Queer As Folk

[jæd]

As for "dangerous"? Ha fucking ha! I will repeat again: It was part of the story that Nathan was SAFER in Manchester with an adoptive "family" who made sure he was looked after and practising safer sex that away down to London to god knows what.

Because us fags in London would have sold him into sexual servitude, never to be seen again.

(I think the main reason it was set in Manchester was that since the gay scene is geographically smaller it was easier for Stuart & Nathan to bump into each other. In London it would be less convincing for a 15 year old boy & 30 year old man to meet up all the time.

 

[HarrisonSlade]

What a nasty twist of the English language there!

"Asking for it" in this sense means PROVOKING a sexual assault. ie "the slag deserved to get raped, she had a short skirt on."

In this case the charachter Nathan was not out "acting provocatively" and "provoking" sexual abuse. He ACTIVELY went out to Canal Street in Manchester to meet men for CONSENSUAL sex. Yes, the law says at 15 he wasn't really able to consent but the image in the show is of a young man who was able to.

As for "dangerous"? Ha fucking ha! I will repeat again: It was part of the story that Nathan was SAFER in Manchester with an adoptive "family" who made sure he was looked after and practising safer sex that away down to London to god knows what.

If a 12 year old girl was so hormonely charged would such an explicitely erotic scene be acceptable in your eyes.

As for dangerous. Is your view of manchester so innocent that you could justify labelling London a more dangerous city.

The scene had nothing to do with the issue at hand, it was erotic, and therefore designed to show children as easy sexual encounters. It even gave such people interested in such acts new tricks of which had never, previously, been shown in such graphic detail on TV before.

 

[jæd]

The scene had nothing to do with the issue at hand, it was erotic, and therefore designed to show children as easy sexual encounters. It even gave such people interested in such acts new tricks of which had never, previously, been shown in such graphic detail on TV before.

"Easy sexual Encouters" : A horny, willing to sleep with the first guy he meets, lieing about his age, is he "easy"? No shit!

"New tircks" What... To go out on Canal St on the off chance that they might meet horny 15 (or your case 12) year old boys. Um, hate to point this but if I was a horny old pædophile I'm sure I would know where to go.

 

[Isambard]

Of course you can get into the bad side of drugs, prostitution, unsafe sex in Manchester - allegedly. It's that in Manchester, "Nathan" was better protected against the "bad" stuff than he would have been if he had fled to London where he knew no one.

That was one of the reasons apparently that Russel t davies killed off the series in the UK becasue the it was actually unlikely that a 15 year would hang around with a 30 year old.

The scene had nothing to do with the issue at hand

What rubbish! The scene was where Nathan willingly went KNOWING where he was going. He'd been there some time, waiting to meet a man for sex. That was where Stuart was drunk/stoned and as always, wanting sex.

Your "arguments" just don't wash.


@ Jaed, I know the whole London scene is supposedly bigger but I often see it as lots of little "scenes" in the various areas / tastes and not so big when looked at that way.

 

[HarrisonSlade]

Of course you can get into the bad side of drugs, prostitution, unsafe sex in Manchester - allegedly. It's that in Manchester, "Nathan" was better protected against the "bad" stuff than he would have been if he had fled to London where he knew no one.

That was one of the reasons apparently that Russel t davies killed off the series in the UK becasue the it was actually unlikely that a 15 year would hang around with a 30 year old.




What rubbish! The scene was where Nathan willingly went KNOWING where he was going. He'd been there some time, waiting to meet a man for sex. That was where Stuart was drunk/stoned and as always, wanting sex.

Your "arguments" just don't wash.


@ Jaed, I know the whole London scene is supposedly bigger but I often see it as lots of little "scenes" in the various areas / tastes and not so big when looked at that way.

Nowhere, in your two posts, do you mention the scene where the child is being buggered by the 30 year old man, or why the scene needed to be shown.
Forget names of characters, forget trivial "minority issues" about age of consent, my point is about the fact that there is a scene where, after the 30 year old man is told about the child being underage, he goes onto bugger him in quite an explicitally erotic scene. If such scenes can be, in anyway justified, if is a wonder that celebrity pervert Jonathon King was banged away for as long as he was.

 

[ICB]

A 15 YEAR OLD IS NOT A CHILD

(YOU FUCKING MORON )

 

[HarrisonSlade]

A 15 YEAR OLD IS NOT A CHILD

(YOU FUCKING MORON )

Your not Jonathon King by any chance are you?

 

[Isambard]

Forget names of characters, forget trivial "minority issues" about age of consent, my point is about the fact that there is a scene where, after the 30 year old man is told about the child being underage, he goes onto bugger him in quite an explicitally erotic scene. If such scenes can be, in anyway justified, if is a wonder that celebrity pervert Jonathon King was banged away for as long as he was.

I’m really sorry if the limit of representation of lesbians and gay men that you want in the media is Dale Winton on Supermarket Sweep.

It is a DRAMA, in places a hard hitting drama. It tackled a whole range of issues that hadn’t before or since got much airing in the mainstream media.

ONE of those issues is that sometimes, people under the legal age of consent want and do indeed have, sex. And they sometimes do it with those over the legal age of consent.

Another issue is that, guess what, lesbians and gay men aren’t perfect!
They do things that might well be questioned.

Immediately after the (drunk, stoned, character selfish and VERY sex orientated) 30 year old character had sex with the (lovestruck, character fairly scheming) 15 year old character he got called on it by someone else!

 

[pcanning]

That was one of the reasons apparently that Russel t davies killed off the series in the UK becasue the it was actually unlikely that a 15 year would hang around with a 30 year old.

still don't know why thie scene is 'dangerous'

this sounds wrong about davies, simply from my own experience and that of other gay men. it is perfectly possible for a 15yo to hook up with a 30yo.

I think the air of morality is misplaced with this as well and comes across as special-interest. I also find the focus on and use of the words 'the acts' repellent. is buggery worse than any other sort of 'act'? if you think so, why? because you're straight and you cannot conceive of the 'act' as something a 15yo could want to do of their own free will?

how many shows are on air describing and showing murder of 15 yo? this is drama and lots of illegal stuff, things we don't like, are shown. why is this any better or worse than drug-taking in dramas? or anything else for that matter?

 

[Wolfie]

Your not Jonathon King by any chance are you?

I think you should keep your homophobic trolling off this thread and preferably off these boards altogether please.

 

[Isambard]

I think you may be mixing me up a bit Pcanning!

I'm as bent as a 3 pound note and go on the scene a fair bit thanks, even working part time in 2 gay venues!

 

[jæd]

this sounds wrong about davies, simply from my own experience and that of other gay men. it is perfectly possible for a 15yo to hook up with a 30yo.

Perfectly easy to hook up with a 15 year, is just keeping randomly bumping into him that a bit difficult. (As Isambard says, the London scene is quite fragmented so down here its quite rare to randomly meet each other again and again.)

 

[jæd]

Your not Jonathon King by any chance are you?

But you appear to be... You seem to have got quite excited by the whole thing. Everyone else sees it as a bit of drama...

 

[ICB]

Your not Jonathon King by any chance are you?

That's about the lamest riposte I've ever seen on here, which is saying something.

You seem to have got quite excited by the whole thing.

I think you may be on to something there.

 

[HarrisonSlade]

I think you should keep your homophobic trolling off this thread and preferably off these boards altogether please.

How is finding an explicit sex scene, featuring a child being sodomised by a grown man of 30, unacceptable, homophobia? My issue is not with homosexuality, or an explicit sex scene featuring two gay men. My problem is the fact that this drama seems to have gone that one step too far, and has, effectivelly, made paedophilia not just an acceptable act, but one of which is watched for titilating viewing.

 

[HarrisonSlade]

That's about the lamest riposte I've ever seen on here, which is saying something.

What riposte? I'm just surprised that you are defending the act on the grounds that teenagers are old enough to be shagged by grown men.

 

[jæd]

What riposte? I'm just surprised that you are defending the act on the grounds that teenagers are old enough to be shagged by grown men.

So if it was Nathan shagging Stuart then it would be ok...?

 

[jæd]

How is finding an explicit sex scene, featuring a child being sodomised by a grown man of 30, unacceptable, homophobia? My issue is not with homosexuality, or an explicit sex scene featuring two gay men. My problem is the fact that this drama seems to have gone that one step too far, and has, effectivelly, made paedophilia not just an acceptable act, but one of which is watched for titilating viewing.

I think its the language you are using... "sodomised by a grown man of 30" you are completely missing the point of the scene. Its not that Stuart entices Nathan back to his place and then "sodomises" him. Nathan goes out on the pull, (unconvincingy) lies his way into bed and then hangs around while a baby is born. And then goes back for more sex.

Not sure how this can be classed as "titilating viewing" but I'm not the one who is getting of on it, am I...?

(Nathan is cute, but too young. Stuart has blue eyes)

 

[Balbi]

Would you feel better if the man was one of 18 Harrison Slade?

Or are you uncomfortable that men of your age are having so much fun in their lives while you pedantically troll your life away at a keyboard.

This thread is increasingly cyclical!

 

[brixtonvilla]

Sounds like Harrison's the one with the issues here... wipe the froth from your mouth & switch it off if you don't like it. Drama deals with things that are often morally blurred and ambiguous. Was there an increase in this kind of thing *pushes up fake cleavage in a Les Dawson stylee* after broadcast? Do you know anyone who suddenly acquired an interest in 15-year-old boys as a result? No, me neither...

I suppose you'd have preferred it if Nathan was plied with drink & Rohypnol, "sodomised" (always the sure mark of a homophobe, use of that word IME) and left to wallow in his own degradation & filth while Stuart was carted off to Reading jail? Just so long as no-one's having any fun here...

Great series - my fave bit was where Nathan's dad smashes his car into Stuart's Jeep:

"Fifteen! That lad is only fifteen!"
"Yeah? Well that Jeep's only six months old and you've just buggered it!"

 

[jæd]

"Fifteen! That lad is only fifteen!"
"Yeah? Well that Jeep's only six months old and you've just buggered it!"

I always preffered the replacement being driven through homophobic car salesmans window... (Slightly embarrasingly its one of the reasons I bought mine...)

 

[Isambard]

Whereas I'm more than happy flirting with city banker lads on the underground!

 

[HarrisonSlade]

Or are you uncomfortable that men of your age are having so much fun in their lives while you pedantically troll your life away at a keyboard.

Are you saying that men who have sex with children are lucky that they are having fun? Is this from personal experience by any chance?

 

[jæd]

Are you saying that men who have sex with children are lucky that they are having fun? Is this from personal experience by any chance?

This from a guy who gets so excited over the "under-age kiddy porn" in QaF.

 

[HarrisonSlade]

Sounds like Harrison's the one with the issues here... wipe the froth from your mouth & switch it off if you don't like it. Drama deals with things that are often morally blurred and ambiguous. Was there an increase in this kind of thing *pushes up fake cleavage in a Les Dawson stylee* after broadcast? Do you know anyone who suddenly acquired an interest in 15-year-old boys as a result? No, me neither...

I wouldn't be too sure judging from the post above.

I suppose you'd have preferred it if Nathan was plied with drink & Rohypnol, "sodomised" (always the sure mark of a homophobe, use of that word IME) and left to wallow in his own degradation & filth while Stuart was carted off to Reading jail? Just so long as no-one's having any fun here..

I have never said that I disagree with the fact that the two are having sex, that is not the issue here. What I have issues with is the fact that the sex is shown, and is made erotic by the lighting, direction and the fact that a new sex act is brought to the screen to titilate it's viewers. (a sexual act where one man puts his tounge down another's anus. Nice.) The scene is drawn out eroticism. The fact that one of the characters admits to being a child, IMO, makes this particular scene (of which no one who has argued has yet acknowledged, but instead gone off on different tangents) very mild, but still soft core child porn.

And as for homophobia, I am not the one equating homosexuality with paedophilia

 

[HarrisonSlade]

This from a guy who gets so excited over the "under-age kiddy porn" in QaF.

I get a bit angry at paedophilia, yes.

 

[Balbi]

If a thirty year old was fucking a 5 year old, i'd have a problem.

However, a thirty year old fucking a 15 year old in context is nothing special.

Funnily enough, there are a lot of people out there who do not think like you HS, it may come as a shock but some of them take part in this activity.

 

[HarrisonSlade]

If a thirty year old was fucking a 5 year old, i'd have a problem.

However, a thirty year old fucking a 15 year old in context is nothing special.

Funnily enough, there are a lot of people out there who do not think like you HS, it may come as a shock but some of them take part in this activity.

Got any names? Or are you protecting these nonces for your own protection.

 

[jæd]

Funnily enough, there are a lot of people out there who do not think like you HS, it may come as a shock but some of them take part in this activity.

It might be a bit of a shock to HS, but there are plenty of 15 year old boys who get horny and go out on the pull.

 

[Balbi]

Got any names? Or are you protecting these nonces for your own protection.

No, i'm protecting them for my fucking collection. I've got nearly all of them now.

Next i'm starting on the blinkered homophobic reactionary cunt series.

Want to lend me a hand with this one?