It is a rather well-known fact that quite a few dudes (one example being our beloved staff writer Brett) think that two ladies doing the nasty is totally hot. It is an oft commented-upon pop culture phenomenon that Hollywood likes to cash in on, from House‘s Thirteen (among others — see also: Callie of Grey’s Anatomy, Angela of Bones) gallivanting up and down the Kinsey scale to Katy Perry‘s famous debut ode to exhibition lesbianism. It’s titillating (see what I did there? Punny, right?) and edgy to have two girls hook up on-screen, and is counted as a win-win. Not only does it make your show look modern and progressive (usually — it can be and mostly is handed poorly, but at least it’s handled), but it brings in the casual dude watcher who’ll tune in week after week in hopes of catching a lip-lock between two ladies. And yet, very rarely do you ever see it even hinted at that two dudes might also want to do the do with each other.
There are a few good reasons for this. For starters, female sexuality tends to be far more fluid than male sexuality. This means when you’ve got two ladies hooking up, it’s easy to write it off when it’s convenient. It was just a phase, you can say, or, that girl was special to this character, and now she’s found the right man to settle down with and have a million babies. And even if the two chicks do end up in television’s happily-ever-after land, lesbians are the ones that settle down with their sperm donor kids and Subarus. Plus, it’s hot. It’s totally hot. Girls and guys agree it’s hot, right?
And then there’s the distinctly American prejudice against guys being gay.I’m not sure why America seems to have this bias worse than other countries, but it does. I can say with certainty from sampling international television that not only are gay characters more common on international shows (the BBC, in particular, is extremely gay-friendly, but more on that later), but the gender balance is far, far more even.
My theory, which I call the Brokeback theory, is that America still clings to its cowboy ideal of masculinity. While America has, to some degree, embraced the idea of women fulfilling multiple types of roles or stereotyped patterns, and American man is still a man. Don’t believe me? Look at channels aimed towards women (Oxygen, TLC, Women’s Entertainment, for starters). The variety of both channels and what is on them is positively staggering compared to Spike, the ultimate dude channel, which is boobs, cars, and stuff that blows up. If that’s not evidence enough, watch any sports broadcast and pay attention to the commercials. American dudes, real American dudes drive a big truck, drink beer, shave, and grunt a lot. If a gay male character is to show up, he follows the model of Mark on Ugly Betty; fey, lisping, and weak-wristed. They shriek, are foppishly dressed, listen to bad pop or Broadway, are neurotic and fastidious, speak in an affected voice, and inevitably are perpetually single because who do they naturally lust after but the muscular, tall, dark, and handsome all-American man who, naturally, is straight and will never want them?
I call this theory the Brokeback theory, obviously, after the landmark film. I don’t think what made this film so big was the fact that the two leads were gay. After all, this was eight years after we’d seen Maurice, which was far more explicitly gay. What made the film so huge was who was gay: cowboys. Not turn-of-the-century, tortured intellectual English schoolboys, but rugged, American men. Men who married and had sex with women; men who were fathers. Men who drove trucks and roughed it in the great outdoors just like a Ford commercial. And yet these men were painfully, deeply, ass-over-stetson in love. With each other. Cue America’s collective mind being blown.
It’s no wonder, with the furor and brouhaha that came out along with Brokeback Mountain, that television studios in America so rarely venture onto the two dudes side of the track. Why, when they can look just as progressive and stay safer with two women? As we have previously explained, this is hot.
But because it just was Pride Week, and because I can, I’m going to say this: dearest television studios, please bring on the gay dudes. The real ones, not just the queens (though I still love me some queens). Bring us some strapping lads, some older men, some confused teenage boys, and have them make out. You know why? I mean besides that it’s only fair to represent a large part of the world’s population?
Because girls like it, that’s why.
Clacked by Julia Hass 
on Jun 30, 2009 @ 13:00 EST5EDT
){kind=link}
As I do Cultural Studies, I feel I have to disagree with your statement that “female sexuality tends to be far more fluid than male sexuality,” despite the HH link (which isn’t the best of sites), particularly considering the number of bi-sexual and homosexual men in the US. But, I agree that the media portrays W-W relationships more often which makes Americans find affection amongst women more culturally acceptable.’
However, I utterly agree with the homoerotic subtext in Merlin. I love the show and the acting. Initially, I thought it was odd that Merlin shrugged off Guinivere’s advances and Arthur ignored Morgana. While the writers probably prevented straight-up heterosexual pairings to incorporate lingering candle glance scenes, I’ll pretend they didn’t want to disrupt the bromantic tension. Although the writers spend time building friendships between Merlin and his guardian, Gaius; Merlin and fellow servant, Guinevere, as well as king’s ward and possible magic user, Morgana, they don’t really build the relationship between Merlin and Arthur outside their occasional fraternal/master-servant verbal spars. So, I tend to characterize the passionate declarations about Arthur-Merlin’s relationship as homoerotic, as they seem to come out of nowhere. Merlin is almost like a romcom. You know the two leads will get together, but the show never shows them overtly confiding in each other. Instead, they use other characters to talk about the relationship. Merlin’s mother, the dragon, and his guardian all intimate the deep bond by stating “Arthur’s here for you,” “he’s helpless without you,” and “You’re two sides of the same coin.” Plus, Merlin’s random dialogue “It’s my destiny to protect him,” “how can I protect someone who hates me,” and “what’ll I do without him,” reflecting his relationship frustration, adds to it. Plus, the episode featuring irrational jealousy from Merlin’s old friend over his connection with Arthur on top of Merlin’s midnight dreams about Arthur tend to slip into the blatantly homoerotic realm.
So, while I am all for televised M-M action (either in the eroticized way TV portrays F-F relationships or in a more realistic stance), I really hope CC will review Merlin (individual eps or the series) and not just for the homoerotic tension ;) .
*POST AUTHOR*
Hah! I tried to do it, I really did, but I’ve watched it so long ago that it seems weird to me to review it now. This already happened, people! Get with the program!
Also, I’m just crappy at episode reviews in general.
Julia, you may want to turn on DAYTIME television this summer, which boasts four same-sex romances, or relationships. ATWT’s Nuke, GL’s Otalia, OLTL’s Kish, and Y&R’s Rafe & Adam are blazing the trail for same sex relationships.
Why I hate “gay” stories on television, generally, is that they take a wedge issue (coming out, gay marriage, political affiliation, etc.) and that is the character’s development. There’s a muted, or stunted, sexuality to the gay characters on TV and they are defined by major life decisions (or plot points aka sweeps stunts).
Until gay is no longer contentious, in much the same way race still is, there will never be a fully-fleshed out male leading man.
I brought this up on a soap board the other day. Someone said that the producer “ruined” the gay storyline with murder, jealousy, etc. Um…it’s a soap. If you want gay representation on soaps, the end result will most likely be they will be unhappy, constantly question their relationship and will not have a problem wanting to kill or be killed for any number of reasons, one of which just MAY be being gay in the first place. Rape, murder, adultery, switching partners, babies and who the hell knows what else, is always present in a soap. If I got mad every time a hetero couple was screwed with, I’d quit watching, because on soaps there is no happy ending.
Expectation of homosexual relationships seem to be different than heterosexual, and because it is still fairly new to deal with it in our entertainment, people spend too much time being pissed off (in my opinion) at how the characters are treated (when all characters are treated like crap).
Modwild, you’d probably do best watching GL right now, considering it’s going to be cancelled in three months, there’s going to be some finite ending (happy or not!)
*POST AUTHOR*
I’m certainly not trying to make a statement on all women’s sexuality or all men’s. My point was more that the “hot” factor of girl-on-girl also pertains to guy-on-guy, and American television should get with the times.
I agree with that statement, but most M-M action takes place off-camera or is relegated to shows such as Queer as Folk.
*POST AUTHOR*
I do keep up with the gay storylines on soaps, but I similarly find that American soaps (ie: Nuke) have similar problems (they don’t have sex for over a year, the omg am I gay drama/bouts of heterosexuality, the constant gay bashing and mortal peril/injury/drinking problems, etc, etc, stereotypes galore. I tend to be sensitive of how gay characters are treated because usually the powers that be use them as a punching bag that instigates drama, which comes from a long history of portraying gay characters only as deeply depressed and troubled individuals/crazy people who will never find the happiness a straight/deserving person would). I’ve found that the German soaps are the only ones I really like. The British soaps were, for soaps, well-written, they’re just not my cup of tea.
But then again, soaps =/= primetime. You can get away with tons on soap operas that the general viewing audience of a network show would never tolerate. Regulating gay storylines to supporting roles on what amounts to visual pulp fiction is not exactly what I would consider “progress”.
Actually i have a soft spot for antagonist bromance like Logan/Weevil (smoking chemistry really) from Veronica Mars and Cappie/Evan from Greek, and it’s not in a gay kind of vibe but i don’t know the actors work together…
Thank you for this post. Girls have been digging same sex relationships between dudes (whether overt or subtextual) for a while, but nobody ever talks about it. Especially here in America. It’s partly like you say; men in America are always portrayed as super macho (straight) or ridiculously fey (gay). But I also think it’s a holdover from sexism; it’s just not ladylike for a woman to get turned on by anything other than plain vanilla hetero sex.
My opinion is this – I like two women together more than two men because it means I can be part of the equation. I’m a woman! Two men means I cannot play, and I, personally, am not happy with that (unless they are bisexual, and then we can talk). Plus, I like my gay men manly and my gay women womanly. I don’t get why I, as a woman, would want a girl trying to be a guy, nor do I get why a guy would want to be with a guy who is acting like a girl. Seems to defeat the purpose (TO ME – THIS IS A STATEMENT ABOUT ME, so please don’t bash me for saying it). So, there ya have it.
As you mention that Merlin is just starting on NBC (and I read this post because of that picture), if you would remember that some of us are watching it for the first time as it airs domestically, and mark any important plot spoilers appropriately, I would be most grateful.
For Dean and Sam in Supernatural, there is an entire sub-genre named Wincest.
For those who want other stuff than coming out angst and so on (which bores the hell out of me) and you don’t mind crackhumour, weird aliens etc. you might want to look in on Torchwood as well. As it’s hitting S3 on Monday in Britain, and on the 20th of July (I think it is) in the US.
It’s got a cannon m-m pairing now and is generally good fun (and it’s got on screen m-m makeout sessions). Writing’s occasionally crap, but then so is the case with most tv shows – no matter the origin.
And hear-hear on the need for more gay content for everyone.
With Russell T Davies (Doctor Who & Torchwood showrunner) apparently relocating to LA, better gay characters and relationships might be making it to US telly. RTD was, of course, the creator of the original Queer as Folk, so he has plenty of form.
Watching two men have sex means getting to finally see a man in the role of giving pure pleasure. When a man is with a woman, on some level the sex is “functional,” about conception or power over a woman. Does that sound like a good explanation for why women want to see two men together?