Glitter and Glee

[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.