Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
She is no Amy Pond (unless she is. her mums cousins daughter once removed. or something).
has this thread dissapeared? Dammit. More important than the budget.
Also, in the contect of Doctor Who, it's always Doctor, not Dr.
Always the best time to make a typo
Not without people getting jumped on anyway.
I like her dimples
And she has a nose like Michael Jackson.
sure i've seen her getting ner norks out in something else (not Emmerdale).
lots of great gays on the box.
Det. Sgt. Mo Connell.
PS isn't that true of several other shows too?
just Dr Who has SO MUCH POTENTIAL!!!
Why is it expected that the companion is a pretty young woman? I know they're not always but it's going that way.
Because so many people watch this and it's probably something kids watch with their families, I just think it would be really cool if there were some more(human) LGBT characters and the show didn't constantly uphold restrictive gender roles :(((
but for me it's crying out for something like this. I mean the gender of the doctor can change can't it?
They've changed quite a lot of the mythology.
Especially Martha. She was a trained doctor, so obviously clever, and spent the first episode being really sparky and interesting and within two episodes that all went out the window and she spent the entire time simpering after the doctor.
Amy too, actually. I really liked the first few episodes where she was this girl who'd grown up somewhere where she didn't fit in and was basically going out with this guy 'cos he was the only reasonably pleasant, decent-looking guy in her village and she quite liked him. Which felt really plausible. As soon as she started being madly in love with Rory it became much less believable.
RTD probably felt the companion should hanker after the Doctor because it seemed to work for Rose. Then he clearly worked out this had killed her stone dead so did the whole thing with irritating as fuck woman being uninterested.
but I think the fact it's a Saturday teatime show for families is why they don't make the companion a boundary pushing non-stereotypical lesbian (or whatever).
There's a balance to be had between pushing mainstream boundaries and actually getting decent ratings.
you should watch Torchwood.
[NB No-one should ever watch Torchwood]
That was alright.
Am I being really naive to think most people wouldn't stop their children watching something just because one of the main characters seems to be attracted to people of the same sex?
I was allowed to watch the incest bits on Brookside.
But Dr Who is supposed to reach the broadest audience possible.
There are a lot of very small-minded and fucked up people out there who seem normal until there's a hint of LGBT.
...because it's not allowed to be promoted.
A bit like Liberace and Elton John.
I can see DD's point.
but his presence didn't really do much for challenging stereotypes. And he's not human?
Just from the future? Might be wrong though. Agree about the stereotype bit.
To be honest whenever RTD did it, it felt slightly shoe-horned in. It'd be nice to have a gay character where their sexuality wasn't a particularly big deal.
A FUTURE WHERE ITS OK TO BE GAY
In the future RTD always posited it was okay. In fact it was more he suggested that bisexuality would be the norm.
Well that and bi as well. It really pissed off loads of people, and I liked that.
I didn't like his idea of a finalé to a series, unfortunately, or his reliance on a sort of kitchen sink drama for for the companion.
I totally agree that it's pretty dull it has to be another nubile woman as the companion.
RTD tried to shoe horn loads of stuff like that in and it was pretty naff. After all, how would we know the character was gay unless they unnecessarily went on about it?
That said, I didn't want a companion at all for the time being. At the end of the last series he was supposed to be pretending to be dead. I'd like to see how go covert for a bit. Plus they usually follow up good assistants with really crap ones
Can't it just be a bloke dicking around in space?
So they have to use someone. I just wish they'd make it someone a bit different.
But Tate was the only thing that kept me watching during the dog end years of the RTD era
Fucking awful. The only thing that kept me watching when she was on was the chance of a good episode.
And there were three: the Moffat ones in the Library and the one without her where the Doctor went on a tourist trip on the planet. Moffat wrote her out of most of the Library too.
So if there was a gay companion I'm not sure you'd get the *better represented* gay character you're after
It doesn't have to promote a "social purpose" but I, like lots of other people, watch it and find their characterisations dull and off-putting and cringe-inducing. It would genuinely improve the show.
are they actually things like The Wire and Sopranos or maybe BSG or The West Wing?
I mean to say, shows that you couldn't possibly make Doctor Who resemble without it no longer being Doctor Who.
That post was total nonsense
It can be excellent too but it doesn't really have the scope to be opposite x-factor and try to follow some high drama 15-cert ideals.
iI've watched far more Doctor Who than I'd like to admit, and I don't know how they would even present it? It's just an action show where they go on adventures, no one really talks about their emotions, especially due to the family friendly nature it needs to have (I enjoyed how they made Amy pregnant and then kind of went *Oh shit, now we have to totally avoid *where do babies come from* in lots of euphemisms*) so to have to explain a character's sexuality it would feel a bit shoehorned.
Should homosexual characters be more accurately depicted on tv? 100%. Is Doctor Who really a key offender we should be looking to change? I'm not so sure
You could have an all-male or all-female couple (and in fact Dr Who has) without really commenting on it.
This interests me 'cos at the moment I'm teaching basic English to immigrants, a lot of whom are strictly religious and I'm toying with whether I should put in occasional same-sex couples who live together without actually clearly identifying them as a couple to show an accurate reflection of UK society...
i really want the assistant to be a curmudgeonly old gay man
When the Doctor meets a young nubile potential companion
curmudgeonly old gay man: God, Doctor, always with the hetties. If you want me, I'll be in the Tardis outing celebs online with a G&T
Why would you instil and highlight 'differences' that people aren't looking for?
You're one of these strange people that has to see everything through the prism of gender or sexuality and create artificial divisions and conflicts in society that need not exist.
You can't just see 'a doctor' like most people do. You have to see a 'gay doctor' or a 'black doctor' or a 'female doctor', and to do this is harmful to breaking down the barriers you (allegedly) want to see broken down. You have to compartmentalise people; building up dividing walls between people instead of, you know, just treating them by who they are, not what they are.
except when it involves straight people? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X4prkQ5D9M&feature=related
You sound like Cronin.
I'm guessing asexual people in particular get a bit fucked off with things like that - the Doctor's one of the few asexual TV role models...
And then strangely Rory suddenly got a bigger and more loved up role with Amy
there's other romantic stuff.
CG's comment is pretty much like those people who say they don't mind gays as long as they don't flaunt it in public, not realising that heterosexual representations are absolutely everywhere and unavoidable.
The fact is that showing things that reflect cultural norms will never be seen as an issue but showing things that don't will be. As things stand, it isn't really possible to depict homosexuality (or indeed a few other things such as a disabled character) without people perceiving it as an issue.
Programmes like Doctor Who should challenge that but it's going to be a gradual process.
I'll continue to find it dull and heteronormative. Dr Who reflects cultural norms but it also produces them.
I've read that Guardian article a few times now and I still can't see where it says this new assistant isn't going to be a lesbian. Oh well.
Let's see how her sexuality is represented in the new series.
Or can you not enjoy something unless two guys are noshing each other off?
I'd enjoy it a lot more if the subtext was that the characters nosh each other off in private.
I stand by it if challenged.
Treating people as equals means treating people exactly the same. If you define the character by their sexuality then you're part of the problem. Who cares if the character's gay or straight or whatever? It doesn't fucking matter.
is full of gay characters. Maybe not the companions (captain jacj aside) but lot's of sub characters.
In the last series there were the gay couple on the ship with the headless monks (and it was stated they were gay) and there as the lesbian vitorian lizard woman and her girlfriend.
And Russul T Davis constantly had people (idiots) moaning he was ''pushing the gay agenda'' cos it often had references to homosexual relationships.
So for a family show it does pretty well to promote positive gay characters and role models. No you're not going to get talk of scissoring and rimming but then it's not channel 4.
would be plausible, interesting and very very positive.
and who knows, this new one might be a massive lezzer so that would be one step nearer at least.
It's like aliens, yeah? There are aliens in Doctor Who.
But, fair enough, at the moment a lot probably wouldn't. Hopefully in the future, however, children will grow up learning that people love people - some male people love female people and some love other male people etc - and why shouldn't programmes like Doctor Who help get that across?
but you can't argue that it's a good thing for all kids' tv to ignore that gay people exist (i realise doctor who is actually better than most for this, btw). torchwood isn't really oriented towards kids, is it
mental, i know
also: A straight couple represents a biological pairing, parents. A gay couple's difference from this is sex
^ the worst sentences
every kids tv programme ever!
but yeah you're right it would be unfair to deprive them of a totally non-sexual companion who never ever makes reference to sexuality like, idk, amy pond
'A straight couple represents a biological pairing, parents. A gay couple's difference from this is sex.'
just ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhharghrghrgrgrhrgheghgrhgrhgrhrghrghrghrghr. I give up.
It's not fair on viewers that the new companion won't be an active homosexual? Is that it?
I only half-agree bit it's definitely not incomprehensible garbage.
that children won't be able identify two gay guys as natural and viable parents but would only be able to see them for their 'sex'? Cause their sexuality is more of a "specific choice" and not as normal and biological as heterosexual people? And that children don't have any sexuality of their own?
Just as well nobody said it really.
what did she mean then?
- "a straight couple represents a biological pairing, parents" (I take this to be contrasting with non-straight couples - is it not?)
- "a gay couple is a very specific sexual choice" (I take this to be contrasting with a straight couple - is it not?)
- "children do not care about sex" (is this not kinda arguing that children don't experience, or are unaware of, their sexuality?)
Cause yeah all those things are really problematic.
The third point is where I only half-agree. Children have a sexuality developing but I'm not sure how aware they really aware of it or what it signifies. If I think back to when I was five or six there were definitely things that were related to the roots of my experience of sex and sexuality now but I wasn't aware of them as being that at the time and, as soon as sex or relationships became too much involved in something, it stopped appealing to me. But I don't think that means that there can't be same-sex pairings on children's TV shows. I just think that, as with heterosexual pairings on a show like Doctor Who, they work better when the sexuality isn't overt.
we don't have to see gay couples as more sexually "overt" than male-female/dad-mum relationships. Why should we?
Children often DO experience sexuality and even identify as LGBT well before the age of 16. It's pretty insulting to ignore that fact (not saying you are doing this).
I just don't think notagain is saying anything that contradicts that.
I don't think I'm the only person to have interpreted what she said in this way.
Your argument is that of the stereotypical Daily Mail readership, for want of a better demographic label.
You've both made the point that children don't really care or 'get' sex and sexuality and then implied that they must do because of your differentiation between heterosexual couples and homosexual ones.
In reality children don't care, full stop. They actually just understand that people have relationships until society comes along and tells them they have to conform to a certain idea.
If you don't agree with them as premises, you can clarify that here.
I've directly quoted some things she's said as I interpret them and not out of context. If she doesn't agree with them then she can say so and clear up any ambiguity.
That's far more to do with you than with her so why is it her role to clarify the confusion?
I'm not confused. I've told her that what she DIRECTLY SAID is really problematic.
Otherwise you're just left with a handful of quotes out of context which you've clearly made your decision on how you wish to interpret them.
But yeah, this is going in circles. I think you're arguing with someone because you've fundamentally misunderstood what the were saying. I can't prove that, of course, but I don't recognise how you characterise her position from how I read her comments.
But us going "she said that", "no, she didn't" isn't going to achieve much. I don't think she has anything she needs to clarify or explain but obviously it's up to her whether she chooses to respond to you. I don't particularly see why she should but I'll step aside and leave it between the two of you to duke it out.
here is exactly what notagain said which she seems to be standing by (sorry for the original misquote btw):
'A straight couple represents a biological pairing, parents. A non sexualised same sex ciupe is friendship. A gay couple's difference from this is sex.'
that very clearly suggests that ONLY straight couples can be considered a 'biological pairing, parents', at least in the context of television representations. it also makes the weird implication that all same-sex couples on doctor who have either been friendships or parents, which is not true. how is there any other way to interpret it?
you know which kids *do* tend to notice the issue of sexuality and how it's represented? gay kids! and do you know which kids *do* constantly 'have a sexual agenda attempted upon them' (another direct notagain quote)? gay kids! because of all the representations of straight couples as the only neutral 'biological pairing'!
what about kids with gay parents? are they allowed to see a gay couple as a 'biological pairing'?
i get that you like to be charitable about interpreting people's meaning theguywithnousername, but sorry notagain's post was really shittily heteronormative no matter which way you read it
Completely agree on the kids with gay parents. Of course that should be represented.
I'm not wholly convinced on the "gay kids" bit in so far as that I'm not convinced children experience the beginnings of their sexuality in quite the defined, clear-cut terms adults tend to. Which isn't to say there won't be kids that have some element of same-sex attraction (in fact I'd say most would on occasion but some obviously far more than others) but I'm not necessarily convinced there'd be "gay kids" and "straight kids" per se. The basic point that it's a good reference point for kids who do experience same-sex attraction does ring true, although I'm not sure I'd agree they constantly have a sexual agenda attempted upon them.
It's just one of these things that, if you're a bit different from most people, then most people will be a bit different from you. It can be lonely, for sure, and there's a real need for role models but I'm not sure the majority have an 'agenda' per se.
and i'd assume that doctor who has a pretty wide target range, but if anything it's aimed mostly at young teenagers who have most certainly started thinking about and experiencing their sexuality. and of course i don't actually think that the whole of pop culture literally has a sexual 'agenda'; the point was that only gay representation is ever accused of trying to force a 'sexual agenda' on children, when in fact it's the gay kids who have to live in a world surrounded by representations of a sexuality they can't relate to, which is depicted as the only normal way of being, and i think that's the closest you can get to 'forcing' a specific sexuality. so yeah basically heteronormativity is a problem that can and should be worked on, not just accepted as the way things are
hopefully you get the point, ahm oot now anyways
If I'm honest, I don't think it's particularly well-phrased. But I also think you're misinterpreting it on two counts.
I think what she's saying in the first bit is that the majority* of children watching will have a male and a female parent so will understand male-female pairings in terms of parental units and how those work (or don't work) together, rather than as a sexual couple per se whereas most same-sex pairings they'll understand in terms of how they relate to same sex friends** rather than as a sexual couple. So, in both cases, children won't necessarily relate to couples in a sexual way and, if the show were to go out of its way to present a homosexual couple as a homosexual couple rather than just very good friends, it might jar with how children actually experience the relationships between characters in the show.***
I actually think there's a lot of good to come from programmes for children normalising gay relationships. But I don't think she's saying anything particularly outrageous here.
*I'm aware it's clearly not all - I'm explaining what I think notagain said rather than what I think here.
** I'd personally add that arguably this actually gives an advantage to Doctor Who in depicting same-sex couples as children who are developing homosexual feelings might relate whilst others will simply see it as a friendship and read nothing beyond that.
***See what I've posted above a 00:26 for my feelings on this.
And isn't actually phrased very well. I don't actually mean that they should play down the fact they're a homosexual couple, just play down the sexual aspects of the relationship and play them as sub-text (as they generally would with a straight couple, although admittedly Who's been doing that much less with Amy and Rory).
then it's based on a complete double standard. the last season of doctor who prob had more overt hetero sex references than any other 'kids' show i've seen. which, y'know, is why it might even be a better candidate than most for bringing up these issues! nobody thinks they should be doing hardcore gay sex scenes but a bit of gentle innuendo (which will go over the heads of younger kids anyway) should be fair play
and when people write terribly worded posts containing extremely loaded phrases like 'biological pairing' and 'sexual agenda' in a discussion about gay representation, i kinda think it's their responsibility to clarify rather than get indignant about misinterpretation. great, you wanna be generous about presuming good intentions, but it's really not fair to attack DD for misunderstanding when *the actual words that notagain wrote* were unarguably offensive taken at face value
also she has previous on the whole 'terrible opinions' thing, so there's that
our generation probably have 'the most warmth' in history towards a lot of oppressed categories of people but that doesn't mean oppression is solved. your last bit is the only real point here, obviously you're completely right that pop culture exists in a market and that explains representational trends better than direct malicious discrimination (don't think anyone's actually been suggesting otherwise), but i don't think that means we shouldn't critique those trends. still think your original post was shit though, soz
surely he wouldnt have a limited closed mind.
I'm an adult so I don't watch it but it's a bad thing if she's on the telly less
These strikes are wrong at a time when negotiations are still going on.
But parents and the public have been let down by both sides because the government has acted in a reckless and provocative manner.
After today’s disruption, I urge both sides to put aside the rhetoric, get round the negotiating table and stop it happening again.
(Well, maybe not hate, but the love for that show is defo really weird).
People didn't have to argue about it. Just saying!!!!
But isn’t it supposed to be the same guy played by all these different actors? So why would he suddenly become gay?
I'd definitely want to kiss some men at some point.
Should have guessed, really.
and subsequently put in that bit about "her" first crush being a girl.
that he reason for amy and rory's break is cos during a lonely night on the tardis while amy was kidnapped the doctor gave rory a reach around.
what the fuck happened to my thread.