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

[Jester]

First of all, thank you to LewisLegion for reminding me of this fantastic short film from four years ago. I remember watching it then and being moved deeply, enough where, at the time, I watched it again immediately. And even being familiar with the film from my viewings in 2011, I felt the need to watch it again today, not just to be better able to discuss it here, but because it was simply worth watching. Any of you who have not watched it, I highly recommend that you do so.

The idea of the movie is clearly to show people who are in the social majority what it is like to be in the minority. For me, that meant picturing myself, as a straight man, but in a society where my heterosexuality is not the norm, and is in fact a trait that would cause me to be ostracized, bullied, made fun of, beat up, assaulted, legislated against, and potentially even tortured and/or killed.

To put that in perspective, I thought about the great loves of my life. The Enchantress. Blondie. The Brit. Nurse Betty. Lily.* These women, and others, meant a lot to me when I was involved with them. They still do. For different reasons. From different times. And in different ways, they taught me about love, about life, and about myself. Arguably, I would not be the man I am today without them. And I treasure my memories of them individually, and of us as couples. Anyone who knew me when I was involved with any of these women would have no doubt that I loved them deeply, and cared for them with all my heart. I am, after all, not known for being subtle.

And the idea that I would have to hide my feelings for these women, that I would have to hide my relationships with them, that I might have been denied those relationships, that they would have been the object of scorn and ridicule and opposing legislation and violence....this makes me angry. Very fucking angry. Because of what these women and these relationships have meant to me. And because of the fact that I couldn't change that, even if I wanted to, even if my family and friends and society all agreed I should. Because it is who and what I am.

And when I put myself in that frame of mind, perhaps for the first time in my life I was truly able to understand, as much as I ever could, what it was like to be gay or lesbian in this world, in this society.

That was pretty much the point of the film. It was its very essence. To take you, as you are, in your life now, and put you in the shoes and--more importantly--the hearts of people you will never actually know what it's like to be.

If you choose not to watch the film, that is your right. But to do so and then attempt to comment on it, on its premise, on its themes, on its points, seems willfully ignorant. I don't debate my mechanic on issues with my truck because I don't know a damn thing about automotive repair, and he has 30 years experience in the field. Had I educated myself over the years, had I stuck my head under the hood when my stepbrother and stepfather were working on vehicles, perhaps I could have learned enough to have such a debate with my mechanic. "Roy, are you sure it's the alternator, and not the crankshaft?" Those of you with any degree of mechanical knowledge probably giggled at that hypothetical quote, and even with my limited knowledge, I know it's ridiculous, as no one with any knowledge of cars could confuse one with the other. But to have an argument with almost no knowledge of the subject matter seems silly and futile to me, and opens oneself up to fair criticism.

mjr, you have chosen not to watch the movie. You have also chosen to nitpick at various items you view as plot holes, or unrealistic. Do you watch X-Men like this? Spider-Man? Lord of the Rings? Star Wars? Or do you accept the fact that certain aspects of these movies are going to be unrealistic in our world, and that these films, and others, have bigger stories to tell?

Yes, there are unrealistic aspects to the premise. I will not disagree with you. But I ask you, so what? The premise is not "off limits," as you suggest others have made it. It just isn't the point, of the film itself or of the discussion thread herein of the film. The point of the film, as has been stated repeatedly, was not for you to imagine yourself in this other world to see if it was realistic or tenable, but for you to imagine yourself, as yourself, in this other world so that you can understand what other people in this world go through every single day of their lives.

I won't tell you your position is wrong, as I don't know what your position IS. You haven't stated it. Not on the bigger picture issue here, the idea of picturing yourself being treated as homosexuals regularly are in our society, as the ostracized outcasts and discriminated-against minority. All you've done is complain about the unrealism of the premise. This is the equivalent of watching Blazing Saddles and declaring it unrealistic, as "there were no black sheriffs in the Old West."

Pro tip - this forum tends to lean liberal, gay-accepting and open-minded. If you can't handle being in the minority and having to defend your arguments, play somewhere else.

The irony to me is that the whole point of the film was to picture oneself in the minority, a point that seems to have been lost on mjr.


*These are the pseudonyms I've assigned to them in CS.com. I was originally going to use their real names, but chose not to. Then I was going to use different pseudonyms, but that didn't seem right to me. As if I was somehow denying what they meant to me. I could not do that. And while that seems like a minor detail perhaps not even worth of mention, it actually is very much appropriate to the larger point of this movie and this thread, if you think about it. At least it was to me.

[LewisLegion]

I want to start out with a few points, some for those that don't know me as my login name can be misleading:

1-I am a cisgender woman.

2-I am openly gay.

3-I have watched the entirety of the movie in question, as have several of my friends.

Ok, that said, here's my actual comment:

In watching this movie, and any other, yes, there is a necessary suspension of disbelief. You can poke holes in any movie, real or fictional, if you look hard enough. Would a population and culture like that in the movie actually be viable/survivable/etc? Personally, I think yes. When I heard the mention of breeding season, I just assumed that human beings in THIS reality had evolved along the same lines as quite a lot of animans- that is, when procreation becomes necessary, they have a particular time of year when mature females go into 'heat' and mate solely for the purpose of procreation. And if humans in the film evolved along the same lines, then the rest of it clicks together just fine.

If human beings in this world have a set breeding season, wherein the females go into a sort of 'heat' (which usually comes with a strong desire to mate and is the only time they are actually fertile) and wherein males are hormonally drawn to this, then mating for the purposes of reproduction between opposite sex partners becomes a simple issue, even if those partners are gay. They simply have a very strong hormonal reaction during a certain time of the year that insures both are able to perform with one another for reproduction.

Outside of that purely hormonal drive during that season, the genders retain affectionate, pair-bonding and romantic attachments only to members of their same gender (usually) with a minority that has such an attachment to members of the opposite gender.

Sex in human beings serves more than just procreation. People are social animals and have sex to make and reinforce bonds, for pleasure, and other reasons than just 'babies'. This flavor of human being in this AU of the film merely have their sex drives separated out more strictly due to having evolved with a specific season in which they are fertile (as opposed to being fertile all year round). Thus, they are driven to mate by hormones for reproduction only during a certain time of year, and the rest of they year they indulge in the OTHER aspects of sex- pair-bonding, romance, pleasure, etc. generally with individuals of the same sex. Being civilized, women are not forced to mate and have children if they don't want them, and they are still allowed to select whom they will mate with to father their children. Perhaps there are birth control medications that can be taken to halt or regulate raging hormones during the breeding season. Perhaps even the men can take a medication that reduces their reaction to a female 'in heat'. Or perhaps there are religious and ceremonial segregation rituals that isolate females in heat or that surround the mating. One could imagine all sorts of cultural, religious, secular, and imaginative ways that such a society could function in a civilized manner- and function well.

In this AU it is most likely the women pair-bonds who raise the children just because of this evolutionary tack, but it may be that the male pair-bonds are known to adopt and raise children as well. This is not terribly common but allowed and winked at, though there may be Phelps types organizations out there yelling that 'children are entitled to be raised by mothers' and that 'children who are raised by mothers do better than those raised by fathers' and 'it is against the natural order for men to raise children, it damages them', etc.

Regardless, that entire bit is a sideline to the movie at best, and certainly not the POINT of it. The movie wasn't made to see how such a society would evolve and or function, the movie was made so that people could see things from a different perspective and perhaps gain a greater understanding and empathy for other human beings.

I can say that neither I, nor anyone else I spoke with that watched this movie, based their experience of it on their status as a majority or a minority but rather instead their status as gay or straight.

That is, we didn't watch the movie and say 'well, I'm a minority/majority in the real world, thus in this fantasy world I would be a minority/majority too, even if my orientation is reversed to make that happen'.

We did watch the movie and think 'well, I'm gay/straight in this world, thus I would be gay/straight in that, and face what the gay/straight people in the movie are facing.'

That is, I'm gay in the real world. In my imagining of that fantasy AU world, I was STILL GAY. I was STILL ME. However, because of that, I was in the majority of that world, a world where I was the accepted norm, would have suffered none of the trials there that I have here in regards to my sexual orientation, family, acceptance, etc. My straight friends and family that watched did the same.

If they were straight in the real world, in their imagining of that fantasy world they were STILL STRAIGHT. However, they were now in the minority, being shown how they could be bullied, vilified, rejected, and hated for being EXACTLY who they are here, where they are accepted without question for the exact same trait.

Not saying it's 'wrong' per se, but it really is kind of surprising to me that someone would watch the film and identify only with their personal minority/majority status- something which is an outside, cultural designation- instead of an actual personal trait that is an intrinsic part of them such as sexual orientation. It seems odd to me to approach this from an 'if I'm a majority here, I'm a majority there, even if a fundamental personal trait of myself is changed to accomplish that' instead of a 'if i'm gay here, I'm gay there' keeping a fundamental personal trait of yourself intact and instead seeing that it is SOCIETY and it's perceptions and treatment of others that fall outside the accepted perceptions that are being examined.

Though honestly, I agree with the others- I don't see why anyone who hasn't even attempted to actually watch the movie is bothering to comment on this thread, whose entire topic is the substance of the movie itself.

[s_stabeler]

not to mention that the breeding season might actually be enough- because it's explicit that then, straight sex is ok. IOW, it's supposed to imply that if straight sex is purely for producing a kid, it's OK.

the chances of such a population being sustainable, however, is, as has been mentioned, unimportant. the POINT of the video is to make you think about how you would feel if it was your sexuality that was the one that society calls deviant. For all that the specific sexuality matters, it could easily be a world where the majority of the world were gay, and there was still a prejudice against gay people.

The idea is to make people think- if this is so ridiculous, then why is prejudice against gay people acceptable either?

I will say, though, that i have a nasty suspicion that at least one group of bigots is going to say the film's world is what pro-gay rights people want.

[Andara Bledin]

Thats if Andara agrees with both of us too.

Woe, woe, the end is near...

I haven't watched the video and have only been skimming this thread, but from what I've seen, a bunch of people are discussing the movie, it's themes, execution, and the basic premise while mjr is trying to focus on a side topic that nobody else is interested in discussing in this particular thread.

[Gravekeeper]

I thought it meant the apocalypse was coming...?

Thats if Andara agrees with both of us too.

[Kheldarson]

I agree with Greenday. As per unofficial Fratching rules, this means you are disqualified and have to leave the island.

I thought it meant the apocalypse was coming...?

[Gravekeeper]

I agree with Greenday. As per unofficial Fratching rules, this means you are disqualified and have to leave the island.

[Greenday]

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.

Please. I regularly have a different opinion from the rest of Fratching. And there's a difference between feeling like you are supposed to have the consensus opinion (Which I feel regularly here but that's another topic) and trying to argue a point that honestly has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Your argument has nothing to do with what we are talking about. You are arguing that hypotheticals are stupid which if that's what you believe, don't get involved in the first place. There's no reason to.

[Ginger Tea]

One thing I didn't see brought up much if at all (aside from my own posts) is there would be a similar percentage of bi people around.

Society could look away at their lifestyles so long as the straight part was expressed solely as part of the breeding program.

I said before and I will say again, even in this world there are men and women who are adamant that they would never sleep with the opposite sex even to get a child they desire, but with IVF thats not really an issue.

These people and their beliefs are counter productive to the sustainability of the species in the times before medical advancement.

IVF would spring about way sooner than it did, that's a given, but also consider the transgenders.

Society has become more open to people who have or are transitioning and within the realms of open minded people a transwoman having sex with a woman is seen as lesbianism, even though there is a penis still involved.

Not every woman would be down for such a scenario in this world, but in the hypothetical one presented?

We are gradually seeing people for who they are becoming and not who they were, so a fertile transwoman would be beneficial in this society and again, just as IVF, cosmetic surgery would advance.

With one small problem, in this world the goal is to become a woman as physically as possible, in the other she ceases to be of use post surgery so I think she and transmen would be kept as a perpetual 3rd sex.

Is this a bad thing?
For those with dysphoria yes, but how many transwomen in the porn industry actually aim to fully transition?

You could say that they are doing porn as it gets money in quicker, but they get the money because of their novelty, once they have a vagina they could vanish from the scene, not because they got what they wanted out of it and no longer wish to work in the industry, but they lack that je ne se qua and the audience moves on.

So are transwomen in the porn industry trans or just milking a fetish whilst they look good?
No idea, some might, but TBH I'm not that fussed to find out.

But lets say that a large percentage are in fact just in it for the money as exotic performers, this gets us back to the AU.

Not all male phobic lesbians are anti dildo and transwomen are not "men in dresses" so it's just like having strap on sex with your partner, it's just that this one has "realistic ejaculation action".

Some gay men have said they don't want to see a vagina on their male partner, which confuses me somewhat, I get the whole I want a cock aspect, but if you are the top in the relationship, women and transmen still have anus' and as long as you finish in the right hole "how do baby form?"

Yes in the AU transgender people would be exploited and perhaps denied transitional rights to suit a biological niche, but there is no reason to say that those chosen to be the "3rd sex" are not content with living 20 years of their life as a woman and then transition back to male, or vise versa.

As after all, not all cross dressers, drag queens Transvestites etc are gay or bi.

And the old adage, "I'm not gay but $20 is $20"

[Lindsay B.]

the film could make a good impact on people who are more "on the fence" about LGBT issues
even among those who do actively support LGBT rights, a film like this might inspire increased action, concern, and understanding
Every little bit helps.

You know, it's interesting ... When I read this, it gave me cause to reconsider a position I'd had on a separate issue.

Earlier this year, I was doing a fair bit of reading about that woman in Pennsylvania who opened a pop-up shop with a two-tiered pricing system : Female customers received a 24% discount on anything they bought, while male customers had to pay the full price. It was a non-profit set up as a satire of the gender wage gap. The shop was more of a form of social activism than an actual business.

Interestingly enough, I saw some feminist women who sharply criticized the shop owner, arguing (among other things) that she was only making the situation worse by creating more inequality.

They also observed that there were many men who were supportive of the shop owner's message and bought items from her just to show their support. The female commentors said that while this was very noble, these men were ultimately only hurting themselves (by paying more for items than they needed to) and not really helping anybody.

(Honestly ... If my husband wanted to buy something from this shop, I would probably just tell him to give me the money and let me go buy it for him.)

One criticism made of the shop owner was that she was "preaching to the choir," since all of the men who were speaking supportively of the shop were almost certainly men who were already supportive of wage equality, anyway. By and large, the only men, or women for that matter, who would patronize the shop were those who were already on the shop owner's side.

I was actually sympathetic to this point of view until I read your post, Anthony, and thought that maybe the shop owner is making some sort of impact. Those who were lukewarm in their support of the issue, or even those who were actively supporting it, might have a different, stronger take on it if they actually experience it firsthand, in actual dollars and cents. In some form, at least.

It's possible.

[Lindsay B.]

with a perspective none of you will even seem to consider before rejecting

Did we not?

Several people have talked about whether or not a society in which same-sex attraction and relationships are the norm could biologically sustain itself. A few agreed that it was, arguably, a flaw in the film's premise.

For my own part, I would agree with those who have said that this society would likely perpetuate itself by the simple desire to experience the joy of raising a child and having a family. The process of having and raising a child is fraught with obstacles, sacrifices, and difficulties as it is, so why should one more obstacle stop anybody? It certainly hasn't stopped a great many couples in the real world (same-sex couples as well as heterosexual couples who are unable to have children of their own).

If artificial insemination is not an option, then I would guess that the same-sex couples of this world would view having sex with a member of the opposite sex as an unpleasant physical labor (so to speak), but one that is necessary to accomplish the goal of having children. Would it be so much worse than what women must already endure during pregnancy and childbirth?

I would observe that among the homosexual majority of this alternate reality, most parents are likely to be lesbian women, rather than gay men. Not because women are necessarily more likely to want children than men, but because I suspect that it would be a great deal easier to find a man who's willing to be a sperm donor than it is to find a woman who's willing to be a surrogate mother.

Ginger Tea speculated that the population of the alternate world would have to be smaller than it is in the real world. I can grant this, not only because of the greater difficulty that same-sex couples would face in having children, but also because there are a great many "unplanned pregnancies" in the real world. A same-sex couple would not have that issue. Any pregnancy they were involved in would, by necessity, have to be planned.

What posters have, in general, consistently rejected is the idea that this society not being biologically viable (if that really is the case) somehow invalidates the entire film, and its message. As has been pointed out, fiction often requires a suspension of disbelief. In this case, in my opinion, it doesn't even require all that much.

It honestly never made much sense to me that the film depicted football as a girls' sport in this alternate reality, or that acting was viewed as being "for boys." I mean, why wouldn't a school football team prefer to fill their ranks with the physically largest, strongest, and heaviest players available to them, i.e. boys? And the theater productions I've been involved in would have been very awkward if we'd only had actors of one gender. But those were the reversed gender norms that the filmmaker went with, and I have seldom seen a film, television show, book, or story that I didn't disagree with in some respect, anyway. So I suspended my disbelief and went along with it.

As we keep saying, the film is about prejudice and bullying, not about how difficult it is for same-sex couples to have children.

it's also perfectly reasonable to believe that if one is straight in one world they would be gay in the other

Nobody has rejected the hypothetical of there being two worlds, with any given person being straight in one and gay in the other.

What is being rejected is the idea that that is the only possible hypothetical for an alternate reality in which homosexuality is the norm.

I honestly don't understand why you seem to find it so impossible to accept that the film is depicting an alternate reality populated by fictional characters, and the viewer is simply being asked to imagine visiting or living in this fictional world, just as he/she is.

Perhaps you are thinking that if everybody in the real world lived in this fictional world, with the same sexual orientation that they have in the real world, then the alternate reality would not have a "reversed" majority, and the premise would be defeated. Which is true, but the film isn't asking you to imagine yourself along with every other person in the world living in this alternate reality. It's only asking you to imagine yourself, or perhaps yourself and your loved ones, being in this alternate world.

How about this :

The ratio of straight to gay people might be reversed in this alternate world, but perhaps that doesn't mean that every single individual has a reversed sexual orientation. If, for example, some people are straight in both worlds and a roughly equal number are gay in both worlds, and the rest of the population is reversed, then the ratio of straight to gay people would be reversed, but there would still be some people who have the same orientation in both worlds. The difference is that those people would be part of the majority in one world and in the persecuted minority in the other.

I don't see how I can make that any more clear.

Funny, that was exactly what I was thinking when I, and others, were trying to explain that there were other possible hypotheticals beyond the one rigidly defined idea of everybody who is straight in one world being necessarily gay in the other.

For all of your talk about being open-minded, you are the one who is refusing to accept as viable any hypothetical other than the one you're suggesting.

[mjr]

The title of the thread is, "Imagine a world where "gay" is the norm and "straight" the deviation". But, you're not doing that. You're basically saying, "Well, I tried imagining that, doesn't seem believable to me."

And it doesn't seem believable to me. Although I will point out that it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the percentages would be flipped (because we really don't know, since we're dealing in theoreticals), and that it's also perfectly reasonable to believe that if one is straight in one world they would be gay in the other. I don't see how I can make that any more clear.

Why spent post after post trying to convince people that what they want to discuss doesn't make sense?

Because sometimes that's the case.

you just want to convince people that this discussion is pointless. So, again: if you don't want to discuss, why are you here (i.e., in this thread)?

No, no. Not "pointless". Just a little more deeply considered.

[Canarr]

No, I'm basing my argument on the premise as it is in the title of this thread. Nothing more.

The title of the thread is, "Imagine a world where "gay" is the norm and "straight" the deviation". But, you're not doing that. You're basically saying, "Well, I tried imagining that, doesn't seem believable to me."

That's not joining a discussion. That's negating the point of the discussion. Which is okay, but then I have to ask, why join the discussion in the first place? Why spent post after post trying to convince people that what they want to discuss doesn't make sense? Why not disregard the topic entirely?

Anyone on Fratching is invited to join a discussion. But you're not interested in joining this discussion, you just want to convince people that this discussion is pointless. So, again: if you don't want to discuss, why are you here (i.e., in this thread)?

[mjr]

This is a debate forum. If you can't handle having your opinions dissected, torn apart and scrutinized, you're posting in the wrong place. No one besides you has said anything about you leaving.

I'm not talking about leaving the forum as a whole. I'm just suggesting that if you guys who claim you're SO open minded but can't handle a contradictory opinion don't want me to post on this thread, I won't. All you gotta do is ask.

What they have said is that this debate with you seems pointless because, whether you want to admit it or not, you are moving the goalposts in this discussion to suit your arguments

No, I'm basing my argument on the premise as it is in the title of this thread. Nothing more.

Then saying that everyone else is the one who isn't keeping an open mind.

Is that not true? Or is it only "keeping an open mind to positions you agree with"? I've never known ANY liberal who says they're "open minded" to be convinced of anything contradictory to what they believed. I have known Conservatives like that. I examine and re-examine my positions quite frequently.

Pro tip - this forum tends to lean liberal, gay-accepting and open-minded. If you can't handle being in the minority and having to defend your arguments, play somewhere else.

I've got no issue being in the minority. You're gonna have a hard time selling me on "open-minded", though, at least in the context of this thread.

[the_std]

But hey, if you or anyone else doesn't want me contributing to this discussion, I'll be happy to bow out. Anyone who doesn't want me contributing, just say so. No skin off my back. It may say more than you want it to, though.

This is a debate forum. If you can't handle having your opinions dissected, torn apart and scrutinized, you're posting in the wrong place. No one besides you has said anything about you leaving. What they have said is that this debate with you seems pointless because, whether you want to admit it or not, you are moving the goalposts in this discussion to suit your arguments (arguing about the premise of the film instead of the content, then saying that everyone else is the one who isn't keeping an open mind).

Pro tip - this forum tends to lean liberal, gay-accepting and open-minded. If you can't handle being in the minority and having to defend your arguments, play somewhere else.