Talk:Looking (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

The article say "According to Lannan in a 2014 interview, out of nine writers, seven writers are gay men, and one is a woman." Is this woman straight or gay? If you make the distinction between straight and gay men, the same should be done with women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.170.51 (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Why is this classified as comedy-drama? How about "educational"? 83.78.239.17 (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Why should the article start off with "Looking is a show about a group of "gay" friends"? Because the characters are homosexual, doesn't mean they should be defined and labeled as such in order to describe them. People don't do that with heterosexuality...as a gay person, it annoys me because I hate labels in general when other people aren't labeled for things.Ec.wikia (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Ec.wikia I appreciate your thoughtfulness in your edits. I am fine with you rearranging the plot summary to make referring to the characters as gay men. It is obvious when rewritten as you have done. However, I am restoring the term "gay" to the lead because per MOS:INTRO, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The overwhelming majority of the show's attention in media and reporting has focused on the content focusing specifically on the lives of three gay men in San Francisco, even if some of that is how casually and generally non-targeted or stereotyped the gay content is played. Its major sources of coverage are also from major queer news sources: Out, Towleroad, Attitude, in addition to mainstream media. Discussion about the show also frequently centers on how the show fits in gay depictions, especially from a post-stereotype perspective, which still would objectively make it a show with specific gay interest if one were to accurately describe its notability and relevance. The issues of "non-labeling" is a worthy philosophical debate about media in a post-gay society, but as far as providing a concise and accurate lead goes with respect to the real world, a reader should be able to read the intro and recognize that it's a show about three gay men in San Francisco, what impact the show has/had, when it started, how long it ran/continues to run, what channel it is a property of, who created it, anyone notable who is in it, etc. Let me know if you wish to discuss it further! Thanks for your continued contributions! :) Luminum (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay well Luminum, you still do not get what im trying to do here. Trying to change things and make shit more equal.

• Ec.wikia Except it's not an issue of equality. Recognizing that the show deals especially with gay content and making that clear to the reader follows Wikipedia guidelines. Ignoring it because you think it demonstrates "equality" is a personal opinion, and one steeped in post-gay philosophy. I understand why you're doing it, but in this case, it is not helpful to the reader, nor is recognizing the notability of queer representation in a heteronormative, non-post-gay society a problem. The reality is that since queer content and representation in media is relatively minor, when media is centrally focused on queer content, it makes it relevant and notable. And if you were to look at any of the coverage/promotional materials/articles/media/interviews concerning Looking, indeed, the fact that it is a show dealing with the lives of gay men comes up every single time. In fact, the show deals explicitly with gay themes, culture, and content, and is intended to by its creator and writer. Likewise, this is recognized by the fact that the show is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies. And, for the sake of argument, if a show was heavily promoted and discussed and intended to be a show about straight people, then yes, an article should reflect that. It should demonstrate that the intent of the show is to portray a specific subset of people (hypothetically straight people), just as Looking intentionally portrays the lives of three gay men. (Philosophically, though, most straight shows don't do that because a heteronormative society doesn't require one to intend to make anything straight, and so therefore no one does. If, however, someone did and made it clear that was the purpose, then yes, it would be noted.)

I don't wish to edit war about this. You're a relatively new editor, so please review the Wikipedia guidelines posted on your talk page. If you have any questions about editing policies, please feel free to talk with me and I'd be happy to work with you on it. As it stands, what you're doing is removing relevant information about the show. Please do not revert it again unless you have a compelling reason.Luminum (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, fine. But the "facts" and "logical reasoning" you just supplied me with there are truly man made and have no validity. Change starts with how we address people. And it is not post gay, that is not even possible. Im just post labelling where it doesn't need to be. The show Friends on here says a show about a group of friends living in Manhattan. Doesn't say a group of straight friends. Lookings premise does not strictly have everything to do with their sexuality, it is a part of who they are and doesn't hide it, like heterosexuals and heterosexuality, but it doesnt define them. It is just simply about humanity and showing these characters as human beings, just living their lives like all human beings do. and yes some of the characters have faced stupid adversity from their family specifically because of their sexuality but it is not the main focus. Its not made to be an issue that has to do with everything. Things only remain an issue if people allow them to be right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ec.wikia (talk • contribs) 07:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a post-gay society is not achievable, but it's not a problem to identify queer content and culture when it is explicitly made a part of a piece of media or work. The show is about more than them just being gay, but it's situated in themes that are particularly identifiable to queer culture and community experiences far beyond just the adversity they experience from anti-gay family members, all of which have appeared as either key plot points, settings, or casual background touches: Patrick's initial experience cruising, the language of gay hook ups and dating, Patrick's whole point about why female characters in video games are important and identifiable for outsider minorities in the gaming community, trying to prove that Kevin is gay, the show purposefully using music from queer artists or popular gay camp classics, Dom going to bathhouses to cruise, Lynn's experience and history of being gay in San Francisco during the 70's and throughout the HIV/AIDS epidemic, a whole episode set during the Folsom Street Fair, being in a serodiscordant relationship, social ideas of what it means to "sound gay" and stereotyping, experiences coming out, drag queen "herstory" and queer communities being historically integral to helping businesses and the city, gay marriage, campy popular programs like The Golden Girls, the Russian River (a primarily gay vacation spot), the Radical Faeries, the Bear Community, making a gay version of the card games from their youth, "AIDS panic", topping and bottoming, growing up closeted and realizing same-sex attraction as a youth, queer and trans youth homelessness, cheesy gay self-help books from the early 2000's, being a "fun gay", and PrEP. Of course they aren't elements that are 100% specific and inherent to queer culture (because nothing is), but it's clear that the show is doing more than picturing gay characters whose sexuality and community only manifest as their literal sexual activity and not much else. Ignoring for fear of labeling when it is an explicit theme borders on engaging in cultural erasure. The show is steeped in queer culture, in which case, the label is valid, especially "gay", since the characters don't identify as bi or pansexual.

If a show comes around where queer identity isn't a major focus of its characters and the show isn't made notable by its queer content so much as its other content, then I think your argument would be well applied there. That would indeed be a show where sexuality is not a meaningful part of the content. That is the same with "Friends", which doesn't take pains to address straight identity as a thematic part of itself much at all (outside of very minor queer intersections, like Chandler's trans mother or Ross's lesbian ex-wife). However, if a show was created where one of the major themes was how straight characters interact with queer culture or queer identity or is, somehow, purposefully about what it is to be a straight person, then that show would appropriately be labeled as dealing with straight characters and heterosexuality. However, re:heteronormativity, you're unlikely to get something like that that isn't also intentionally a commentary on queer culture and struggle (like the 2006 movie "Straight Story"). Cheers! Luminum (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)