Imagine a world where "gay" is the norm and "straight" the deviation from the norm...

[TheHuckster]

But that is the point! A lot of the arguments from the anti-LGBT crowd boils down to "they aren't conforming to the norms of society; therefore it's wrong"

[mjr]

But that is the point! A lot of the arguments from the anti-LGBT crowd boils down to "they aren't conforming to the norms of society; therefore it's wrong"

And that argument would still be happening. Nothing would change in that respect, except for the sexual orientation of the ones making the arguments.

From a philosophical standpoint, my argument is that simply because "society" says something is "good" or "right" doesn't necessarily make it so. It's the same if society says something is "bad" or "wrong".

Take, for instance, societies that do "honor killings". Most people believe (as do I) that honor killings are wrong. Our society says that is the case. A different society may disagree.

[Canarr]

Of course that would be the case - but, as TheHuckster pointed out, that IS the point. It is to show the homophobes, the haters, that life would be just as bad for them if they were in the minority, as they are now making it for others. It's basically a, "Look, morons - you're not right. You're just in the majority."

Yes, people are largely the same. Gay people are just as capable of being petty, cruel, bigoted and just plain assholes as straight people are. So, when put into the position of straight people (the majority), it stands to reason that they would exhibit largely the same behavior. But showing that is not the point of this video. It's an attempt to get people to think about what they're doing to others, by getting them to imagine how it would feel if others did it to them.

[Andara Bledin]

From a philosophical standpoint, my argument is that simply because "society" says something is "good" or "right" doesn't necessarily make it so. It's the same if society says something is "bad" or "wrong".

That right there just about sums up the point the film is trying to make.

I, personally, think it's mostly preaching to the choir, since the only people who would get anything from it were already trending that way to begin with, but it's what they went with.

[Anthony K. S.]

And that argument would still be happening. Nothing would change in that respect, except for the sexual orientation of the ones making the arguments.

From a philosophical standpoint, my argument is that simply because "society" says something is "good" or "right" doesn't necessarily make it so. It's the same if society says something is "bad" or "wrong".

... Honestly, I tried ... Seriously, I really did ... I read and re-read your posts several times, trying to understand what your point was. And the only thing I could come up with was a question :

You said that you didn't watch the film. Well, did you read Lindsay's OP? Did you do anything beyond just reading the title of this thread?

Because it now occurs to me that the very first line of the OP was a quote from one of the film's characters (a heterophobic minister), condemning heterosexuality as an "abomination," and also mentioning that a man and a woman having sex is only permitted in the "breeding season."

And yet, until cindybubbles pointed it out (in response to your claim that such a society wouldn't be viable because reproduction would be problematic), you didn't seem to be aware that this "breeding season" even existed.

Also, in two of your posts, you stated that if the gay-straight percentages were reversed, then the only difference would be that it would be gay people persecuting straight people instead. But you presented this as if it was a counter-argument, when, in fact, that was exactly what the film and Lindsay's OP were both clearly saying.

That was what I couldn't understand.

It took me a while to realize that the only way your posts would make any sense, mjr, would be if you believed (incorrectly) that somebody (either Lindsay herself or the filmmaker, I suppose) was claiming that this "reversed" world would somehow be a good place. Or, at least, somehow better than ours. That it would be free of discrimination based on sexual orientation, or that it at least have less discrimination.

But nobody was saying that. The film portrays this alternate reality as being just as bad as ours, with heterosexuals being persecuted the same way that the LGBT community is in the real world. Further, Lindsay and everybody else on the thread agreed with that message.

The film was asking people to imagine walking in somebody else's shoes. It was asking straight people to think about what it would be like to be persecuted for their desire to love somebody of the opposite sex, by a gay majority. To try to understand what it's like for those who are gay and lesbian in the real world.

It was also presented as an "anti-bullying" film, to condemn bullying behavior - for any reason - among teenagers. Everything that happened to Ashley in this film, up to and including her suicide at the end, was something that has actually happened to teenagers in real life.

[Anthony K. S.]

I, personally, think it's mostly preaching to the choir, since the only people who would get anything from it were already trending that way to begin with

You may have a point there.

I think it was clear, from the very beginning, that the people who most needed to hear the message wouldn't get it. The filmmaker herself knew that, I believe.

And if there was any doubt, all you have to do is look at how some parents and clergy in Florida's Putnam County reacted when that teacher, Jeremy Rhoden, showed the film to his students.

"Anti-Christian," "promoting sodomy," "indoctrinating students" ... Well, did anybody really think that the reaction from these people would be any different?

However, I do think that the film could make a good impact on people who are more "on the fence" about LGBT issues.

There are always some folks who don't really care about the issue, or do so in a very lukewarm way, like "Oh, well, if they really want to get married that badly, let them get married. What's the big deal? I don't care."

A film like this might motivate such people to feel more empathy for the LGBT community than they did before, and get them to care more about the issue than they otherwise would have.

Also, even among those who do actively support LGBT rights, a film like this might inspire increased action, concern, and understanding.

Lindsay, for example, has always supported LGBT rights, but in her OP, she said that watching this film still helped her to challenge her own heteronormative mindset. It wasn't until she saw the film that she really started to understand how awful it would be, to be denied the chance to be with somebody she loved, because of societal prejudice.

Every little bit helps.

[mjr]

Because it now occurs to me that the very first line of the OP was a quote from one of the film's characters (a heterophobic minister), condemning heterosexuality as an "abomination,"

Which is a bastardization of Scripture, if I'm not mistaken.

and also mentioning that a man and a woman having sex is only permitted in the "breeding season."

Which leads to an entirely DIFFERENT set of problems. A "breeding season" is, to me, ludicrous on the face of it. Not only that (since I haven't watched the film, and have no desire to do so -- cue "bigot" and "closed-minded" comments in 3, 2, 1...), but would this be only hetero couples having sex, or would it be say, a gay man and a gay woman having sex? You can see where that can lead to problems, right?

And yet, until cindybubbles pointed it out (in response to your claim that such a society wouldn't be viable because reproduction would be problematic), you didn't seem to be aware that this "breeding season" even existed.

Correct, and I still posit that, even with a "breeding season" reproduction would be problematic.

Also, in two of your posts, you stated that if the gay-straight percentages were reversed, then the only difference would be that it would be gay people persecuting straight people instead. But you presented this as if it was a counter-argument, when, in fact, that was exactly what the film and Lindsay's OP were both clearly saying.

That doesn't make it better. It makes the argument exactly the same.

It took me a while to realize that the only way your posts would make any sense, mjr, would be if you believed (incorrectly) that somebody (either Lindsay herself or the filmmaker, I suppose) was claiming that this "reversed" world would somehow be a good place.

I never said that. The "reversed" world would possibly be very similar to this one. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

But nobody was saying that. The film portrays this alternate reality as being just as bad as ours, with heterosexuals being persecuted the same way that the LGBT community is in the real world. Further, Lindsay and everybody else on the thread agreed with that message.

Then they should understand where I'm coming from.

The film was asking people to imagine walking in somebody else's shoes.

That's a two-way street, my friend.

[Canarr]

Yes, the premise of the movie is somewhat flawed, since the main purpose of the sex drive in animals is to ensure breeding - it would make little sense for an instinct to develop in the majority of a species that would cause this species to die out.

But it just requires a little suspension of disbelief to ignore that, in order to accept the movie's premise. It also doesn't really pertain to the movie's message.

That's a two-way street, my friend.

This, however, does; I think I'm finally understanding what you're getting it. You're saying that the movie, aside from its intended message of, "Hey, you heteros! Stop oppressing gays - see here how that might be for you!", an unintended second message could be construed from the movie: "Hey, you gays! Stop complaining about being oppressed by the heteros - see here how you wouldn't do any better than us in our place!"

Unfortunately, I can actually see people making that kind of argument.

[Andara Bledin]

Yes, the premise of the movie is somewhat flawed, since the main purpose of the sex drive in animals is to ensure breeding

This isn't actually how evolution works.

The main reason for the sex drive is that it's not something that is fatally detrimental to the specises. And that's it.

High sex drive, and as a result high breeding, mean that a species is likely to out breed competitors for the same resources, and potentially starve if there's too much breeding.

The whole religious prohibition on sex is the same as the religious prohibition on pork and shellfish: A simplistic and authoritarian reaction to negative forces that are detrimental and for which people wouldn't at that time eschew on the say-so of other people. In this day and age, it's utterly anachronistic and outdated. These days we have means to help prevent the spread of diseases, help prevent unwanted pregnancies, the medicine to deal with both of those issues, and we know how to store and prepare certain meats to avoid poisoning ourselves.

[Canarr]

The whole religious prohibition on sex is the same as the religious prohibition on pork and shellfish: A simplistic and authoritarian reaction to negative forces that are detrimental and for which people wouldn't at that time eschew on the say-so of other people. In this day and age, it's utterly anachronistic and outdated. These days we have means to help prevent the spread of diseases, help prevent unwanted pregnancies, the medicine to deal with both of those issues, and we know how to store and prepare certain meats to avoid poisoning ourselves.

That's entirely right; but not my point. My point was, that any species, in which the majority has a sex drive that runs contrary to breeding, will die out long before achieving any kind of dominant position. Mostly because they will be out-bred and thus out-numbered by similar species who actually replenish their numbers when banging one another.

Still, as I said, that's not really detrimental to the movie's message, because it just requires a little suspension of disbelief, and far less of that than the average action movie. So, not really a problem.

[mjr]

an unintended second message could be construed from the movie: "Hey, you gays! Stop complaining about being oppressed by the heteros - see here how you wouldn't do any better than us in our place!"

It's not about "stop complaining". We do, however, have to make some assumptions. If we assume that the sexual orientations are flipped, then we can assume that currently everyone who is straight would be gay, and vice-versa. Therefore, the same arguments would be made, would they not? Which would put us right back at square one. And since as a hetero male, in this "alternate reality", I would not be hetero (logically), I would essentially be in the same position I'm currently in. Correct?

I know I'm repeating myself, but that just seems like a premise that the filmmaker possibly overlooked (or didn't address). I'm not saying whether it's "good" or "bad", it just is.

It would be like me making a film about everyone being left handed, and me being right handed (reality: I'm left-handed, more cross-dominant, but mostly left-handed).

I could talk about the "struggles" of the right-handed person, and how "everything is made for left-handers", how difficult it is for right-handers to adapt, and so forth, but the bottom line is, in the "alternate" world where I'm right-handed and everyone else is left-handed, I'd still be in the position I'm in now.

Left-handers endured their share of "discrimination" too. It's not the same, but it was endured nonetheless. In fact, if you look up left-handedness, you find interesting information.

In fact, I'll post this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_ag...-handed_people

[Ginger Tea]

South Paw's had their hand tied behind their back and forced to write with their right when my mum was in school. A guy I worked with wrote with the paper sidewise so he could see what would be covered by his hand how most other left handed people I have seen have written.

mjr has a point, swap out hetero for gay and you are basically still the majority all that's changed is who you are attracted to, it's not quite the same as all the men are women and all the whites are black.

I've not seen the video, I don't think I need to, I get the idea, what if I was the minority and felt oppression, I get the concept.

Though "Gay" being the norm is kinda false, Bi would be more apt, how many gay men pre IVF and other ways around fucking (like turkey basters) would have sex with a woman?

How many lesbians would also say "fuck it if the only way I can have a child is to fuck a man I'm gonna take one for the team."

There are some women that refuse to use a dildo and some men that will only see one vagina in their life and that's from a different POV.

I thought about commenting on this thread when it was new, but didn't then it kinda stagnated for close to a fortnight and I deleted a few attempts at this.

As I say, not watched the video, so I don't know if this is something that has gone on since year dot, or say a large change due to the sexual revolution.

When I saw the words "breeding season" I couldn't help but think of the line "Your mother mates out of season" from Alien Nation.

IDK how many other species partake is sex for recreation as well as procreation, as TBH I've never really cared to find out.

Animal behaviour isn't the same as human, yes they tend to only mate and not fuck so they manage to keep their numbers sustainable. Humans however don't kill the children of their new partners and yet it is socially acceptable with Lions.

I cant say for sure that the world seen in the video would be accurate had we been doing this since the times of Moses (and globally too) we might have even fractured off into different villages, as after all, men don't need women, men have men.

Yes for the continuation of the species they would have to be all dirty and "het", but how many women would get turned away?

If you had the resources and ethics were not an issue, you could set up 3 sustainable isolated camps, one 50/50 population of Gays and Lesbians (but no bisexuals) and the other two 100% one or the other.

Why no bisexuals? well as I said at the start, for breeding you would need willing participants, if everyone is adamant they would never entertain the idea of the other sex, then should anyone get broody, you could find out if any are willing to "go straight" given that there is no alternative method to conceiving.

after a five year study would we find any women in the camps pregnant or mothers to small children?

Yet if you throw in a handful of Bi people you will.

You can hypothesise it, but nothing beats a good old fashion study, I don't know the lore as I never had a gaming pc to play the first iterations, but they were talking about fall out 4 on the latest co optional podcast and it's vaults (though only briefly) I had forgotten about the vaults when I was thinking of the 3 island village options.

One vault was one man everyone else women and another the opposite. Of the two I would rather be the one man, not to have a harem, but you just know it's not going to end well in the other one.

One vault with nothing but 100% gay, straight or bi men is still going to have the same birth rate as if it was a 33% mix, same for the all woman Vault.

A 50/50 room with 33% representation would be sustainable, but a 50/50 of Gay and Lesbian test subjects, even knowing humanity rests on their participation in the continuation of the species, how many would go to the grave never being with the opposite sex?

But I don't have the time money and resources to try such experiments, but I am sure I can muster up the lack of ethics

[Kheldarson]

mjr has a point, swap out hetero for gay and you are basically still the majority all that's changed is who you are attracted to, it's not quite the same as all the men are women and all the whites are black.

Then what would be the purpose of speculative fiction?

The point of spec fic, or analogy work like this, is to show you, as you currently are, a different posibilty for our world. So the movie isn't saying that you now exist in this world as a homosexual because percentages flip, it's showing you a world where your viewpoint, as you currently are, is the minority.

[Lindsay B.]

I apologize for taking such a long time to return to this thread. I would also like to thank everybody who has taken the time to share their thoughts and opinions. It has been touching, insightful ... and in the case of mjr in particular, bewildering.

First, though, I would like to respond to one of the earlier comments :

That's the only issue I could possibly have with the teacher that showed the film, though I don't know if he got consent from the kids' parents first.

He didn't.

From what I've read, Jeremy Rhoden did tell his students beforehand what the film was about, and gave them the option of not watching it. I do understand, though, why many parents would not be satisfied with that.

I think it has a place in all schools, but parents should have the ability to opt their kids out of seeing it ... I think the film would be too much for kids already struggling with suicidal thoughts.

As I said earlier, I do sympathize with those who feel that the film is too graphic to show to young students. Or, as you point out, those who are suffering from depression, mental illness, or having suicidal thoughts.

Being neither an educator nor (yet) a parent, I certainly cannot speak to this. I would defer to the judgment of individual parents as to what their children can handle, and I agree with you that families should be allowed to opt out of it. This does, of course, mean that some parents would bar their children from seeing the film solely because it is supportive of LGBT rights. However, I understand that this does not outweigh the importance of considering students' mental well-being.

As for Jeremy Rhoden, I will agree that he was wrong not to obtain parental consent before showing the film to his students ... but I think that it's pretty clear that that wasn't what the parents and clergy in his district had an issue with. It really was just about the pro-gay message.

Here is a short (7-minute) film with more information about the controversy in Palatka.

The filmmaker, Kim Rocco Shields, personally went to Palatka, FL, to defend Jeremy Rhoden. It appears that Rhoden was let off with just a reprimand, but at the end of the year, his contract was not renewed (the equivalent of being fired, I presume). I think that he is still a teacher in Florida, at a different high school.

There was also a controversy over "Love Is All You Need?" being shown to 7th Grade students in a Canadian school. This seemed to be more about what you were speaking of, the lack of parental consent and the graphic nature of the film. It was reported that one student actually fainted while watching the video.

(Apparently, this teacher did not even watch the film herself before showing it to her students, which I find mind-boggling. She has since apologized.)

Here is a YouTube upload of the CBC newscast about the story.

This blog provides a sample of the CBC readers' reactions to the controversy, both in favor of and against the film.

I also found an Op-Ed arguing that the film, while graphic, was no more so than what kids routinely see in today's video games. She further noted that in Canada, 12-year-olds can be held criminally responsible for their actions in court, and also that physical bullying tends to peak in middle school, leading children as young as 12 to commit suicide.

With some reservations, I would grant that she does have a point. When I was in the seventh grade (2002-2003), I would have found this film heartbreaking to watch - Actually, I found it heartbreaking to watch as an adult - but I don't think it was really anything that I hadn't already been exposed to by the time I was in junior high school. So I could have handled it.

If it helps, Kim Rocco Shields did say at one point that she was working on an alternative ending to the film, to make it more accessible to younger audiences. (I haven't been able to find any more information about that, though.)

Also, Shields had signed a distribution deal at the end of 2011, to have the film shown in schools all over the world. She was also specifically working with educators in California to create a lesson plan for the short film and have it shown in their schools. But with all of that, I haven't been able to find mention of any other controversies over the film. Perhaps that's a good sign.

I would sign a consent for two of my kids to watch it, but not the kid who's been hospitalized 3 times in the last year for suicide attempts. I don't think he'd be able to handle it, and could send his precarious mental state into a tailspin.

I'm very sorry.

I haven't had any direct personal experience with suicide. However, I do have a very dear friend with a hereditary mental illness (although her illness was well-controlled with medication and therapy by the time I met her), whose medical history includes two suicide attempts. There is also somebody else, very close to me, who has suffered from depression, largely due to having been in an emotionally abusive situation.

I wish you the best, and I hope things get better for your family.


Now, moving on to the debate that has recently broken out on this thread :

I haven't watched the film, and have no desire to do so -- cue "bigot" and "closed-minded" comments in 3, 2, 1...

Nobody is saying that you have to watch any film that you don't want to watch. But seeing as how this entire thread is about this film ...

To be perfectly honest, I am a little puzzled as to why you're even here. It just seems strange to be criticizing a film that you haven't watched. Not only that, but as Anthony pointed out earlier, it doesn't even look like you actually read my post, before coming in to render an opinion on a thread that you didn't seem to know anything about.

Which is a bastardization of Scripture, if I'm not mistaken.

You can look at it that way, I suppose.

I actually think of it as a reversal, like most everything else in this film. Just as people who oppose LGBT rights in the real world do so on religious grounds, so too do those who oppose heterosexual rights in this alternate world. Their religious texts are simply the opposite of ours, at least in this one regard.

If it actually matters for me to say this, I happen to be a devoted Catholic myself, and if I felt that this film was disrespectful to my faith, I would never have shared it.

We do, however, have to make some assumptions.

No, you have to make assumptions, because you didn't watch the film and didn't seem to know what it was about. So you basically had to guess.

If we assume that the sexual orientations are flipped

Then you would be wrong, because that isn't actually the premise of the film.

And since as a hetero male, in this "alternate reality", I would not be hetero (logically), I would essentially be in the same position I'm currently in. Correct?

No. Not correct.

Your assumption was that the film took the real world and simply reversed all of the existing population's sexual orientations. Meaning that a person in real life who is part of the straight majority would become part of the gay majority in this alternate world.

Nobody ever said that. You just made that up.

The alternate reality of this film is a fictional world, populated by fictional people. They are not, and were never presented to be, counterparts to actual people in the real world. For example, the protagonist of the film, Ashley Curtis, is a fictional character. Her experiences are based on real-life stories, but there's no actual "real" Ashley Curtis.

Some of the characters are based on people in real life. For example, the heterophobic preacher, Rachel Duncan, is apparently a female version of Fred Phelps, of the Westboro Baptist Church.

But the film doesn't ask straight people to imagine themselves as part of the gay majority in this alternate reality. It asks straight people to imagine themselves as themselves, as straight people, and in the persecuted minority, in this alternate world.

I am in something of a state of disbelief that I actually have to explain this.

that just seems like a premise that the filmmaker possibly overlooked (or didn't address)

It wasn't the premise of the film, any more than the idea that this society wouldn't be biologically viable was anything more than a minor side issue.

That "breeding season" business was just a single throwaway line in a 20-minute film, probably intended to forestall the objection that same-sex couples wouldn't be able to reproduce.

And the reason it was only given a single throwaway line is because that wasn't the point of the film. The film was about bullying and prejudice, not about how gay couples could have children.

No, not at all. But if the ideas behind it are superficial and false, then the "discussion" itself becomes superficial, does it not?

And how exactly would you know that the ideas are superficial and false?

Essentially, you are dismissing a film that you haven't even seen, based on two issues with the premise - one of which is an insignificant nitpick and the other completely fabricated - all the while totally ignoring the substance of the film.

But it just requires a little suspension of disbelief to ignore that, in order to accept the movie's premise. It also doesn't really pertain to the movie's message.

Thank you.

Honestly, if I have sounded angry or irritable here, I apologize.

This is not the first time I've discussed this film, and it never ceases to frustrate me when people focus exclusively on whether or not this society would be biologically viable, because that is completely irrelevant.

Even if I granted that this society wouldn't be able to sustain itself (and in fact, I do not grant that), it does not invalidate the film's message. This isn't about biology or reproduction. It's about prejudice and oppression.

[Canarr]

I Thank you.

Honestly, if I have sounded angry or irritable here, I apologize.

This is not the first time I've discussed this film, and it never ceases to frustrate me when people focus exclusively on whether or not this society would be biologically viable, because that is completely irrelevant.

Even if I granted that this society wouldn't be able to sustain itself (and in fact, I do not grant that), it does not invalidate the film's message. This isn't about biology or reproduction. It's about prejudice and oppression.

My pleasure

To quote Margaery Tyrell, when trying to get her (gay) husband to sire a son on her: "If you want to, we can call my brother in here. You can start out in him, and finish off in me. Whatever you need."

Nothing if not practical, that girl.