Cutesy Gay Teen Romance Heartstopper Subverts Absolutely Nothing, and That's Great

Netflix’s latest LGBT hit would absolutely be appropriate to show in any Florida high school, or anywhere else.

Is an adorable, chaste romance between two teenage boys the antidote to our current incendiary culture wars that threaten to consume all media attention that isn't focused on the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

No, it's not. But the immediate success of Netflix's young adult offering Heartstopper means something in the grander scheme of things: It's a reminder that, in reality, most people aren't collective identities or members of teams but individuals looking for ways to connect with each other and be happy.

Heartstopper is an eight-episode adaptation of what began as a series of web comics by Alice Oseman in 2016. It follows the lives of two British high school boys, Charlie and Nick, as they meet and eventually fall for each other. Charlie had been out of the closet for a year. Nick, until he befriended Charlie, had always seen himself as heterosexual.

What follows is a familiar young romance story; it's just with two teen boys instead of the typical heterosexual pairing. It has the same earnestness, the same teen emotionality, the butterflies-in-the-stomach moments (occasionally illustrated with actual cartoon butterflies flittering about on screen), and the same carefully curated messiness—chaotic but not too chaotic. The two boys have the requisite opposite personalities that attract. They have friend drama that serves as a source of conflict. They live in a kind of bubble of their own lives with adults playing a very minor role in the plot as sounding boards. With the exception of the teens' use of social media and Instagram, the show feels nearly removed from any particular time period. They and their friends all go out bowling. One date actually involves going out for milkshakes. There is no sex. Nobody even talks about sex. It doesn't get any racier than kissing and hand-holding.

Essentially, if you've seen any young adult romance story, you've seen Heartstopper. And the show, released in late April, is a critical and audience hit on Netflix. It was ranked fifth globally on Netflix in the third week after its release, with nearly 24 million hours viewed. It has ranked in the top 10 most-watched Netflix shows in 54 countries. It has somehow even avoided trolls trying to screw with its audience score on Rotten Tomatoes.

Part of the appeal is certainly in the performances, which are stellar and remarkably natural from a realistically young cast—these are not 20-somethings pretending to be teens. In the lead roles, Joe Locke and Kit Connor have an easygoing, unforced chemistry that could make even jaded viewers root for them to connect. Their friends—who include a lesbian couple who attend the nearby girls school, a trans girl who just started transitioning in the last year, and Charlie's overprotective straight friend who worries about being abandoned—make for a deliberately diverse cast that does not feel overly manufactured.

That's partly because the show is mostly content to let the characters live and breathe, and it resists moments of preachiness in favor of self-discovery. Yes, there's a bully. Yes, there are moments of homophobia. Even in a world where the majority are now supporters of LGBT inclusion, there are still pockets of assholish behavior. In Heartstopper's case, confronting a bully is an important growth moment for Nick and a point of self-realization of who he truly is. It serves the story.

But Heartstopper is not didactic. It doesn't have a lesson plan. It is not here to lecture anybody or piss anybody off. It's notable that a lot of coverage of the show discusses "queer" representation, but you won't hear that word tossed around on Heartstopper, and it's all the better for that. "Queer" was once a slur that activists reclaimed but now has become a sort of weird collectivist nonword that fails to serve as any sort of identity at all. Even heterosexual people want to call themselves "queer" these days. There's even a Wikipedia entry for it.

Charlie doesn't call himself "queer." He calls himself gay. Eventually, Nick realizes he's bisexual. The female couple they're friends with come out as lesbians on Instagram. They choose individual identities, not a collective label, that help themselves and others understand who they are. In that sense, Heartstopper is similar to other books and shows in the young adult genre in its emphasis on its protagonists figuring out their identities. We used to call them "coming of age" stories. They still are, and nowadays sexual orientation and gender identity exploration is a part of the journey of self-discovery.

And if those teen years are so important for kids to hammer out their identities, that makes legislation to censor LGBT discussions in public schools so insidious. The kids of Heartstopper were not "groomed" into identifying as gay or trans. They just are, and they are the ones who tell the adults, not the other way around. That's typically how it all goes in the real world.

When Florida passed H.B. 1557, the alleged "Don't Say Gay" bill, defenders of the bill insisted that it was only about exposing children up to third grade to inappropriate sexual discussions. In reality, the bill censors LGBT content and discussions in all grade levels if it's in a "in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students." The bill does not define what's appropriate, and that's one of the many problems with it.

If we take the bill's defenders at their word, though, there's absolutely nothing inappropriate about discussing Heartstopper in Florida public high schools in the right educational context. Again, there's no sexual activity in the show, not even through suggestion. It's only inappropriate to those people who think any representation of LGBT identities in public schools is inappropriate.

The greatest success of Heartstopper is how it demonstrates that it's fundamentally wrong to approach LGBT culture collectively—that it's either all about sex or that it's all about "representation." It's fundamentally always about individuals and each individual's pursuit of happiness, even if what sometimes makes you happy is an unrealistically cheery and upbeat romance.

Comments

[Longtobefree]

Never mind - - -

[Unicorn Abattoir]

Up next - Generation Drag is just wholesome family entertainment.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

Even worse footage

[(Redacted)]

Everything is fags and trannys with these people.

[JimboJr]

"If we take the bill's defenders at their word, though, there's absolutely nothing inappropriate about discussing Heartstopper in Florida public high schools in the right educational context."

And herein lies one of the biggest problems facing our culture and education system.

I dont really give a shit if high school kids see the stuff, IMO it at that point is developmentally appropriate. My problem is with the people arguing and clamoring for this to be part of school curriculum because its stupid and superfluous. You know what I learned in high school? Calculus. World history. Actual literature. Physics. Not a fucking netflix show. You know when it would be appropriate? At home, on the couch after homework is done.

The absolute dumbing down of society is happening at an alarming pace. Come to me with this shit when our country isnt absolutely shit at math. Then they can watch modern family or some other stupid shit in school. Until then, just stop.

[damikesc]

Yeah. Cutesy or not...why the fuck would a sitcom be shown in school at all?

[Mother's Lament]

Baffling, but Shackford needs Floridamanbad material no matter how ethereal the connection, so here we are.

[(Redacted)]

Grooming.

[Don't look at me!]

Two dudes? Good for them, but no thanks.

[A Thinking Mind]

I also don't want teachers to show episode of Dawson's Creek in high school, even though all of those relationship were heterosexual. Not out of some puritanical idea about sex or sexual identity but because it's not the purpose of the school system.

Why does Shackford think something like this can't just exist, it needs to be taught?

[George Reeves]

It would not hurt to teach something about human nature along with the dates and events of world history. Kids should learn that the evidence in our mitochondrial DNA is that we are all distant cousins descended from one woman. They should also learn that sexual preference is inherited. Homosexuality was a forbidden perversion when I was in school. However all the homosexual people I have gotten to know in my 83 heterosexual years are decent human being who did not choose their condition and would have chosen differently if they could. We have homosexuals because in our former hunter gatherer tribal existence a tribe with some spare non breeding adults had a survival advantage. Men would go out on long exploratory patrols and guard the camp at night because they did not have families to go home to. Women without their own children were available to raise children who lost their mothers. We breeders probably owe our happy existence to past homosexual people. A heads up in school would have taught me these things half a century earlier.

[soldiermedic76]

That's one hypothesis,but it doesn't explain how the gene persists. Evolution would suggest that a gene that makes you less likely to reproduce will quickly works it's way out of the gene pool. So, yeah no.

[JimboJr]

^

Phenotypes that are less likely to pass on their DNA are less likely to be represented in later generations. More likely homosexuality is a variant that presents on its own due to multiple factors.

"Men would go out on long exploratory patrols and guard the camp at night because they did not have families to go home to."

These dudes may have fucked each other, but their DNA died with them unless they also happened to fuck some fish wife.

[The Encogitationer]

Nah, not a fish wife. Too smelly and too much carping about the sex. 😉

[Nemo Aequalis]

My guess is that it works something like the gene for sickle-cell anemia. You get one copy of it, and you get immunity to malaria. So that's a good thing.

OTOH, if you get two copies of it, you sickle-cell. Not such a good thing.

The point is, a gene doesn't necessarily have to be beneficial to be persistent. A genetic trait can be beneficial or not, depending on it's relationship with other genes. That's as close as I've been able to figure a genetic cause for gayness.

Of course, it's entirely possible it's not genetic at all, so this is all just speculation.

[soldiermedic76]

Sickle cell is beneficial as long as it's heterozygote. It's the homozygote that's it's bad. Even in heterozygous, it would have to have some benefit to be persistent. Because when it's homozygous, it doesn't get passed on (or less likely).

[Nemo Aequalis]

Because when it's homozygous, it doesn't get passed on (or less likely).

Apparently it gets passed on often enough, because it still exists. Which suggests there's some mechanism which allows non-beneficial traits to persist.

People die of heritable conditions all the time. Saying non-beneficial traits can't persist is ridiculous.

[soldiermedic76]

Non beneficial traits don't persist for any length of time. Most non beneficial traits are the result of a recent SNP, e.g. within the past couple of millennia. I am not arguing that homosexuality is or isn't heritable. I am arguing that if it is heritable, it's a fairly recent trait to emerge, evolutionarily speaking. It's persistence long term is the environment would be argued against in evolutionary terms.

[soldiermedic76]

Unless a beneficial use could be found. In terms of sickle cell, the heterozygous provide some protection against malaria, and this it has a beneficial use. It's only a problem in homozygous. So, rather than the social aspect that some anthropologists suggests, an argument for a heterozygous benefit would be more compelling.

Another argument they make is based upon homosexual and bisexual activities among other mammals, however, these are often situational and are not persistent activities, and also often involve a assertion of dominance, or related to a mating seasonal activity. When they do persist, it's usually in animals that form life partnersships and could be explained as an inability to attract a mate.

My point is that evolution argued against a long term persistence in a population of non-beneficial traits, and that current hypotheses do not adequately explain how a homosexual gene has been able to persist. Unless, the heterozygous form is what leads to bisexuality, in which case, the gene could persist, as bisexuals have a much greater chance of reproducing than homosexuals. The anthropology hypothesis I was responding to, could be a chicken and the egg style explanation. It could be that homosexuality has persisted, in the same form as sickle cell, in that the heterozygous carriers were able to pass the gene on, and when the gene was homozygous, that societies found a way to utilize these individuals other than as breeding stock, which may have been beneficial to that society.

With the bisexual heterozygous hypothesis, the gene isn't necessarily beneficial, however, it doesn't reduce the ability to reproduce, so there would be little evolutionary pressure to eliminate the gene/trait from the genetic pool.

[soldiermedic76]

This would also more adequately explain why homosexuality is so rare in the population. If there was some inherent benefit to these traits you would expect a much larger percentage of the population to exhibit these traits, as they would likely be passed on in greater frequency.

Also, the genetic only explanation is not satisfactory based upon the theory of phenotype. Very few traits are solely genetically determined. Almost all expressed traits are a combination of genotype and environment.

[The Encogitationer]

Also, where the gene carrier lives determines whether the sicle-cell trait is beneficial or harmful.

In Africa, the sicle-cell trait helps stop the spread of sleeping sickness spread by the Tse-Tse Fly. Here in the United States, where this disease is not a problem and where cardiac problems are made worse by smoking, diet, and lifestyle, the sicle-cell trait can be deadly.

[mad.casual]

It would not hurt to teach something about human nature along with the dates and events of world history.

Pretty brazen(ly stupid) to openly declare yourself part of the "And then, for no particular reason at all, the German people elected Adolph Hitler." crowd.

[soldiermedic76]

Have you seen many Americans knowledge of history, that pretty much sums up a lot of them.

I remember in highschool we were in the library doing research for a class project. One of the girls in my class found a book on Martin Luther. She was astonished and stated "I thought Martin Luther was a black guy, why is this white guy on the cover of a book about a black guy?"

[Bloodaxe]

You aren't considering kin selection. This is the explanation for why eusocial species with non-breeding individuals exist. The Hymenoptera (bees, wasps, ants, etc.), have such high rates of eusociality likely because they are haplodiploid, meaning the workers are, on average, 75% related to their sister queens, rather than 50% (as in diploid species like us). So sterile workers can have a great deal of reproductive success by helping raise their baby-making sisters. But there are eusocial species with non-breeding individuals that are diploid, like us.

This leads to the larger point that reproductive success is not just about your children. For example, in red deer, higher-status (and therefore, generally fitter) females are more likely to have male offspring. This makes sense, male red deer are less likely to have offspring of their own as compared to females, but if they do manage to be successful, they usually have many, many more offspring than the typical female deer. Because a fitter mother is more likely to produce a fitter son, the benefits of having a male are increased.

So, in fact, a gene or other heritable trait that makes an individually less likely to personally reproduce can not only persist, but can even be beneficial, if it leads to greater overall reproductive success. To use another non-human example, there are birds where often offspring will forgo mating for a season or two and instead help raise their siblings. This measurably decreased the number of offspring they had in their lives versus those that did not stay with the parents. However, the fitness of their siblings and the increased likelihood they would reproduce actually increased their reproductive success.

I could easily imagine an argument on these lines for the development and persistence of homosexuality in humans. There is some potential evidence for this, since it is known that the sons of women who have already had sons are more likely to be gay (decreased competition for their brothers).

[Brandon F Biden]

My view. The problem with this hypothesis is, what is the benefit to the younger brother personally, to be sexually attracted to his kind and not just be asexual. Why would they not have a similar disgust for homo-sex as their older brother? 12 year old humans are not typically thought to have breading inclinations, yet, most homosexuals claim, they knew they were gay around 5-6, as do their parents and siblings. Additionally, what make a top a top and a bottom a bottom?

[The Encogitationer]

Well, what homosexuals don't deliver to the species on reproduction, they more than make up for by being a control valve on overpopulation which can kill off a species, as well as through individual homosexual's productivity, inventiveness, and creative works.

[The Encogitationer]

Also, since Bisexuality and Pansexuality also exist, there is the chance of genes passing on by that means as well.

[(Redacted)]

83 heterosexual years? But aren’t you 97?

[The Encogitationer]

Wise words indeed.

I'm not as old as you [I'm 54, not 83,) but I wish someone as sage as you were a teacher in my Junior High School to straighten out some damn vicious bullying kids...or better yet a homeschooling activist to help the good kids escape.

The world I lived in was horrible for anyone who didn't fit in and who barely understood anything about sexuality on top of that. While I'm no fan of teen romances or the Young Adult book genre, I'm kind of elated that such things exist for all, regardless of sexual orientation. They are harmless, as long as they are a study break after learning the great things you know.

By the way, regarding all of mankind descended from a single woman, Dudley Moore's Arthur would say: "*Hick-up!* She'd have to have been a very big woman!" 😉

[mad.casual]

You know what I learned in high school? Calculus. World history. Actual literature. Physics. Not a fucking netflix show.

You know what I got to watch on TV when I was in school? The fall of the Berlin Wall.

[Nardz]

I got to watch the twin towers fall...

[soldiermedic76]

I remember that, and watching the Challenger explode.

[(Redacted)]

I saw that live. I was home from school with chickenpox. I had a high fever, so at first I thought maybe I had hallucinated it.

[The Encogitationer]

Ixsaw all of these things above, as well as the Sargent shooting a Viet Kong in the head, the last heliocopters out of Saigon, Black September kidnapping and murdering Israeli Olympic Athletes, 52 American hostages held in Tehran for 444 days, the attempt to rescue them that failed, their final release and Reagan's Enauguration, and the Wendy's commercials bashing Communism, and so much more.

Damn! I'm feeling creaky just talking about this. I gotta get some exercise in the bones. 🙂

[soldiermedic76]

Oh and we got to watch Mary Poppins on the projector in the gym on the last day of school. I think it was the only movie the school had.

[(Redacted)]

I always skipped the last day of school. It was just sitting around doing nothing anyway.

[The Encogitationer]

"Well I guess you can just throw them all away! The handbags and the glad-rags that you're poor ol' Grand-dad had to sweat to buy ya!"

[The Encogitationer]

We had a Disney movie in the auditorium once a month. So far as I could tell, no "grooming" took place, so all the FloridaMen Q-Anonners
just got their noses rubbed in it.

[Corporatist Remover]

Reason hates DeSantis because he thinks that taxpayer-subsidized corporations should be kept in check. In their diseased minds, regulating a corporation is the absolute worst thing a government can do. If Disney can't piss all over your individual liberties, then do we really live in a free society?

[waxliberty]

"If we take the bill's defenders at their word"

lulz.

Ultimately I think you have to take the defenders at their echo chamber. Children groomed to be furries and so on.

[Jim]

Agree. We never watched movies and certainly not TV shows in class. We learned old-fashioned stuff like math, reading, writing, etc. Looking at student scores, it appears no one is worried about teaching these subjects anymore.

[Tony]

I remember watching countless movies in school. Not so much whole TV shows. But perhaps in the grade-level courses.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Can we make it mandatory viewing in schools with an accompanying drag show and trans-conversion counsellors on staff to "help" any students through their decision-making process?

[JesseAz]

Pennsylvania already hosts drag schools inviting students as early as 7th grade and giving put performers personal contact information to students who ask. ..

https://www.foxnews.com/us/pennsylvania-school-district-drag-show-after-school-gay-sexuality-alliance-club

[Overt]

"Cutesy Gay Teen Romance Heartstopper Subverts Absolutely Nothing"

This is absolute horseshit. Of course it subverts something, and Shackford knows it. It subverts the belief (which I do not share) that homosexual relationships are immoral aberrations of normal life. And Shackford is ok with that, because he doesn't like that moral belief, and would prefer more people in society accept that belief.

I am happy that we have a free marketplace of ideas where subversive and conformist messages can mix and mingle with peoples' freedom of choice. I believe that given time you will see that people develop tolerance of each others' differences. But Shackford doesn't want tolerance. He wants acceptance, which is why he earnestly denies that this is anything other than a love story for all ages.

The reason he cannot admit that the message is subversive is given as he once again flogs HB 1557. If he admits that the movie is subversive of certain attitudes, then he admits that these sorts of messages in school might be exactly what proponents of HB 1557 are concerned about. Having already attempted deception, Shackford attempts to deceive again by saying proponents of the bill are only concerned about "sexual" conversations. But Proponents have been clear that they are not just concerned about sexual content but also content about SEXUALITY.

Teachers are on record promoting books that state flatly that there is no difference between trans girls and biological girls. Elementary schools in Canada have signs up for kids stating they can "know" they are trans as early as 18 months. Elementary and Middle school teachers are on record promoting the idea that kids should hide their trans identity from parents. Unlike the movie, these subversive messages are not acceptable to me.

I don't care how you raise your kids, and the beauty of Netflix is that parents can manage the consumption or rejection of those messages however they see fit. I would have no problem if my kid watched Heartstopper- and honestly, they've watched much stranger shit when we watch anime. But that is the beauty of an open marketplace of ideas.

Schools are different. They are a state protected monopoly that most parents without means must use under threat of legal punishment. That alone is a breach of a parents' rights. But to compound it further by pushing deeply controversial trans-queer nonsense (as well as marxist and racist claptrap) is an even worse breech of our rights.

I get that Shackford wants a world where people accept him despite being gay. He has no right to that world, because he has no right to other peoples' acceptance. But I'll happily join him in encouraging (without coercion or schools) it.But, I can't tell if he also wants a world where kids as young as 6-10 are being convinced by teachers they are "queer" and that they need to hide that from their parents. I wish Florida didn't have to pass these laws, but this is what happens in backlash. These SJWs started this by trying to insinuate their subversion into schools, and Parents are not wrong to react, or to expect their government to do the same.

[Yatusabes]

I get that Shackford wants a world where people accept him despite being gay.

His gayness is not the reason why he is not accepted. If his articles are any indication, he is an overbearing, obnoxious and extremely insecure man. Look at his photos. He looks like a self-loathing man who happens to be gay. From what I can tell from his photos, he could be very attractive if he took himself more seriously.

As I have told many single gay men, be the man you seek. Demanding others conform to your expectations is a sure way to be a miserable queen.

[Overt]

I have long argued that before there is acceptance, there must be tolerance. It took decades of people tolerating gay culture before majorities became accepting.

These SJWs in the school system are trying to skip to the end. They claim to be teaching tolerance when they are in fact pushing acceptance. And if it were just these narrow issues, it would be one thing. But it isn't just Transnuttery. It is undermining capitalism and promoting marxism. It is promoting racial theories of unlibertarian, such as collective guilt and privilege.

[JimboJr]

"And if it were just these narrow issues, it would be one thing. But it isn't just Transnuttery. It is undermining capitalism and promoting marxism. It is promoting racial theories of unlibertarian, such as collective guilt and privilege."

The transnuttery is a problem because in pushing it they are actively trying to confuse kids and get them to identify that way when truly very few people would actually be trans. They are trying to make trans and non binary a fad. But its not harmless, kids that go down this road are usually already at some kind of mental health deficit and this is basically pouring gas on a fire. Fucking with kids at a time they are very impressionable and malleable.

Of course the bigger concern is the why, as you mentioned. Most of this is a means to an end to get institutional power through neo marxism. The gender weirdness and racial hyper-focus (in a time where racism is truly the lowest it has ever been in the world) coming around as all these activist happen to have come out of college a couple decades after they started loading colleges with queer theory, critical queerness studies, critical race theory, intersectionality (all courses that clearly are rooted in marxism) is no coincedence. The beloved victim category du jour (gender, race, sexual pref) is the proletariat and the majority group (cis, hetero, white) is the bourgeoisie. Everything is about taking power from the group identified as the bourgeoisie, by any means necessary.

[CLM1227]

They aren’t pushing acceptance. They are pushing intolerance of anyone who thinks differently than they do. Why should I accept them when they can’t tolerate me?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

As I have told many single gay men, be the man you seek. Demanding others conform to your expectations is a sure way to be a miserable queen.

Is that why lesbians tend to let themselves go?

[Yatusabes]

We have several friends who are married lesbian couples. Without fail, one of the females is a “Lipstick Lesbian” while her wife is “Grizzly Adams”. I just dont get it

[JimboJr]

I am always so confused by this.

I mean, I get it from somewhat of an evolutionary perspective. Its normal for one person to be the "kept", primped, petite one and the other person to be the more burly protector. We also know a lot of gay couples and they at least adopt this personality wise (almost all the couples have one guy you almost couldnt tell is gay and one more effeminate). The more straight appearing guy always tends to be the one doing the yardwork while the more effeminate one is more HGTV obsessed, house decorating etc.

But the gay dudes honestly dont look super different, usually both are in shape, and aside from mannerisms and speech they are both pretty normal looking. I have so often been perplexed by the hot lipstick lesbian wanting to be with a troll. Why wouldn't you choose another hottie to fuck? I have never seen an actual hot lesbian couple (where both are hot) in real life. One is usually anywhere from meh to super hot, while the other is a troll. But it always breaks down that way.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Why wouldn't you choose another hottie to fuck?

See my comment below. When entering a long term relationship, women want stability, financial security and a roof that doesn't leak.

[DWB]

It's almost like there is a binary, nature thing going on...

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

I know something about this:

Women are still women, their sexuality doesn't change that. They need someone in the house to maintain the car and mow the lawn, and if you're a lipstick lesbian, it sure-as-shit ain't gonna be you.

[JimboJr]

Im just saying ive seen enough gay dudes that are both "attractive" by a normal standard together. Sometimes both twinks that look like neither could do more than 20 push ups.

But I guess a twink that can only do 20 is still more of a protector than a lipstick lesbian that can only do 5 knee push ups. So maybe you have the correct answer here

[mad.casual]

There's also a bit of male lensing going on as well. We, men, can debate about which spouse is hotter, but the underlying implication is that they're fucking. If you want a partner to fix the car and mow the lawn, that you don't have to fuck, and that you don't want fucking around on you or outshining you socially, the lipstick/troll arrangement makes perfect sense. There's a reason why 'frigidity' in the dictionary refers specifically to women.

[Hank Ferrous]

'Demanding others conform to your expectations is a sure way to be a miserable queen.' This extends well beyond gay folks, you are describing many, perhaps most feminists, most progressives, and yes, a number of folks on the far right. There is no ability to find middle ground, no comprehension of nuance, no asking questions when making assumptions based on preferred narrative is easier. Horrible unhappy people seem to need to make others around them miserable as well. Those first two in-groups, which have significant overlap, feminists and progressives, are some of the least pleasant, most authoritarian people, and are also frequently never happy.

[Tony]

Children have the goddamn internet. They don't need a school library to be titillated, and they don't need a teacher to trick them into being gay.

It's like you people actually live in Leave it to Beaver (and only Beaver!).

If you want to live in a free country, you be the non-reactionary you need others to be.

[Salted Nuts]

You won't get a reaction like this if you'd leave the kids alone, groomer.

[Tony]

Do you never take time out of your week to react to something actually happening in the real world?

Judge Janine is lying to you. FOX News lies. Figure it out.

[Azathoth!!]

Teachers are on record promoting books that state flatly that there is no difference between trans girls and biological girls. Elementary schools in Canada have signs up for kids stating they can "know" they are trans as early as 18 months. Elementary and Middle school teachers are on record promoting the idea that kids should hide their trans identity from parents

Do you know why this is?

Because it is a very serious malfunction.

While we look at it as 'alternate sexuality' it has other sides.

For the homosexual, what are the ramifications to other bodily an psychological systems when something as powerful as the mating urge is fundamentally misaligned?

How can anyone think that a disorder that has one either believing that their mind is in the wrong body or IS actually in the wrong body is something that has no other impacts on a person?

A person posted on these forums that they cry when they have to look in a mirror because what they see looks so wrong that it evokes a visceral response from them.

And there are people who think that it's alright that such as that teach children.

But that sneaking behavior, the predatory behavior, the grooming--all of these are visible enough in the LGBTQIAA+ at varying levels of intensity to make it clear that this is about more than just sex.

[BestUsedCarSales]

Honestly, I want more unsubversive media in general. Not even from some conservative standpoint, but from the point that everything is so reflexively deconstructive and subversive that people increasingly don't even know the baseline thing being subverted. It really lessens the value of the deconstruction.

[Yatusabes]

Gays and Lesbians have nothing in common with Transgender.
Bisexuals are cowards who lack the cojones to self-identify as a fag or dyke.

Scott is precisely that type of homosexual that kept my husband and me in the closet because we did not identify with homos like him. It turns out that the attention seeking, insecure, narcissistic screaming queen is really a very small percentage of the gay population. No, Scott we have nothing in common with these gender dysphoria mental types; stop bullying gays and lesbians into your identity politics profile.

School is for the 3 Rs, not for grooming kids to be something that they are not.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Bisexuals are cowards who lack the cojones to self-identify as a fag or dyke.

I've heard this before from the gay community. (I have their number in my rolodex if you'd like).

I'm not sure I buy it though. Seems too 'militant' to say you must be 100% gay or 100% straight. And I say that as someone my former wife used to call "freakishly heterosexual".

But as an internationally noted heterosexual man, I still agree that the bizarre trans-movement has... jumped the shark. And yes, there is a VERY strong anti-gay undercurrent in the trans movement. Support it at your peril, gay community.

[Yatusabes]

And yes, there is a VERY strong anti-gay undercurrent in the trans movement.

None of our married gay/lesbian friends tolerate the lumping of Trans with us. We.Just.Dont.Buy.It

Hell, there was a time when drag queen shows were uproariously entertaining, crass and incredibly honest about gay culture. Now, Trans are characterized as obese fugly men wearing wigs, really awful makeup and gawd awful polyester. If I were a woman, Id be calling these fat men wearing makeup an affront to women. As for women who have transitioned to men, and take massive amounts of testosterone, there is still a problem: gay men want to see a hung dick, not a tiny clit with a vagina staring back. These folks are frauds on so many levels

[Cronut]

"Now, Trans are characterized as obese fugly men wearing wigs, really awful makeup and gawd awful polyester."

Rachel Levine is the poster-thing for this. I honestly can't imagine looking in the mirror and saying, "My true, authentic self is a fat, double-chinned, frumpy old lady with stringy hair and bad skin, whose clothes don't fit right and whose lipstick is the wrong shade of pink."

I'm sure she has the money to hire a stylist. And if she's already paying one, she's really wasting her money.

[JimboJr]

" If I were a woman, Id be calling these fat men wearing makeup an affront to women. "

The women in America are too likely to get sucked into the estrogen fest that is woke-apology politics. So you wont hear it from them (unless they are ballsy enough to get labeled a TERF in the process).

Fear not, the cis hetero white men will happily call a spade a spade. We werent going to get any points from the woke crowd anyhow.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Hell, there was a time when drag queen shows were uproariously entertaining, crass and incredibly honest about gay culture. Now, Trans are characterized as obese fugly men wearing wigs, really awful makeup and gawd awful polyester

I POINTED THIS OUT A WHILE BACK AND SOMEONE DENIED IT! Something happened in the drag queen community and it became a clown show.

[JimboJr]

^ ya this. I mean Bruce Jenner was never really going to be a woman. But the fucker is trying at least!

[Salted Nuts]

I used to like drag queens. Funny, self-deprecating and very spiritually strong people.

Weird as fuck still, but they were OK. I stopped by the bar occasionally for a weird show and good beer in the 90s.

Now...? Not gonna get within miles.

[damikesc]

What I do not understand about the "gay rights activists" is...how exactly do transgenderism and homosexuality both exist? If you like the same sex, under transgenderism, it means you're REALLY the opposite sex (since it is CLEARLY a stereotype of the opposite sex and transgenderism, bare minimum, puts a great deal of importance into those stereotypes)

Transgenderism seems to be little more than the elimination of homosexuality in its entirety.

[Hank Ferrous]

'Bisexuals are cowards who lack the cojones to self-identify as a fag or dyke.' Maybe some, but some by all appearances genuinely like both sexes.

[Yatusabes]

When I was single, and was fairly sexually active, almost all gay men called themselves bisexual to soften the blow of being a fag. In spite of calling themselves “bisexual” they could take a mack truck up their ass. When asked when their last encounter was with a woman, crickets

I fucked women till age 30, and it was all under pretense. I wanted to be with men and make the jump. You could say i swing both ways but that would be dishonest. I really prefer dick and hairy muscled ass. What can i say

[Cronut]

"Bisexual" is also a term used to back off your teenaged declaration of lesbianism. I know many girls who declared themselves lesbians in high school, then became bi in college and early 20s, and they all ended up marrying men.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

bi in college and early 20s, and they all ended up marrying men.

They needed someone to fix the roof and mow the lawn. By that time they were no longer interested in sex.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

When I was single, and was fairly sexually active, almost all gay men called themselves bisexual to soften the blow of being a fag.

I don't know how old you are, but mores and acceptance has changed dramatically, just since the 90s. I can certainly understand that, in a world where coming out in full frontal might be a shock to the system. But nowadays? It just seems reasonable that someone might be generally heterosexual but like to occasionally get some of the same sex. Or maybe occasionally have a threesome and, you know, engage with the other person of the same sex... in the moment.

I mean, shit, there's an old joke: Every woman is two drinks away from a lesbian experience. And there's even some social science research which suggests women are more open to same-sex experiences for various reasons.

I fucked women till age 30, and it was all under pretense.

Lucky you. God protected me from myself by limiting my genetic appeal... because I'd fuck women under ANY damned pretense, if they'd have me.

[damikesc]

"I mean, shit, there's an old joke: Every woman is two drinks away from a lesbian experience. And there's even some social science research which suggests women are more open to same-sex experiences for various reasons."

I'd assume the lack of major societal opposition and that it might be a less uncomfortable thing to experiment with. But I certainly do not know.

[Bloodaxe]

Maybe, but just know, amongst bonobos, 80% of sexual contact is female-female. Not that it necessarily translates to humans, but they are one of our two closest living relatives.

[A Thinking Mind]

I don't even know why you'd show a sappy romance in school, anyway. Even on the occasions we got movie days in high school, there had to be some tenuous connection to curricula. We watched Sister Act in a music class because there's a tie in to music. We watched Gattaca in biology class because it had a tie-in to genetics. We watched Apollo 13 in a history class.

What educational value is there in any sappy teen romance?

[The Encogitationer]

Bisexuals are cowards who lack the cojones to self-identify as a fag or dyke.

Looks like somebody knows other people's minds more than those other people.

Sorry. No sexual orientation embues people with claravoyance or with a license to psychologize. If someone says they feel attraction to others regardless of sex, it is as real as your attraction to the same sex or a Straight person's attraction to the opposite sex.

[JesseAz]

Isn't a lot of the flight from Netflix them focusing a large percentage of all their new projects around LGBT story lines causing people to ask why they are paying for it?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

I dunno. There's a lot about the impending 'collapse of Netflix' that would be temping to lump into the category of 'get woke go broke', but even as satisfying a narrative as that is, I think it's far more complex. I think the influx of competing streaming services is beginning to hollow Netflix out like so much variants of Bitcoin.

Plus with the pandemic "over" (uptick in deaths, lately yo) and people no longer sitting in their homes, saran-wrapped and triple masked, I think people have felt over-saturated with online movies. Add into the fact the economy is going into the shitter and people are cutting back on unnecessaries.

Plus as the various streaming services are focusing more and more on 'original content' with some of studios who had their stuff on Netflix pulling it because now they're streaming providers and thus 'competing' with Netflix, it all adds up into a porridge of crap for Netflix to deal with.

[The Encogitationer]

Not that Netflix was all bad (I liked their stand-up comedians best,) but Tubi.tv and Pluto.tv have more shows and movies that appeal to me for free with limited commercial interruption.

Only a couple of Pluto.tv commercials get old fast, like the commercial for the unwed teen moms podcast and the Extreme Makeover commercial with the little punk kid screaming: "Tear this house down!" Other than that, the commercial breaks don't bother me.

Curiosity Streaming has some great Crash Courses and documentaries for people of all ages. I'm presently working on a History of Science Crash Course and some documentaries on Transhumanism and Singularitarianism. At $20 a year, Curiosity Streaming is well worth it and a welcome curriculum addition for the self-directed learner.

[Overt]

I have seen this pushed on a lot of right leaning sites, but I am on the fence.

I think there is truth to the notion that the streaming market has become extremely crowded. I do think Netflix has failed to produce a lot of content to distinguish itself in that field. But I can't tell if it is because of all the SJW Documentaries and other SJW nonsense or just because they are uniformly bad.

Some of the Bruce Willis movies and other films they have been pumping on my feed are just god awful- Red Letter Media did a take down on these Geezer Teezer films. They are bad like theme park cafeteria food- just nothing but salt and cardboard. They put these in there to make you think they've added all this star-spangled content but watching one made me angry at netflix for wasting my leisure time.

I do think these SV Unicorn companies think there is a lot more demand for Woke than they expect. But I can't tell if it is still the root cause of their troubles.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

I do think these SV Unicorn companies think there is a lot more demand for Woke than they expect. But I can't tell if it is still the root cause of their troubles.

Woke is a garnish on the top of already bad writing, made worse.

[Cronut]

I think it's a circular thing. The writing is bad because the purpose of the writing is to do a woke show. There's no story other than whatever the woke issue is, so there's no depth to the writing.

Plus, wokesters are really just a miserable and joyless bunch, and would have no idea how to make a show fun and watchable.

[A Thinking Mind]

Actually the failure of woke writing is a bit more complicated. Because woke politics doesn't recognize individuals, only labels and categories, every individual character they write are representatives of a whole class. This means they can't afford to have any type of negative traits if they're pandering to a progressive class. They can't have any type of moral failing, or be shown to struggle to achieve, because then it implies that the whole category is somehow "lesser."

So there's no nuance. These characters never have any arc, they never have any character growth. I've watched a few shitty shows just to enjoy the terrible writing, and it usually amounts to: I'm a black woman, therefore I clearly know the best solution for everything, and I'm never going to be wrong. Everyone needs to shut up and listen to me and nobody can do anything right except me-but also, it's racist if you expect me to do everything or to have to explain to you my position. It's ridiculously contradictory, but it's the kind of twisted nonsense they force themselves into.

So they end up in a position where only straight white males (and to a lesser extent, white females) are the only people who can be shown as nuanced. Even though the villains are white men, sometimes they are also good people who have more complex ideas.

It's ridiculously racist. Nobody except straight white males have any agency. Even if a black character is a criminal and potentially a murderer in a story, they were made that way by society. The gay character is always pure and extremely moral. And so on.

They can TRY to put creative stories around these concepts, but their utterly hamstrung by their politics. If a gay character is faced with a moral quandary, they'll always immediately do the right thing and there's never any doubt that it was the Right Choice All Along. They don't face morally grey situations. The only challenges are external, and it's always the same challenge-straight white males are trying to keep you from being who you are supposed to be.

[Cronut]

This is an excellent critique of Woke Entertainment.

[JimboJr]

Its all the same shit. Wife put on the new "the craft" movie as some filler the other day (we both remembered the old one so figured what the hell). Turned out to be a mix of feminist and woke shit show.

Girls might have fought it out with each other, but mostly they were the heores, with the only nuance in the film.

Guys were the enemy for sure. The ONLY exception? The black dude that was friends with the protagonist. He of course was all virtuous and free of all the badness that infected the evil guys (whites)

The baddies were of course basically "the patriarchy". A bunch of all white, similar looking, dudes, led by a white evil man. What a shocker. Somehow only the black man could resist being apart of this group because woke powers.

I remember a comedian doing a bit on "we will actually have racial equality when the black guys can be the guy breaking into the house again on home security commercials "

Comedians are always at the vanguard.

[soldiermedic76]

Don't forget that the number of woke characters are far more numerous than what real world demographics are. At least half the characters have to be on the rainbow flag.

[mad.casual]

I'd say you could shorten it to "Because woke politics doesn't recognize individuals, only labels and categories, these characters never have any arc, they never have any character growth."

You go on to identify some tropes, but this is the key. Trope all you like, even break out of tropes and do something completely original. Your "Hello, fellow black man." character isn't going to redefine what it means to be black, ergo, he's never going to progress as a character along an arc.

[damikesc]

I think part of it is that the business model is inherently flawed. They have a very similar problem that ESPN has. Namely, a big chunk of their business is spending increasing amounts of money for rights that they are unable to monetize much at all after the initial showing. The originals they do have are not sufficient to justify the price of their service, so they must constantly spend more and more to get rights.

This eventually stops working.

[JimboJr]

I think multi factor. So many streaming services. Ive even combed through my list because I was subscribed to fucking 10 of them. Had to thin it out a little. The market is absolutely overloaded with "content"

Them going woke is definitely part of it. At best its making them produce trash content with no substance, at worst its pissing off people who are tired of the self-righteous preaching and scolding.

But post Covid. Probably the biggest. Theres a reason streaming, at home gym stuff, Peleton, Soul cycle, all these services are taking a big hit while actual gyms are packed.

[DesigNate]

I see Scott is misrepresenting the Florida bill again.

I have nothing to say about a teen show I will probably never see (much like Riverdale or whatever CW is running that’s not superhero related), but the idea that a show about two kids who represent like 5% of the population is going to be non-subversive is silly. By its mere existence, it is subversive as it goes against “the norm”.

[Salted Nuts]

Not even. Actual chromosomal confusion was something absurd like 0.012% of population.

Everyone else is just sick in the head. Worse than fucking Celiac disease twits.

[Cronut]

"If we take the bill's defenders at their word, though, there's absolutely nothing inappropriate about discussing Heartstopper in Florida public high schools in the right educational context. Again, there's no sexual activity in the show, not even through suggestion. It's only inappropriate to those people who think any representation of LGBT identities in public schools is inappropriate."

What, exactly, would be the right educational context for showing a Netflix teen rom-com in school, whether the characters are either gay or straight? The reason it would be inappropriate is because it has no educational value.

Fuck you, Shackford. Get your head out of your ass and stop worrying about gayness being part of school curriculum.

American kids suck at reading. 34% of 4th graders read at or above grade level. They also suck at math. Only 40% of 4th graders are proficient in grade-level math. The numbers are even worse for 8th graders- in the 30's. Those are pre-pandemic levels, so I'm sure they're absolutely abysmal now. How the fuck will showing a Netflix show about gay kids improve any of those deficits?

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

Shackford and the rest of the Teen Reasonistas should resign, or off themselves hari kare style, if they can’t be bothered to learn the basics of the Florida Law and stop misrepresenting it. It’s not “what the defenders say”, it’s what the law says.
Absolute garbage and complete journalistic malpractice. I’m embarrassed for them, since they can’t be bothered to be aware enough to be embarrassed themselves.

[JimboJr]

exactly this. This garbage of calling it "what opponents of the bill" say it is....might as well just push the propaganda for them.

You dont see the opposite ever happening. You don't see it as being called ...'what supporters call the "anti-grooming" bill'. Always in one direction.

You dont see them calling Roe v Wade: "what opponents are calling the baby death ruling"

[Salted Nuts]

It's not about the kids, it's about their future partners. You know, in like 6 months while they're still all young and stupid like Shackford prefers.

[Fats of Fury]

Well something's subverting Netflix's stock price. Not sure aiming programming at small audiences will get numbers up. Are the Obamas still providing programming ideas? or was that payout for services rendered. ION Batwoman was finally cancelled. Like CBS hanging on to Dan Rather despite his poor ratings these broadcasters would rather hang on to losers than admit a mistake.

[Salted Nuts]

Well, they directly cancelled 700k subscribers for being Russian, and another 1.3m dropped them around that time too... Big hit to stocks.

[Ronbback]

I see the DOJ now has an environmental justice department that and dHs disinformation governance board we are screwed big time.. this present government is coming up with all sorts of ways to enlarge itself and control us and fine us

[Cronut]

But we've eleventy bazillion articles about the Florida bill and abortion.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

Shackford and the rest of the Teen Reasonistas should resign, or off themselves hari kare style, if they can’t be bothered to learn the basics of the Florida Law and stop misrepresenting it. It’s not “what the defenders say”, it’s what the law says.
Absolute garbage and complete journalistic malpractice. I’m embarrassed for them, since they can’t be bothered to be aware enough to be embarrassed themselves.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Observers say...

[GroundTruth]

" The kids of Heartstopper were not "groomed" into identifying as gay or trans. They just are, and they are the ones who tell the adults, not the other way around. That's typically how it all goes in the real world."

This! If the NEA and Dems would just get out of the way, and the "I have to show how PC I am crowd" would shut up, then kids could get on with being young adults, and figure out what suits each of them as individuals. Most will be str8, some will be bi, a few will be gay, but they'll figure it out. Lord knows, we all did back in the dark ages!

[Cyto]

That is a really good point. Accepting people for who they are is not the same thing as "educating" kids about the sex/gender menu and encouraging them to test out all the options.

It is a tough balance to reach in the real world in a real school with real teachers and real parents. Even if everyone has the best intentions.

[Cyto]

My kids have had a fantastic school experience and have some great teachers. There are a surprising number of gay/lesbian teachers.. definitely over-represented, at least in my experience.

They all are really great people who really care about the kids. The two gay guys and the very lesbian lady at the elementary school do not bring any of it to the class, other than a left political agenda that conflates caring with provided by the government - this is shared by almost all teachers at that level.

The "acceptance" message is taught not by talking about two dads or exploring all of the gender and sex choices available, but through the book "wonder", which is a fantastic book about a boy who is congenitally disfigured and his struggles to have a normal life and about the people who become his friends. It teaches the message of acceptance through the admonishion: "When given the choice between being right or being kind choose kind"

That is how you teach children to accept others for who they are, including their differences. You don't go through a list... "And be nice to Pakistanis. And be nice to gay men. And be nice to lesbians. And be nice to transgender bisexual men. And be nice to nonbinary....".

Just "choose kindness".

That pretty much covers it.

[Cyto]

At the middle school, things are a little different. Lesbian and gay teachers feature rainbow flags and gay acceptance messaging on the walls. They have after school support clubs for LGBTQ kids. Two of my kids had the LGBTQ advisor for homeroom in middle school, so I know them personally (2 different schools). They are great people who really care. The "we accept gays" stuff is a bit too much "in your face", but they are great teachers who really care about the kids.

It is at the middle school level that I think they really go too far. 12 year old girls are very easily pushed around by social pressures. They are naturally very cliquish. My daughter is no wilting flower. But several of her friends have gone through phases of proclaiming themselves to be lesbian this year. Only one actually seems plausible (and she is just an odd kid. She could be anything under the oddity.. she is a natural misfit who is very susceptible to glomming on to any subculture that would accept her and allow her to hide her weird inside their weird. I have no idea where her sexuality will end up, but if her jealousy over boys paying attention to other girls is any indication, she is also not a lesbian)

Support clubs are voluntary, so I really don't have a problem with the idea.... Although I volunteer many hours every week with kids and you could not get me to run a group about anything remotely touching sexuality with a bunch of kids... Not in this environment. Easy way to end up arrested on false charges. But finding other people who are dealing with the same thing you are is probably a healthy thing in general.

[Cyto]

For some reason there is a fairly militant group that thinks you need to be taught that you are transgender or gay. It is a weird thing to think. You kinda are who you are. Your body will telly you nice and loud what your sexual preference is.

Teaching acceptance and providing support is probably a good thing all around. But teaching kids that they might be gender fluid and they just don't know it? I really don't get the point. Why would you feel the need to do that? Maybe I just cannot understand the experience of being nonbinary asexual... But I really don't think that we need a curriculum to make sure everyone feels encouraged to explore gender fluidity just so that tiny percentage feels supported in their life choices.

Choose kindness seems like a better path. Even at the high school level.

[Cyto]

Or, as the NAP suggests... How you treat other people? my business.

Your private life? Not my business.

[Azathoth!!]

Ah, the elementary school version of 'The Message'.

It leads to this--

At the middle school, things are a little different. Lesbian and gay teachers feature rainbow flags and gay acceptance messaging on the walls. They...

If you don't stop them when they're soft-pedaling they WILL move on to trampling all that you love.

Especially your relationship with your children.

[DWB]

Scott: I want the government out of your bedroom -- keep your fucking bedroom out of my government school!

[Nemo Aequalis]

I'm reminded of the wit who once remarked, "There's no dignity in show business".

[Corporatist Remover]

Reason's resident gay pedophile is worried that taxpayer money won't go towards the airing of gay TV shows in the classroom.

[Salted Nuts]

Choke on a leprous dick Shackford, you fucking miserable lying groomer.

[Tony]

I don't mind drunken, unshowered heterosexual men taking out their lack of education and sophistication on vulnerable minorities. It's unfortunate, but it's not all their fault. It's society's fault.

What annoys me is when they think their stupidity and small-mindedness are actually smartness and a license to govern others.

Just keep it in the back alley of your bar where you can stumble into a pile of garbage and sleep it off, like a decent person. Stop trying to govern. If you aren't literate, you probably can't govern. It's a rule of thumb.

[Cyto]

For those saying "why would you show a sitcom in school".... Here is an appropriate use case for using a movie/TV show to teach values in school, gleaned from my kids Florida education experience.

In 5th grade they read the book "wonder". If you have not read it, it is a wonderful book. It tells the story of you young boy with congenital facial deformities who, after many surgeries, is finally able to go to school with other kids. It tells the story of his struggle to find acceptance and friendship, and it also tells the story is of his friends and family from their point of view.

It is akin to science fiction, in that it explores universal truths via metaphor. The tagline is "choose kindness".

This message applies in all human interactions. So it is a great. Generalized message.

The book is also a good example of writing fiction. It has many different techniques that can be discussed. The kids learn about more advanced reading comprehension techniques - they talk about inference, point of view. Use of time... All sorts of things come into okay. They do a lot of writing assignments where they explore the hidden meanings, or attempt to write their own passages using these techniques.

Then, they watch the movie. Also a wonderful family film. They then compare the choices the film makers made with the choices the writer made. They talk about things that work better in film than in print, and vice-versa. They write papers about their observations.

And running through the whole thing, a story about friendship, kindess, acceptance, love and how it can be difficult to do that sometimes.

It is a story of universal values that work equally well for a Christian or an atheist. A capitalist or a Marxist, black or white. Gay or straight... Anyone can see a message that relates to their experience in the world.

This is how you teach kids about accepting people who are different from them.

[waxliberty]

""Queer" was once a slur that activists reclaimed but now has become a sort of weird collectivist nonword"

points for the Petersonesque stretch here. Someone want to take a crack at explaining how the cultural concept of "queer" is "collectivist"? lulz.

"Charlie doesn't call himself "queer." He calls himself gay"

Well isn't that refreshing and wholesome.

[Neptus67]

The real problem here is that leftists have seized the subject and made it into such an issue that nobody can see it simply as a story. It's now got to be a "message" with the left supplying that "message" from both pro and con perspectives telling people what to think. No independent opinions here....

[Brandon F Biden]

The author needn't have thrown in the "this would be fine to show at school"