Glitter and Glee

[heslopian]

A recent episode of the American pop culture show Glee featured a song, "Do You Wanna Touch Me", by Gary Glitter:

[youtube]qwS41jY8hXw[/youtube]

This has sparked considerable controversy because Glitter, real name Paul Gadd, was convicted of possessing child pornography in the late nineties and later fled to Cambodia, from where he was deported to Vietnam and convicted again for molesting underage girls, especially as the episode in question deals with sexual education and even touches on child porn, when an underage couple plan on making a sex tape to become famous. There is also concern that Gadd could receive royalties from the use of his song.
What are your thoughts on this? Was it appropriate for Glee to use the song, or did they cross the line?

[billy]

i don't think they crossed the line.
i think the use of it is just another nail in his grotesque coffin.
by using it the gad debate and child porn opens anew.
whether it was glee's intention or not i can't say, but
if it puts that bastard in the limelight again in such a way then i'm for it.

[heslopian]

I see your point. Some fresh exposure and hatred sounds like a good idea. Scum such as him should be publicly vilified. But what disturbs me is that he could receive some BIG royalties from the use of his song, and imagine if he spent that on an expensive laywer next time he rapes a young girl and is let go as a result? Then the show would have directly funded a paedophile.

[billy]

i doubt his royalty cheques will be that big
not enough for an expensive lawyer anyway.

[heslopian]

I don't know... Glee is a big show.
Claude Knights of the children's charity Kidscape said: "It is regrettable that the producers did not consider the implication of using such a track in the context of a sex education class. The fact that this song is linked to Gary Glitter [...] make[s] it wholly inappropriate." I don't like how programmes such as Glee sexualise children anyway, and using a Gary Glitter song seems a grotesque example of that.

[billy]

maybe, but the same can be said of micheal jackson, though found not guilty, he did obviously sleep with the kids and other things, why is he still revered?
maybe they did think of the consequence, (though i doubt it) personally i think anything except child abuse, that brings pedoism into the public eye is okay, play all glitters records on every show, not just glee. the outcry would be even greater and bastards like gary would start to live in fear.

[addy]

It's probably going too far to say that the show is therefore funding Garry Glitter's pedophilia, but I understand how it could be a socio-cultural faux pas... in a show riddled with faux pas. I seriously cringed in their "bisexuality is not real" episode D:

[heslopian]

he did obviously sleep with the kids and other things, why is he still revered?

That's a really dodgy thing to say Billy. You don't know if he "obviously" did anything. I'm not defending Michael Jackson but if the courts aren't completely convinced of his guilt then neither should anyone else be. That's my opinion anyway. And is he really that revered? He isn't vilified like Glitter of course, but nowadays I can't hear his name mentioned in the media without the allegations being brought up at some point.
I have a theory though: I think if Glitter was as rich and famous as Jackson was around the time of his arrest he may, may have been able to ride out the storm in the same fashion.

play all glitters records on every show, not just glee. the outcry would be even greater and bastards like gary would start to live in fear.

I do still listen to Glitter records, simply because they're good songs. Have you heard “Rock 'n' Roll Part 1 and 2“? It's brilliant.

---

It's probably going too far to say that the show is therefore funding Garry Glitter's pedophilia

Yeah I suppose you're right. I think I did go about far with how much money he'd receive and what he'd spend it on.

I seriously cringed in their "bisexuality is not real" episode D:

Please don't tell me Glee actually argued that bisexuality isn't real?

[billy]

he admitted to it. i said sleep, not bugger (though i think (my opinion) he ripped em apart like a jack-hammer in bowl of cherries every chance he got.)

as for glee, lets not delude ourselves it's about kids in current or even real situations. it isn't, it's a show made to entertain you. they can say bisexuality doesn't exist and get away with it. it's not called light entertainment for nothing.

i don't listen to jackson songs and i don't listen to glitters, as far as glitter was concerned i always abhorred his glam-rock style, and him as a performer. MJ was another story, he had real talent. i think i was so sickened by what i perceived him to have done that i just stopped listening to him. no matter the court findings, i can't accept it was just innocent fun.

to keep it on topic, has glee done a jackson show to date?

[heslopian]

Oh come off it Billy. You said he obviously slept with the kids "and other things", which implies sexual abuse. I doubt those "other things" you mentioned were playing cribbage and watching Howard the Duck. Also, was "ripped apart" and the cherry bowl image really necessary? Let's please try and keep this out of the sewer. I don't think either of our opinions about Michael Jackson are worth jack shit, but here's my two cents nonetheless; though I don't think what happened was "innocent fun", I believe it's very feasible that nothing sexual occured. Jackson had some serious issues regarding his abusive childhood, and seemed to want to return to a state of childhood innocence, which included surrounding himself with children.
It's alright for clever people like you and I to say that Glee isn't about representing real life, but much of its audience (and writer/director Ryan Murphy, who claims it as being about tolerance and coming-of-age) think it does, which means it will influence their opinions about bisexuality and maybe encourage prejudice.
I think Glitter has talent both as a singer and a songwriter, but that isn't really the point. It's all subjective. And yes, Glee have covered several Michael Jackson songs I think.

[addy]

Please don't tell me Glee actually argued that bisexuality isn't real?

One of the side-characters, who was a gay guy, briefly found himself attracted to a girl, so he wanted to explore if he was bisexual. The main gay character Kurt, who was the guy's confidant, laughed it off and pretty much spouted this crap about how bisexuality is just a "phase" that gay guys go through when they're young and still not brave enough to confront their true sexuality. What's worse is since Kurt is a main character, of course his opinion carries a lot of weight in a meta-fictional sense, and I can't believe the writers would use their main gay character to make such a homophobic speech *seethes*

Sorry for the off-topic rant LOL

It's alright for clever people like you and I to say that Glee isn't about representing real life, but much of its audience (and writer/director Ryan Murphy, who claims it as being about tolerance and coming-of-age) think it does, which means it will influence their opinions about bisexuality and maybe encourage prejudice.

I agree. The writers and producers are going out of their way and bragging about how they tackle serious issues (teenage sexuality, identity, race[fail], underage drinking, etc) so the ball is in their court to do justice to that.

Back on topic (sort of), I think the problem is the writers of the show don't actually think that hard about what they're saying and the messages their sending, whether intentionally or not. Heck, they upheld Madonna as the ideal of female empowerment... take of that what you will.

They slap songs and stuff on for fun and effect, they don't give a toss, and they're not as socially responsible as they claim to be. So this Garry Glitter thing is just another example of why people should stop expecting sensitivity from that show.

[billy]

the real truth is the writers don't really care one way or another about how their show affects anyone, all they want is lots of angsty kids watching it along with their parents, it's why it has a comedic value. the premise is this; make them laugh and they'll like any old shite you push in front of them, and to some extent it works. while some even many may question certaian aspects of the show they still carry on watching it. forgetting the glitter thing, and the no bisexuality message thing. fuck the audience, well just do a couple of beiber numbers and the masses will shut the fucjk up, and they do. half the time the people that complain are the people who catch an odd episode because they've had a day of work, they think...wtf is this crap, why are they playing glitter shit, they write in and it gets media attention.
did you jack, or you addy, ever write to the show or the media and voice your opinions? and if you did how many did the same? too few for it to make a difference. just enough to get free publicity. in the main all the kids that watch it are thinking "who the fuck is gary glitter, the other half are thinking "why do i like girls and boys" the parents who watch agree that bisexuality isn't an issue in their households and remember gary glitter with affection, because they never once in their lives read a newspaper, or watched anything on the tv that even slightly resembled a news broadcast about some over aged over the hill neurotic jumpeded glam rock has-been who likes getting it on with kids. ther's a reason it's called light entertainment...it really does carry no weight content wise, to think it is is to bestow more value on it than it deserves.

if they really want current affairs for their/your kids and youselves, watch current affair programs like the Doha talks, question time
60 minutes, there's a lot of such stuff out there, make sure that for every hour of crap they watch, they watch 30 mins of serious shit.
blaming the light entertainment industry for me is a partial if not total cop out. if you don't feel the program is light entertainment and is teaching people bad things: complain to the right people about it, and most of all stop watching the shit, stop your kids watching the shit. as parents which i know non of you two are, you/we have to reclaim to souls of our kids back stop them playing 16 hours on a vid game, stop them hanging round street corners begging for booze to the early hours of the morning, stop them watching too much shit or at least explain to them why it is shit. take them to gay rallies, war marches, protest marches, civil rights marches, show them that some people care, show them that some don't and just like to cause trouble, they'll find going to a civil rights rally or an gay and anti gay march much more instructional. just make sure you do it when glee is on the box.

rant over. sorry guys

[heslopian]

Again, it's fine for you to say all that, I agree with you, but we have to live alongside the kind of shallow dickheads who eat up this crap. I haven't written in to the show for the reasons you said.
If a parent wants to take their child to rallies and marches they're the kind of parents who always would have, not the kind of parents who let Glee raise their kids. I know that it's weightless light entertainment and I don't care. What I do care about is that some dipshit kid who takes it seriously will walk away with the lesson that bisexuality isn't real, and that more dipshit kids will listen and perpetuate the attitude until one kid going through puberty and confusion about their sexuality winds up feeling isolated from their peers. Light entertainment intended to mollify dipshits shouldn't pretend to try and broach serious topics which they don't give a fuck about exploring in any real depth.

[billy]

but isn't it a two edged sword jack, don't those shallow dickheads have to live with us, surely these kids who walk away with certain feeling will prob have those same feelings if they didn't watch it.

if we use the arguement that gleeclub teaches kids that there's no bisexualty (given the nature it's light entertainment)
what does it say about all genre of the film and television industry? that it's okay to kill as long as it seems proper? (any adventure film) that we can commit murder and get away with it even if we're poor (la law) and heres the greatest one of all. that love triumphs over everything else) i'm sorry but if if a guy who likes both sexes sexually; and i'm on about someone in or going through puberty, actually belives that shit then they have a too low IQ and need to removed from the gene pool.

you're gay, you make no bones about it. did your dad ever tell you weren't gay? did you believe him, and if so for how long. light entertainment if the kind that says bi sex doesn't exist is what drives people to depression, bullying, even suicide. if i'm gay and someone says, sotty billy, theres no such thing as same sex love, i'd fuck him up the arse and ask 'are you sure about that"
this thing relating to hormones affects everyone, same sex or no, bi sex or no. and i think it isn't the fault of the producers.

think about it. in another thread we're discussing bring out the subject of same sex sex through film and art. the same is true for bi. if we censor the light entertainment shows for saying there is no bi sexuality then we have to censor the people who say there is.
if we stop the man who believes gay sex is wrong from saying so then we must also stop those who believe it isn't wrong. and yes i do believe in certain censorships but not that kind. while i may not agree with it i accept that some do or will.

i cannot and will not believe that an 11 or 13 year old child who feels his hormones telling him/her they're gay or bi hasn't the intelligence, or where with all to be able to look the subject up in a library or on the internet. that they don't have older friends going through the same process. and while i accept some kids don't have the social skills i'd say many do. those who suffer anxiety through or because of the hormones and emotions will not have those feeling changed one way or the other because some twat on glee says there's no bisexuality.

[billy]

Oh come off it Billy. You said he obviously slept with the kids "and other things", which implies sexual abuse. I doubt those "other things" you mentioned were playing cribbage and watching Howard the Duck. Also, was "ripped apart" and the cherry bowl image really necessary? Let's please try and keep this out of the sewer. I don't think either of our opinions about Michael Jackson are worth jack shit, but here's my two cents nonetheless; though I don't think what happened was "innocent fun", I believe it's very feasible that nothing sexual occured. Jackson had some serious issues regarding his abusive childhood, and seemed to want to return to a state of childhood innocence, which included surrounding himself with children.
It's alright for clever people like you and I to say that Glee isn't about representing real life, but much of its audience (and writer/director Ryan Murphy, who claims it as being about tolerance and coming-of-age) think it does, which means it will influence their opinions about bisexuality and maybe encourage prejudice.
I think Glitter has talent both as a singer and a songwriter, but that isn't really the point. It's all subjective. And yes, Glee have covered several Michael Jackson songs I think.

on the jackson thing, i am far to far away from naive to think a court decision of not guilty makes a person innocent. do you see what you're doing jack you say lets keep this out of the sewer as though what i say isn't valid. a large percentage of the population think mj did those terrible things. i'm one of them, i accept that you're not and thats your choice. a choice i won't mock.

i also believe that someone in his position on the social stage and in the limelight should have acted not only better but exemplary as far as the kids were concerned, he didn't even come close to acting proper.
he should never have slept with other peoples children (even if it was just sleeping) in his underpants (he confessed to that part) and for his family and fans to say ...'oh he's just a kid himself at heart' is tantamount to lunacey should it be accepted (which it was)

if i found any male adult had slept with a child of mine i'd cut his cock off before he had chance to pull his socks on. the porn was found in the same room where the kids went, so was drugs and booze. these are facts of the not guilty court case he had. so tell me, whose worse. glee club for doing a gary glitter song or mj for allowing himself to be in such a serious situation as to to be taken through the courts for it. how many real lives were torn apart by him and his lawyers. how many fans trust did he destroy. i was one of his biggest fans, mowtown was my music and i loved it but he sort of dirtied it up some. so no i don't want this to go sewer ward, i want to simply show that a man who was found not guilty probably did an exponential amount more damage through his actions than glee club ever did playing a gary glitter song yet he is still revered and worshipped and adorned and masturbated over.

[heslopian]

In response to your comment about Michael Jackson - Billy, I resent you making sly assumptions about what I do and don't believe. Not once did I say that Michael Jackson was either guilty or not guilty of sexual abuse. What I said was it's feasible that nothing sexual went on, though like I said I still don't think it was innocent. It's clear Michael Jackson had some serious problems, paedophile or not.
In the light of what you're telling me now, such as the porn and the drugs (which I didn't realise were facts and not just allegations) I must admit he does seem pretty damn guilty. However, I still don't think it's our position as objective observers aware only of what was reported in the media, and without inside information or personal involvement, to pass judgement. It's a bit like when I read a comment on a YouTube video of Anne Sexton where someone basically called her the scum of the earth because of what she did with her kids. As far as I'm concerned only her daughters, who experienced her actions first hand, should be allowed to make such statements.
I'm not defending Michael Jackson. At no point did I say your opinion wasn't valid, I merely took offence at the unpleasent images you needlessly evoked in order to shock and thus emphasise your point.

---

but isn't it a two edged sword jack, don't those shallow dickheads have to live with us, surely these kids who walk away with certain feeling will prob have those same feelings if they didn't watch it.

I don't believe that, no. Kids base their attitudes on what they're exposed to. I don't think we're born into this world with certain principles and ideas we carry through life from the moment we leave the womb.

if we use the arguement that gleeclub teaches kids that there's no bisexualty (given the nature it's light entertainment)
what does it say about all genre of the film and television industry? that it's okay to kill as long as it seems proper? (any adventure film) that we can commit murder and get away with it even if we're poor (la law) and heres the greatest one of all. that love triumphs over everything else) i'm sorry but if if a guy who likes both sexes sexually; and i'm on about someone in or going through puberty, actually belives that shit then they have a too low IQ and need to removed from the gene pool.

Yes but those shows you mention don't (or shouldn't) advocate violence. Glee claims to reflect reality and encourage useful morals which our children should adopt. Indiana Jones does not. It presents itself on its own terms as light entertainment.

you're gay, you make no bones about it. did your dad ever tell you weren't gay? did you believe him, and if so for how long. light entertainment if the kind that says bi sex doesn't exist is what drives people to depression, bullying, even suicide. if i'm gay and someone says, sotty billy, theres no such thing as same sex love, i'd fuck him up the arse and ask 'are you sure about that"
this thing relating to hormones affects everyone, same sex or no, bi sex or no. and i think it isn't the fault of the producers.

My father doesn't know I'm gay. As a child however he talked sometimes about how gays were evil scum and paedophiles and it stuck with me. I turned out not believing it, mostly I think because I became gay myself, and realised I wasn't evil or perverted, but his words still tortured me for years. It was the impetus behind the breakdown I describe in "Secrets." I was depressed and suicidal because a source I trusted (unwittingly) told me I was wrong, and I believe the same thing could happen if kids are allowed to perpetuate the myth that bisexuality doesn't exist.

think about it. in another thread we're discussing bring out the subject of same sex sex through film and art. the same is true for bi. if we censor the light entertainment shows for saying there is no bi sexuality then we have to censor the people who say there is.
if we stop the man who believes gay sex is wrong from saying so then we must also stop those who believe it isn't wrong. and yes i do believe in certain censorships but not that kind. while i may not agree with it i accept that some do or will.

If Glee was art I'd agree with you. Then I wouldn't mind it saying whatever the hell it likes. The whole point of art is that it exists outside societal restraints on what we can and can't say. But Glee isn't art. It's light entertainment posing as art so it can force feed an impressionable generation crap.

i cannot and will not believe that an 11 or 13 year old child who feels his hormones telling him/her they're gay or bi hasn't the intelligence, or where with all to be able to look the subject up in a library or on the internet. that they don't have older friends going through the same process. and while i accept some kids don't have the social skills i'd say many do. those who suffer anxiety through or because of the hormones and emotions will not have those feeling changed one way or the other because some twat on glee says there's no bisexuality.

Okay. Hypothetical situation: You're a black child at an all white school. The other kids call you names and pick on you constantly because you're black. Your parents and older black friends outside of school tell you you're fine, and you read about it in a book and decide that, yeah, it's okay to be black. But the other kids won't change their minds and still continue to pick on you. When all is said and done, you have to spend a significant amount of your life among those kids, they form the basis for your social development, so whether or not you know you're right and they're wrong doesn't really matter. They'll still reject you and you'll still be alone.

[billy]

In response to your comment about Michael Jackson - Billy, I resent you making sly assumptions about what I do and don't believe.

there was nothing sly about it jack it's what i felt.

I don't believe that, no. Kids base their attitudes on what they're exposed to. I don't think we're born into this world with certain principles and ideas we carry through life from the moment we leave the womb.

if that's the case why are we only talking about glee club? almost every program on the box can have an adverse effect, anything ranging from songs of praise to hello hello, my kids were exposed to lots of horror movies, the also watched people dressed up as dogs, they never actually believed dogs could talk or that roger rabbet was banging some women with huge tits. unless of course kids can differentiate between whats real and what's garbage make believe. i also take it the parents who watch glee as well have their heads so far up their bottoms that they to believe bi sexuality doesn't exist? take it from me, if they're old enough to question whether or not they're bisexual. they're old enough to know it exists.

Yes but those shows you mention don't (or shouldn't) advocate violence. Glee claims to reflect reality and encourage useful morals which our children should adopt. Indiana Jones does not. It presents itself on its own terms as light entertainment.

so what, we get rid of anything that depicts violence, shit like poetry and books as well. what glee claims is irrelevant, its light entertainment thats what it comes under thats it's heading, you can't say indi jones presents itself as light entertainment and then dismiss a program that is factually light entertainment as being so. indiana jones teaches us that we can legally break laws, kidnap children and do anything without being killed. it's escapism not light entertainment. though it could be classed as the latter at a push. it also teaches out kids that god kills people who are evil and saves those who are good. either way, it projects what can and can't be supposedly done, again you can't validly say glee corrupts kids because of what it shows the kids and indi doesn't. they're still exposed to indi.
another point is this, you say or infer kids know indi was make believe, if thats the case they should also realise glee is not based on actual reality as well. no matter what the programmers may say. the same goes for dan brown books specially the one where he states this book is real and truthful. i suppose none of these kids ask their parents either, or their parents have no input.

My father doesn't know I'm gay. As a child however he talked sometimes about how gays were evil scum and paedophiles and it stuck with me. I turned out not believing it, mostly I think because I became gay myself, and realised I wasn't evil or perverted, but his words still tortured me for years. It was the impetus behind the breakdown I describe in "Secrets." I was depressed and suicidal because a source I trusted (unwittingly) told me I was wrong, and I believe the same thing could happen if kids are allowed to perpetuate the myth that bisexuality doesn't exist.

sorry jack but take it from me, dad does know you're gay and prob has done for quiet a while. i don't live with you and i knew. even before you said so yourself. maybe he was saying the gay nasty stuff to try and stop you being who you were. parents can be like that.

perpetuate the myth? the main word of my dismay being perpetuate.
how come this uproar isn't concerted against islam, the roman catholic church, the and other religious entities, glee says bisexuality doesn't exist and the world falls down.

If Glee was art I'd agree with you. Then I wouldn't mind it saying whatever the hell it likes. The whole point of art is that it exists outside societal restraints on what we can and can't say. But Glee isn't art. It's light entertainment posing as art so it can force feed an impressionable generation crap.

so a light entertainment program isn't art? it's there to make money jack, the same as a painting or a book. all artists want to make a living from their work, they succeed, because we don't like it we say it isn't art. it's there to sell ad space and all the other commercial shit as well but i'll tell you this jack, more people think it art than they do a poem or a fantastic painting by monet. it's art jack it's definitely someones art and will be seen to be so in the future.

Okay. Hypothetical situation: You're a black child at an all white school. The other kids call you names and pick on you constantly because you're black. Your parents and older black friends outside of school tell you you're fine, and you read about it in a book and decide that, yeah, it's okay to be black. But the other kids won't change their minds and still continue to pick on you. When all is said and done, you have to spend a significant amount of your life among those kids, they form the basis for your social development, so whether or not you know you're right and they're wrong doesn't really matter. They'll still reject you and you'll still be alone.

see in that situation they aren't rejecting you because you're black but because your different. probably because you fight to be different. the same can be said for rich and poor and a 100 other hundred hypertheticals, in some schools near when i lived in the uk they have an average of 1 .8 white kids per class of 30 to 40 and thats not hypothetical. some kids can't mix, in reality i'd tell my kids the facts of life, we live in a black community adapt or fall by the way side, and that i'm there if they need support if they do fall.

the glee club played glitter music, the world din't end fro anyone because of it, if he gets the chance he'll molest again rich or poor, the royalties he gets from glee won't allow him a better lawyer.
and the glitter thing is what the main question was about.

the bisexuality question was an addenda. one that's a bit of a fly in the ointment because it's the question thats taken over when it shouldn't have. i know as a matter of fact that if my kids at the age of ten or eleven thought themselves gay or bi and i told them it doesn't exist or it's not real and glee told them the same they'd laugh at me. often child have more problems than being gay to face. mixing with their peers being the hardest for some. do i think playing a glitter record was wrong, probably but it doesn't bother me really.

do i think them saying bisexuality doesn't exist was wrong; probably but personally i think it was more laughable. i think it's things like religion school education and even the playground that affect us in reality, shows like glee are just used as an excuse to further a cause. one way or the other. either way i take it for the shite it is and don't watch it.

i don't hold anyone or anything responsible for who or what i am but myself. even as i child i more or less held myself responsible for who i was and yes i do understand many kids and adults don't or can't. thankfully i don't have that heavy baggage to carry. but i am capable of carrying a bit of it for someone else should they need me to

[heslopian]

there was nothing sly about it jack it's what i felt.

You said: "Do you see what you're doing jack you say lets keep this out of the sewer as though what i say isn't valid. a large percentage of the population think mj did those terrible things. i'm one of them, i accept that you're not and thats your choice. a choice i won't mock." That isn't how you feel, Billy. That borders on lying.

sorry jack but take it from me, dad does know you're gay and prob has done for quiet a while. i don't live with you and i knew. even before you said so yourself. maybe he was saying the gay nasty stuff to try and stop you being who you were. parents can be like that.

I should be offended by that, but really I'm just amused. How did you know I was gay before I said so myself? You never heard me speak or witnessed how I act before you cottoned on. Was there a certain effeminate flourish to the style of my comments? Don't be silly. Furthermore, I never told you I was gay, you simply knew I was from my poetry, in which I sometimes talk about fucking guys. My dad hasn't read those poems.

so a light entertainment program isn't art? it's there to make money jack, the same as a painting or a book. all artists want to make a living from their work, they succeed, because we don't like it we say it isn't art. it's there to sell ad space and all the other commercial shit as well but i'll tell you this jack, more people think it art than they do a poem or a fantastic painting by monet. it's art jack it's definitely someones art and will be seen to be so in the future.

You've just proved my point. To some people Glee is more art than a poem or a painting. Hence they take it seriously. Hence they see it as more than light entertainment. Hence they perpetuate the shit it teaches. I don't recognise it as art because to me it exists for the sole purpose of accomadating the largest demographic possible. It's malleable to whatever's trendy and popular at the time, whereas in my opinion art is solid. Locksley Hall by Tennyson hasn't been edited over the years to match the changing culture.

Regarding your thoughts on Indiana Jones and other types of light entertainment, I still feel as though it can be explained by my previous argument that they present themselves on their own terms as light entertainment. Will Glee playing a Gary Glitter song have immediate negative effect on the world with frightening scale? No, of course not. No one programme ever could, regardless its intentions. But it can influence a growing attitude among young people.

[billy]

i see, so the fact i read your poetry, seen your face and heard your voice doesn't hint at you sexuality? fair enough. and even if you never said it in a poem, after listening to your voice and seeing you speak i knew/ would have known. the same way i know thousands of people are gay that i see and never speak to. if i never saw one of your poems i'd know you were gay (within a certain degree of accuracy) and sorry but to say, you only know because you read a poem i wrote is ludicrous. we all give off signals all of us. and the signals you give are not hetero.

and sorry jack but what borders on lying? i feel you think mj isn't guilty?

who takes art seriously. in truth it's art that isn't and shouldn't be taken seriously, it should be taken as creative expression. while i may take what an artist does as serious, i don't take the content as something serious enough to believe. i only have to look at the alcoholic bukowski, the incestuous child molester sexton and the insane dali to know that what they did was create art through their torture. they aren't telling people that what they say you should do is really what you should do.

you are steadfastly saying a major film is light entrainment and dismissing a series world renowned in the light entertainment industry as being anything but. you sat playing a glitter song will influence young minds. how will it do that jack, take the mj in this thread out of the equation and tell me ho playing a glitter song will or can influence influence young minds. sorry bit while the it will give him cash argument is valid the 'it can influence a growing attitude among young people.' doesn't not in the context of nexgative influence which i assume is what you're implying?

so my question is this

how will playing a glitter song have a neg influence on the young. remembering that you a still likes to hear his music by your own words.

when you started the thread the crux of your anguish was that it would help glitter pay his defense costs should he diddle another kid, now playing the song will

[heslopian]

i see, so the fact i read your poetry, seen your face and heard your voice doesn't hint at you sexuality? fair enough. and even if you never said it in a poem, after listening to your voice and seeing you speak i knew/ would have known. the same way i know thousands of people are gay that i see and never speak to. if i never saw one of your poems i'd know you were gay (within a certain degree of accuracy) and sorry but to say, you only know because you read a poem i wrote is ludicrous. we all give off signals all of us. and the signals you give are not hetero.

You would have known I was gay before you heard my voice or saw my face, having had access to the poems I never showed my dad, so whatever impressions you drew from the videos I published would have been coloured by that. You know what, I lied, I was offended, I am offended, not by your saying I give off signals which convey my sexuality, I probably do, though I don't think you're capable of judging that objectively, but because you basically tried to trivialise my experience, something I would never do to you. Who cares what the motives for my dad's homophobia were? They don't change the fact that I could have killed myself as a result.

and sorry jack but what borders on lying? i feel you think mj isn't guilty?

I DID NOT SAY I THINK HE ISN'T GUILTY. Why must everything be black and white with you? I said there's a chance nothing sexual went on. I'm not making any definitive judgement there because I don't feel I have a right to.

who takes art seriously. in truth it's art that isn't and shouldn't be taken seriously, it should be taken as creative expression. while i may take what an artist does as serious, i don't take the content as something serious enough to believe. i only have to look at the alcoholic bukowski, the incestuous child molester sexton and the insane dali to know that what they did was create art through their torture. they aren't telling people that what they say you should do is really what you should do.

I would bring up statements you made on DU about how you think people who deal graphically with child molestation in their poems have the perversion themselves, but as that isn't relevant to the argument I'm trying to make I'll let the hypocrisy slide. Again, you don't take art seriously. Neither do I. But the kind of people who watch Glee do. And if they're told that it is art and that it reflects real life they'll perpetuate its bullshit lessons.

you are steadfastly saying a major film is light entrainment and dismissing a series world renowned in the light entertainment industry as being anything but. you sat playing a glitter song will influence young minds. how will it do that jack, take the mj in this thread out of the equation and tell me ho playing a glitter song will or can influence influence young minds. sorry bit while the it will give him cash argument is valid the 'it can influence a growing attitude among young people.' doesn't not in the context of nexgative influence which i assume is what you're implying?

Actually no, I wasn't implying that hearing a Glitter song on a mainstream show will encourage kids to think child molestation is okay, if that's what you're saying you think I was arguing. In regards to Glitter my argument was simply the cash element, but also the song itself, if we disregard Glitter for a moment, used in the context of a sexual education class, with actors playing children gyrating and singing about being touched, is in my opinion incredibly inappropriate.