like The Handmaid's Tale or this movie or even Star Trek where part of the premise is extreme in the face of science or human nature, you roll with it to see what the author will do with it to express human nature.

So it doesn't matter if the human race would have difficulty surviving, we have a movie that's trying to encourage empathy. It doesn't matter if we're exchanging one majority of bigots for another, it's proving a point about bullying.

Tl;dr summary: Quit trying to change the goalposts by poking holes in the premise. All fiction relies on the suspension of disbelief at some point.

[Greenday]

I'm commenting on the premise, not the movie itself.

Well, the problem is that's not the point of this thread.

[Anthony K. S.]

I think I'm finally understanding what you're getting it.

I commend you for your patience, Canarr.

But, honestly, why should it have been up to us to figure out just what the heck was the point that mjr was trying to make?

A lot of the confusion and frustration on the first three pages of this thread could have been avoided if mjr had simply explained himself clearly in his first comment, instead of posting a series of vague statements and expecting us to just know what he was talking about.

Not that it's all that much better now.

You're saying that the movie, aside from its intended message of, "Hey, you heteros! Stop oppressing gays - see here how that might be for you!", an unintended second message could be construed from the movie: "Hey, you gays! Stop complaining about being oppressed by the heteros - see here how you wouldn't do any better than us in our place!" Unfortunately, I can actually see people making that kind of argument.

That wouldn't have worked, anyway.

By that logic, no oppressed group (blacks, Jews, women, the poor, the disabled, etc.) would ever be allowed to complain or fight for their rights.

Power can corrupt anybody. But even if an oppressed group would be just as corrupted if they were the dominant group, I think that society in general would understand that it's still wrong to deprive them of their rights.

I have to wonder how many others on this thread who are commenting on the film have actually watched it.

Where did this come from?

Just because you didn't watch the film, you assume that nobody else did, either? Or, perhaps, since they are disagreeing with you, you assume that they must be at least as lacking in knowledge as you are?

I think that at least three people on this thread have actually stated that they watched most or all of the film. Several others didn't say one way or the other, perhaps because it didn't seem necessary, since it's usually understood that you watch a film before discussing it. For my own part, I didn't even realize that you hadn't watched it until you explicitly said so.

I made a pretty good guess, based on the title.

Based on the title ... ?

You know, when I asked you if you had read Lindsay's OP, or done anything beyond reading the title of the thread ... I was actually kind of expecting you to refute what I was suggesting. But, seriously, you really didn't bother to read the OP or do anything other than read the title of the thread?

And I was pretty much right.

Only inside your own head.

Is it not logical (hint: it is) to assume that if a person is straight in this world they would be gay in the alternate world?

I don't understand why you're being so rigid on this.

Your thought process seems to be that the ONLY way to envision this alternate world would be to take everybody in the real world and reverse their sexual orientations from straight to gay and gay to straight.

As opposed to, say, just picturing a fictional world filled with fictional people, and imagining that you are a person in it.

But see, that makes no sense.

What part of it doesn't make sense to you?

I watch the film.
I see Ashley being insulted, ridiculed, and bullied.
I see her, and the boy she likes, forced to hide their relationship.
I see Ashley betrayed by her boyfriend, threatened by his brother and several other students, and beaten up.
I see Ashley driven to such despair that she commits suicide.
I feel for her.
I also imagine myself in this alternate world, forced to hide my own feelings for a girl I like, forced to hide our relationship, and being treated as horribly as Ashley is.
I understand how awful it would be, and I feel more empathy for gay, lesbian, and bisexual people in real life.

What part of this, exactly, am I supposed to be confused by?

You are participating in a thought exercise of your own invention. Not THIS thought exercise, the one that is experienced through the movie being discussed.

I think you hit the nail on the head, NecCat, in both of your posts.

Mjr has basically re-invented this whole thing, and is now dismissing the actual film because of his criticisms of his re-invented version.

To discuss a movie, the movie must first be viewed.

... Really? You don't say.

To my knowledge, most of the people commenting on this thread haven't viewed it.

I think now you're just embarrassing yourself.

I'm commenting on the premise, not the movie itself.

See, that's interesting, because earlier you said :

The point is they're both superficial, false (almost strawman) arguments, with no real substance behind them.

But if the ideas behind it are superficial and false, then the "discussion" itself becomes superficial, does it not?

What you're doing is dismissing the movie based on your criticisms of the premise. Which brings us to :

the premise doesn't matter, particularly in the way you're arguing. In spec fic, you have to accept the premise, the conceit, in order to look at what the author/director is really trying to say.
So it doesn't matter if the human race would have difficulty surviving, we have a movie that's trying to encourage empathy. It doesn't matter if we're exchanging one majority of bigots for another, it's proving a point about bullying.

Kheldarson, you have hit the nail on the head as well. Mjr is dismissing the film because of two issues (one of which I think is purely imagined on his part) that have nothing to do with what the film is really about.

Well, the problem is that's not the point of this thread.

Well, in all fairness, he didn't read the thread, so how was he to know?

[Lindsay B.]

Are gays not an overwhelming majority in the film? Is it not logical (hint: it is) to assume that if a person is straight in this world they would be gay in the alternate world? Therefore, my premise there stands.

Sigh ... Let me try approaching this in a different way. Mjr, have ever watched Star Trek? They sometimes did these episodes depicting "parallel universes." One, in particular, was a "mirror universe" in which all of the characters had the exact opposite personalities from their "mainstream universe" counterparts.

Now, imagine that there's a parallel universe, co-existing with ours, in which homosexuality is the norm, and heterosexuality is the exception. And let's say you're right, mjr, and by the nature of these two universes, every straight person in one has a gay counterpart in the other, and vice versa.

(Honestly, everybody, I don't know why I'm humoring him. Just bear with me.)

That is the alternate reality depicted in "Love Is All You Need?" And in this alternate world, gays are dominant in society, and heterosexuals are viewed as abnormal and are persecuted. Now, mjr, imagine that you are, well, you, a straight person, in our reality, with a gay counterpart in the other reality. Consider what would happen if, when you were a baby, you somehow switched places with your counterpart in that other world.

... I don't know how. Some sort of strange interdimensional spatial anomaly that, by a freak chance, only happened to envelop the two particular spots that you and your counterpart were located in.

You would have no idea that anything had happened. You would simply grow up, a straight person, in this alternate world, and you would be persecuted for being straight.

That's how you could imagine yourself being in this situation, as a straight person in this alternate reality.

[mjr]

Sigh ... Let me try approaching this in a different way. Mjr, have ever watched Star Trek? They sometimes did these episodes depicting "parallel universes." One, in particular, was a "mirror universe" in which all of the characters had the exact opposite personalities from their "mainstream universe" counterparts.

Now, imagine that there's a parallel universe, co-existing with ours, in which homosexuality is the norm, and heterosexuality is the exception. And let's say you're right, mjr, and by the nature of these two universes, every straight person in one has a gay counterpart in the other, and vice versa.

(Honestly, everybody, I don't know why I'm humoring him. Just bear with me.)

That is the alternate reality depicted in "Love Is All You Need?" And in this alternate world, gays are dominant in society, and heterosexuals are viewed as abnormal and are persecuted. Now, mjr, imagine that you are, well, you, a straight person, in our reality, with a gay counterpart in the other reality. Consider what would happen if, when you were a baby, you somehow switched places with your counterpart in that other world.

... I don't know how. Some sort of strange interdimensional spatial anomaly that, by a freak chance, only happened to envelop the two particular spots that you and your counterpart were located in.

You would have no idea that anything had happened. You would simply grow up, a straight person, in this alternate world, and you would be persecuted for being straight.

That's how you could imagine yourself being in this situation, as a straight person in this alternate reality.

The irony here is that I'm being asked to have an open mind...

[NecCat]

The irony here is that I'm being asked to have an open mind...

When? By whom? How? I'm not seeing any irony.

I could be wrong but it seems to me like your sticking point here is this exact movie. It sounds like you don't object to watching movies, just this one for some reason. So lets see how this is coming across:

Lets think if *Lindsay started a thread with a title 'Imagine if penguins could dance', posted a thought about the movie Happy Feet, saying she likes the message that you can be yourself and you will find your own special happy place in the world. Then Anthony added his thought that the message of the movie was also about self esteem and believing in yourself when other people thought you were wrong. Then mathnerd comes along and says she thinks that he might have been happier if he had tried to sing, he could have adapted to the way society was without trying to change things.

Then along comes mjr and says he didn't watch the movie or read the thread because he cant believe penguins can really dance. If anyone tries to point out why they don't understand how his comment is relevant to the discussion happening he insists that he won't watch the movie because penguins centre of gravity is too low to the ground to dance, and even if they did dance they wouldn't tap, their movement is side to side so they would belly dance. So obviously everyone else's opinions on whether the movie was good, was effective at delivering on a message, or was even a worthwhile project is wrong. 'Cause penguins don't dance.

And somehow the people who want to discuss Happy Feet are ironically close minded while wanting you to have an open mind. In some way. I'm sure hoping you'll explain what way.


(*I've just used peoples names as examples. I have no idea how any other people feel about the movie Happy Feet. I have no idea if anyone else has watched it. Please don't come at me about Happy Feet )

[Ginger Tea]

The Mirror universe analogy would work better if You, I, mjr (keep on typing that is Mr J I blame Harley Quinn) found ourselves in the universe much as Trek did and sliders.

Growing up I may adhere to the norm, who's to say, I grew up in this universe.

Entering another world and being hit on by guys and turned down with repulsion by women you really get the idea that you are different.



I am not sure what tools are incompatible with left handed people (even before left handed scissors became a thing).

The guy I knew who was left handed wrote at a 90 degree angle and had way better handwriting than me, I clearly am not better for being a part of the majority.

Left handed mice used to be an issue as it took Win 95 accessibility options to add in things we take for granted and I assume swapping the buttons over was one such toggle.

ST/Amiga and early PC mice were symmetrical and it wasn't until the onset of ergonomic design did left handed mice users get left in the cold. The last few mice i have had could be used in any hand.

For me as a right handed person who doesn't know what items are a pain to use in the left hand only see one left hand verses right being an issue and that's left handed drive cars on UK roads, i was a passenger in one and the driver was going to pull out behind a bus and i had a clear view of on comming traffic and saw it was a bad idea.

But hey I'm in the UK Right hand drive would be an issue 99% of the world.



Speculative fiction (and fiction in general) requires suspension of disbelief i am not disputing this, but some times you get a synopses that is a bit too outlandish (not that i am saying this one is) and it takes you out of the story.

I can't remember if i said this or if it was a deleted post, but I just couldn't buy the world "In Time" worked in, yes it was an allegory to the rich/poor divide, in this universe the Rich become immortal and the poor can no longer have free time as they are literally killing themselves having a lie in.

This is something that mankind did to itself, it wasn't an AU where it had always been there, nor was it an alien test facility. TBH I would have bought the premise had the movie ended with a pan out to an undiscovered alien overseer, or the nation was isolated just as the clones on the island.

But IIR there was a voice over saying at some point mankind genetically altered themselves to never age at the cost of turning hours into currency.



I had to google the "you can start in my brother and finish in me" woman and she was a GoT character, so it's not a quote of a real life beard.

Yes gay men have had sex and fathered children in the past, but most of these people did so under the pretense of heterosexuality as at the time their career would have been ruined had they been gay (just look what happened to Alan Turing, instead of being a war hero he lost a lot eventually his life).

Had we been progressive and seen gay rights at the same time as the suffragette movement, these children of closeted couples would never have been born.

There still might have been a delay in gay characters in movies, but gay actors would not have to have sham marriages to keep working in Hollywood.

So breeding only to keep the population alive i can buy, what i cant buy is the global population we have now, so long as it doesn't try and depict Manhattan as a hugely populated metropolis but instead thins out the numbers by what ever statistical method works best.*



Speaking of which, that Rapture TV show, never saw it, but loosing 10% of the population didn't seem worth falling into despair over, yes the rapture happened, but society collapsing due to missing 10 employees in a 100 workforce?

Y the last man's society came close to the brink many times and there was only two biological males on the whole damn planet.

Had the rapture left 10% however, i would buy the panic and everything lock stock.

Maybe it's because i might not know anyone of the 10% missing.

EDIT: * 20th Century gave us IVF and this could have been made sooner as it was a need to be filled, but even if it did come out at the same time as our universe, I am not sold on the idea we would have the population we had before its invention, nor the global birth rate uptick to get us there.

[mjr]

I am not sure what tools are incompatible with left handed people (even before left handed scissors became a thing).

Circular saws, for one. Most instruments are designed for right-handers. Heck, even up to a few years ago, to my knowledge, high end kitchen knives were "right handed".

And if you really think about it, even sockets and wrenches (spanners for those across the pond) are right-handed. Look how they're angled and how you have to turn them.

Can openers are "right handed". Most left handers (I'm an exception here) want to turn the crank with their left hand.

Some school desks are "right handed". This one, for instance: http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumbla...27581H6Db5.jpg

Left-handedness has been frowned upon in most cultures throughout mankind's history.

[mjr]

When? By whom? How? I'm not seeing any irony.

It's not verbatim, but just about everyone who has posted a counter to my position.

I'm supposed to have whatever "consensus" opinion, I guess.

[Ginger Tea]

We don't get those desks in the UK, least I've never seen one outside of American TV.

Can openers, god when was the last time I used one of those? Even pet food is ring pull now. Yes I get that before then that type of can opener would be an issue, but I have an old pocket knife can opener for when life isn't as simple.



My brother is colour blind, but I always forget this fact as it's never been an issue and he had a job working with wiring FFS.

There are 3 or so variants of colour blindness, I just assumed there to be only one but it was TotalBiscuit bringing it up in CoD or BF option menus that informed me that it wasn't the case.

When I see a colour I have no idea what he sees, I only have my own eyes to see the world through (and who knows maybe we all see the same shape differently but as people around me share the same language to describe it so I take it for granted that when you say square you are indeed looking at the same square I am looking at).

I have a book called the pig that wanted to be eaten, full of thought exercises and the perception of colour came up more than once, but because we are taught that the sky is blue I just assume you see blue, if I were to see through your eyes and see a green sky, I would be seen in the wrong for saying the sky is green.

My old phone did something similar, it mirrored the image and swapped the red and blue values, so greys were the same, had this been someone else's vision, they would call blue red, red blue, because those are the words they were taught to call them RGB values would still be the same but perceived differently and not at the same time.



We call lunch lunch, we don't call it dinosaur, but if you found yourself in that twilight zone/outer limits episode where words changed meanings, you would eventually loose the ability to read write and speak English in this world, but to yourself you make perfect sense.
But "Alphabet Quantum Dinosaur" being an invitation to lunch?



EDIT: Watching the movie I would be the outsider, the Heterosexual in a world of Homosexuality, but if i grew up in this AU, I would probably be gay as I am exposed to it in daily life as after all

I was born in a cross fire hurricane, I was raised by two lesbians? Speak English Mick."

so me being A in this universe doesn't equate to me being A in the other.

Just the title alone can be twisted to "Imagine a world where England is in France and France is in England and they speak the others language." Geographically it is still England, but we refer to it and the surrounding parts of Great Britain by the French names. World history is the same, Americans speak French, English is the 2nd language of Canada and New Orleans has a more British name.

So I an Englishman born in England would be a Frenchman born in France in this AU, same geographical location just the name of the country and language used has changed.

So I would grow up exposed to French speaking parents friends family and school, I wouldn't be some quirk of fate that ends up being the only English speaking child, so its more than likely i would be exposed to the more natural lifestyle choices of homosexuality growing up.