Has anyone else noticed that there's been a shift in same-sex kissing on US network tv? I can't figure out when it happened, but I think sometime in the past 2 or 2 1/2 years, because I remember it wasn't this way back when I started watching Bad Girls in Nov 2005. (Geez, has it been that long?)

Back in the not-too-distant past, there were very few same sex kisses on US network tv. And what same-sex kisses there were followed these general rules:
1. Only one kiss per season
2. Ideally the kiss should be between two characters who aren't in a relationship, and don't have any potential to be in a relationship
3. Kisses have to be earned, so long-running shows were more likely to have them, while new shows weren't
4. Kisses should all happen during sweeps (Nov, Feb or April) so they can be exploited for ratings.

Some examples of the above were:
1. Wonderfalls had a main lesbian character who was in a relationship, and yet she never kissed her girlfriend on screen.
2. Will on Will & Grace almost never had a boyfriend, and when he did, it was a big deal if they actually kissed on screen
3. Kerry Weaver on ER was never shown kissing her first girlfriend (Kim) after they got together, and was shown being unwillingly kissed by her second girlfriend as a technique to out her at work.
4. More examples anyone? I'm sure folks here can make this list MUCH longer

But in the last season and a half, I've seen something very different:
1. On the show Brothers & Sisters (fantastic show, btw, everyone should watch it), one of the brothers is gay, and has an active dating life. So far in the first season he's slept with three different men, two of which were bonafide relationships in which we saw them kiss multiple times (and sometimes multiple times per episode), saw them in bed together etc.
2. On the show Cashmere Mafia (which isn't fantastic, but has a few ok moments), there have been two episodes so far, and in both, the main character who is questioning her sexuality has kissed her female love interest. In fact, we've had three kisses total, in the course of two episodes!

I have to ask, what is this world coming to? And when did this change happen? It seems so sudden to me, but perhaps I missed a slower evolution because I didn't watch the later seasons of ER or Will & Grace. Or is there some other show I'm missing which pushed the bar? OR, is it that cable got so far ahead (with Queer as Folk, The L Word, Six Feet Under, South of Nowhere) that network tv got embarassed?

Theories or facts, anyone?

My memory of this is beyond foggy, but it seems to me there was a short-running tv show (late 80s?) called Heartbeat (medical) in which one of the main characters had a long-term lesbian relationship. (I am only able to remember this much of it bec I think I did a review of it in some local gay rag at that time.) Further, she & her partner either got married or were engaged, or something. Came out to mom? Sorry, I really don't know, but I seem to remember some sort of public ceremony/declaration. I think there were several kisses--might be gilding the lily, it might have only been one--but it was definitely groundbreaking, and definitely the first time I saw a lesbian relationship portrayed in a matter-of-fact fashion on TV. No idea if this was bef or after LA Law, which I never saw--but I think before. What I do remember is that, for the time, it seemed about as low-key & non-dramatic as possible, and I remember rather liking the woman who played the lesbian character (doctor? nurse) for her performance, which was also matter-of-fact, not fussy. This would be, then, mainly a set of 'exceptions' to your generalization, but it seems if it's a first, that should count for something, too? :) --e


ETA: Once and Again was also network, I think, & the third season (which I still keep hoping against hope someone will have on video & transfer; it's never been released!) featured a friendship that turned into something more, betw the Evan Rachel Wood character & her friend/gf, that supermodel who always plays lesbians. So that kind of counts too... I mean--it was ongoing, featured more than 1 kiss (which definitely did fall into the 'earned' category, late in the season), no idea about sweeps though. :D

If "Heartbeat" was before LA Law, then it definitely didn't include a kiss, because LA Law was the first lesbian kiss on American tv. That's definite.

Yes, Once and Again included one significant kiss and one peck between the two teenage girls, but it still falls into the guidelines I mentioned above--it was a long-running and critically-acclaimed show that had "earned" the right to have a same-sex kiss. (The kiss wasn't during sweeps though--it was broadcast on March 11, 2002.)

But I still think that's different than what we're seeing with Brothers & Sisters and Cashmere Mafia, where the gay characters kiss so frequently that you can't even really make a list or keep track of it.

If it helps, AfterEllen has a Timeline of Lesbian Kisses, which goes up through 2005:
http://www.afterellen.com/archive/ellen/TV...ine-kisses.html

I haven't seen Cashmere Mafia (and don't plan) to, but are those two women "together"? If not a couple yet, then you have to county the Kerry Weaver/Kim kiss in the doctor's lounge with the gift exchange. That kiss was instrumental in Kerry's journey to herself.

Ok, rightright: the Gail Strickland character isn't comfortable w/her partner joining her at a wedding. The AE clip reminded me.* In the end the partner shows up; I remember now because I was aggravated that they do appear as a couple in public (at a [or: The] heterosexual function--which suggests their relationship is of allllmost-equal importance) but only hold hands, I think that was it. The ending is perfectly compromised for the time it appeared in: two couples, so equal weight in some ways, but represented differently (handholding, less privileged space onscreen,e tc).

(AfterEllen is wrong about some of its facts, as usual; in the vlog, SW claims it only ran "three or four" episodes: it ran 20, & lost advertiser revenue & audience share because of the lesbian story-line: arguably that's part of the reason it wasn't renewed. All I'm saying is, I wouldn't necessarily downplay it "just because" it didn't feature a kiss--although it turns out to have been outside the parameters you set for this thread. Same year thirtysomething also lost huge advertising revenue for showing two men sitting up in bed together. --ek)


*Given AE's unreliability as a source of facts, it's a bit ironic that its new makeover highlights what it is good for: a clip library/repository.

Ah, but, Kerry wasn't a willing participant in that kiss. Kim ambushed her, and Kerry pulled away as soon as she realized what was going on. In Cashmere Mafia, the first kiss came at the end of a very successful first date, and the second kiss came during a second date. So the two women, if not a couple, were openly and mutually interested in each other. That seems different, don't you think?

It helps to know the context...totally different and agree.

HBO is cable, right? For such a progressive show as Sex and The City, it didn't boast a whole load of lesbian kisses. In Samantha's lesbian "storyline" she kissed her short-term girlfriend Maria a couple of times, I think. But they aren't rooted deep in my memory which means they weren't too great. Carrie also pecked Alanis Morissette early on as they played spin the bottle. Oh, and Miranda if I'm not mistaken kissed a woman in one of the first episodes of the show to find out whether she was a lesbian.

Not much. But SATC is still fun... These days I watch/listen to it as I work out. Very stimulating, keeps me going for hours. :D

Btw, thanks for reminding me of Kerry and Kim. Ah. Even though the creators shied (eh, is that how you spell the past simple of shy?) away from showing physical contact between the two of them, I didn't particularly crave seeing it (not that I would mind it), I was so satisfied with how they presented the story that it didn't matter whether they showed us kissing, etc. In fact, it's the one rival to Bad Girls I can think of in terms of portrayal.

Hmm.. I kind of went off-topic, but I can't think of any other example other than the already listed ones. No kisses on Desperate Housewives?

HBO is not only cable, but it's premium cable, which means no commercials, period. Same with Showtime (which broadcasts The L Word). This means that HBO and Showtime don't need to worry about offending viewers nor offending advertisers--they just have to worry about keeping their subscriber base high so they can collect subscriber fees. Very different business model from network tv (or non-premium cable), which depends on advertisers for revenue.

I loved the Kim/Kerry relationship as portrayed on ER (7th Season). I was like 21 and it was so exciting! Definitely must see TV. The relationship didn't have loving kisses or anything and had all it's sex off screen but the relationship felt true. There was a morning after scene that was shot so beautifully and Kerry was just so entranced with Kim. The relationship with Sandy, though I love the actress, Lisa Vidal who played her, left me lukewarm and I soon became a casual viewer after several years of watching the show faithfully.

I now wish I was watching Cashmere Mafia just for the kisses :) My two guy friends who are gay, well we watch Brothers and Sisters, (which is a really good show), and every time Kevin kisses someone we clap. It's so exciting, it being network TV and all. We always joke that the people tuning in for Sally Field, Calista Flockhart, have to sit through prominent moments of Kevin's relationships. I love that it's just treated as just normal. Not a big deal at all.

Aren't CM and B&S's on ABC? Maybe ABC is leading the pack feeling bad about the Ellen debacle. Even though the show itself had gotten pretty sucky as far as I can remember.

I have "Heartbeat" on tape (lord only knows how deep into the video collection pile it is tho) and I cannot remember if there was kissing. I remember Samantha Eggar, the transplanted brit actress, played an old gf, dying of cancer, of the Gail Strickland character, a nurse. GS has played lesbians throughout her career. And it was before "L.A. Law." If I can dig it up I'll let you know about any kissage. <G>

And, yes, Mischa Barton, late of the LA girls gone wild dui bandwagon, always does seem to be playing lesbian roles too.

And, Abzug, I've come to believe this is more than likely the case. And if the show is doing well enuf, like "Brothers & Sisters," the producer can 'get away with it' unless ABC crumbles to backlash yet again.

But that can't be the case in these two instances, because both Brothers & Sisters, and Cashmere Mafia included a significant number of same-sex kisses in early episodes--before anyone could tell if the shows would be successful. They just DID it, without EARNING it. Amazing! And yes, they're both on ABC, so maybe the standards have loosened up just on that network?

Well...in that case, your guess is as good as mine. All the advance press for "Cashmere Mafia" did talk about a central lesbian character and that they weren't going to back down from portraying that.

So, one would think ABC has had a change of heart since the "Ellen" days and are giving 'it' another try from when they held her coming out as responsible for the ratings downturn in her sitcom--which, personally, I think was just fine after the classic "Puppy Episode," not preachy or 'too gay' as some have claimed, and handled her romantic fumblings like any other sitcom character.

But this is the same network that regressed in daytime by turning their actually quite beloved and singular lesbian 'saint' (Bianca of the soap "All My Children") into a fawning, silly, bisexual groupie of a flamboyant way over the top drag queen--who claimed to be a 'lesbian' on the inside. Puleeze. Even "The L Word" played that one for satire. AMC/ABC, in effect, paired the gay man with the gay woman to cancel each other out and create a 'safe' storyline which was really heterosexual since they were too scared to ever portray the lesbian romance as anything but tentative. And now, I hear, stealing their thunder that was never fully allowed to sound, there is a teen gay male storyline on another soap at a competing network that is doing quite well with both viewers and critically.

I can't think of one american network broadcast series that lesbian content (and the public touting of it in an attempt at ratings) has actually helped (maybe during sweeps, of course, when the overtly publicized kiss is trotted out over and over again--"Picket Fences," "The O.C.," "Firefly," "Dirt"--that yawn of a 'ratings grabber' smooch between Aniston and Cox, all the way back to "21 Jump Street.") And that would include "E.R." (where I think the majority of regular viewers 'tolerated' it.) And it almost certainly hurt and possibly even brought about cancellation to several series. So, I am surprised that ABC, of all networks, is giving it a go again. And I haven't heard a lot of backlash coming from the usual suspects. Maybe they've finally gotten the idea that they give something they dislike far more publicity by complaining about it.

And there has been a certain amount of mainstreaming where even "The L Word" is concerned. Cybill and Jen Beals were on "The View" just yesterday. And Oprah re-ran her Wives who came out as Lesbians show yesterday as well. Ellen is the most popular talk show host and most popular funny woman for the the 3rd yr. in a row according to the People's Choice awards the other night.

There are professional lesbians or, if you prefer, serial lesbians who refuse to look at, read, or see anything that doesn't have at the very least a gay/lesbian theme or subtext. I agree with a friend of mine who puts these women on one end of the fanatical scale and bible thumpers on the other.

If you like a show and a gay relationship pops up (for whatever reason) that's absolutely fine, but I don't think it's cause to send out signals via the jungle drums as a must see or a must read. Most of network TV is totally pretentious crap.

Face it…currently, the far right has a political stranglehold on the country, the media and the courts. One can see pockets of incremental changes in attitude here and there, but as near as I can tell, the "same sex kissing" only plays to the purient interests of people who buy into the concept of a "gay agenda" and only think in terms of sex.

Kissing on network TV? I don't think it advances the cause one iota. It only solidifies stereotypes.

I think Will and Grace succeded precisely because it concentrated on relationships and didn't play to gratuitous sex. We leave that up to cable TV.

Bad shows are going to die a natural death…so it doesn't really make any difference who kisses who. People will tolerate a good show regardless of a character's sexual preference…provided it's not central to the show.

I think Jeanna had it correct when she said: "Maybe they've finally gotten the idea that they give something they dislike far more publicity by complaining about it." The only exception to this that I can think of is The Book of Daniel.

Post edited by admin

Yes, I was going to mention that one. It seems the right wing bible thumpers got vocal about that one not, for a change, because of two regular characters being a gay man and his wacky bi and/or newly lesbian aunt, but mainly because of the rather flip on screen portrayal of Jesus (which I found amusing, esp. played by the actor who played two notable psycho parts on "Deadwood" at the same time <G> since these are the very people who constantly tell us about their "personal relationship with Jesus," something this show certainly took literally and enacted on camera.)

It's interesting that you are discussing this re US TV. I was thinking the other day how no-one bats an eyelid at it on UK TV anymore. It used to be if there was a gay kiss on TV it was a big event and in the papers. Even up to 1999 when the first series of BG was on - the first time I heard of the TV show was reading a trashy newspaper in my college common room which had a picture of Shell and Denny kissing (when they do it in S1 Ep2 is it? - to try to shock Crystal) and the newspaper had made a big deal of it, and the prison angle, and it was all so shocking etc.

But these days a lesbian kiss barely mentions a merit in the TV guide let alone the mainstream press!

I was reading something the other day about "All My Children", is it? We don't get that in the UK but someone was saying how it took years for the lesbian character on that to get even a few kisses with her love interest.

Jeanna, you are quite right about the uproar over the Book of Daniel. I should have been more specific about my point...that the right wing can still derail a network TV show when it wants to. I think they are picking their battles very carefully these days with an eye to eventually winning the war. It's certainly not over. :guns


unlikelyheroine, you are most fortunate to be in a place where the population has gotten over itself. Such is not the case here.

Are you referring to the conservative folks who get all riled up about same sex kissing, or the gay folks who are happy about seeing it on tv? I wasn't sure from your post....

I totally agree with the first half of this--I don't think it advances the cause. If anything, it's a reflection of a cultural shift, not the cause of it. The fact that there are more gay kisses on advertiser-supported network tv than their used to be is encouraging to me, because I read it as a barometer of our culture's growing comfort with gay people. Which is also, I hope, an answer to the first part of your post, where you asked why we should care (or, why I care).

However, I don't agree that kissing on network tv solidifies stereotypes. There are certainly cases where it does (where straight female characters kiss for the benefit of men, as happened on Friends and Ally McBeal; or where a predatory lesbian kisses an unwilling straight women), but there are also cases (like the two which started this thread) where the kisses are between two consenting adults who are romantically interested in each other. Those don't solidify stereotypes, other than stereotypes of gay people being romantic and loving towards each other. :)

There are many people…straight or gay…liberal or conservative…who do not want to see overt sexuality on network TV; they don't want it in their face and they don't want it in their homes. You can argue ad infinitum about why, but it doesn't change the reality.

Are there network TV shows that do portray overt sexuality? Of course. But most of them are heterosexual with (maybe) a token homosexual thrown in for good measure. Most of the shows are mindless and stupid. If you care to watch them, all the more power to you, but they're hardly worth going after.

Logo, for example, is a cable/satellite network that functions in between the networks and the premium channels.

Queer as Folk was one of the finest, grittiest shows about gays in society. In order to get it shown on Logo, it was generally bastardized to make it palatable to the suits and the general straight or gay population that does want to see such shows. People that do watch it are in all likihood those cannot afford or do not have the premium channels for whatever reason. I think the same thing is true for Sex in the City on another cable/satellite channel. Bad Girls is mild in comparison to either one of these shows, but the innocuous word shit is bleeped out continually. Many words or phrases have been left intact simply because of an unfamiliarity with British slang or the lack of a perceived rudeness (the word shag comes to mind).

Are these things indicative of a cultural shift? No…I don't think so. It most likely boils down to the economics of viewership...curiosity…and admitedly,the purient interest of the viewer and overall concessions to the wider culture. All of these things have been around for a long, long time. You can counter with the fact that 20 years ago, this wouldn't have happened. Maybe so, but the technology that's making some of these things now possible or easily available didn't exist either. Attitudes haven't changed significantly, but the delivery systems have.

I beg to differ, but network TV …stereotypes of gay people being romantic and loving towards each other… simply do not exist in the minds of the general straight population. Who are you talking about? Ellen? Melissa? I can't even discuss these two and their relationships without my blood pressure exploding. Are you talking about the network TV couple? Try holding any of these couples up as role models to people struggling to provide for themselves and/or their children, and you will get an earful. Try selling this to the woman in the Deep South who risks rape and murder if she dares to come out.

Incremental change occurs at a state-by-state, case-by-case economic and political level. I can give you three examples that occurred in Maine:

• A lingerie store in Augusta, decided to put live models in the storefront. There was nothing obscene about the display. Most people smiled and accepted it for what it was. Do you see anything wrong with a full slip? Most people didn't. The right-wing bible thumpers went crazy…they picketed and said all sorts of nasty things, and refused to accept the consequences of their actions. A host of wing-nuts started to write threatening letters to the point where the owners and the models were frightened for their lives, and the store went out of business. Result: people said "Whoa! These people are crazy and dangerous". The right-wing organizations started to lose influence at that point. Most people woke up and had had enough.

• After the third try, an anti-discrimination bill via a voter referendum was passed.

• It took a lawsuit to do it, but same sex adoption is now legal in the state. The two women involved were approved foster parents, professionals and totally qualified to adopt their two sons. They were turned down, and they sued. It was clearly discriminatory and the objections from the far right got absolutely nowhere. They won their case, and the legislature came to the realization that Gee, if we let qualified gay/lesbians adopt, the economic burden of care is removed from the state and placed with the individuals.

Did any of this have anything to do with same sex kissing on network TV? Did one necessarily follow the other? Does any of this make same sex kissing on network TV more palatable to the general population? My answer is: "No" and we should agree to disagree.

I stand by a previous post when I said: …the right wing can still derail a network TV show when it wants to. I think they are picking their battles very carefully these days with an eye to eventually winning the war. It's certainly not over. They have tried to go after cable/satellite TV, but they have been stopped dead in their tracks…so far. Why? Money and politics…cultural shifts be damned.

Time is better spent at the grass roots level. Time is better spent knowing who you are voting for. Time is better spent knowing the background of judicial nominees. Time is better spent supporting the community…not frivolously counting kisses. There is a bigger picture here.

Post edited by admin

Wow, I'm not sure what you read in my post, but I certainly wasn't twisting your words. I was actually trying to understand your point of view. Had I wanted to, I could have EASILY read your previous post as personally insulting to me for introducing the topic in the first place, for enjoying network television, and for feeling that depictions of gay people on tv matter. I chose to NOT interpret your previous post that way, and instead tried to engage in a more open give-and-take. I'm sorry you didn't read my post that way. However, it's hard for me to be so easy-going this time around.

Obviously you and I disagree about the quality of network television. To me, a lot of it is terrible, and some of it is very very good. I generally don't like making blanket statements about the quality level of a category because any generalization like that winds up having too many exceptions. In addition, to call network tv mindless and stupid implies that those who like it are mindless and stupid too. I'd rather not insult the majority of this board by saying such a thing.

In addition, I'm not sure why you mention "going after" these shows, as if that's something I've done here. I actually started this thread by commending some recent programs. If by "going after" you mean the fact that I care to watch, think about, and analyze these programs, then yes, I will always "go after" them because I'm interested in media and culture in general, and particularly in the depiction of gay people.

Since we're being honest, I'm going to disagree with you here. I thought QAF was pretty much unwatchable. Terrible writing, terrible acting across the board. The UK version was much better.

I'm not sure why you mention Ellen or Melissa. I've mentioned neither one on this thread. I mentioned two specific new programs: Brothers & Sisters, and Cashmere Mafia. I said I was pleased that gay characters on these shows were shown having dates, being romantic, getting to kiss their significant others. As for whether such "stereotypes", wait, let's switch to the word "images", exist in the minds of the general straight population, I'd argue that having these characters/couples/relationships on television are what GIVE straight people positive images of gay people and gay relationships.

I think positive depictions of gay people in the media contribute significantly to the acceptance of gays in our culture, and therefore can be a factor which would (in the long term, I'll admit) make life easier for a woman in the deep south who wants to come out.

If I could have read the rest of your post (and your previous post) without feeling personally insulted, you left me no choice here.

You don't know me AT ALL. You have NO IDEA if I am politically active at the grass roots level, if I spend time knowing who I vote for, if I spend time knowing the background of judicial nominees, and if I spend time supporting the community. Do not presume that because I am interested in the depiction of gay people in the media that that is all I am interested in. In fact, I'm surprised that given my user name, you would make any of these assumptions about my political views or political activism.

More importantly, SO WHAT if all I think is important is the way gays are depicted in the media? (I don't, but for the sake of the argument...) You can think that grass roots activism is the most important thing, and I can think that positive depictions of gays in the media is the most important thing. I'm certainly not going to judge you for believing certain things are important, and I'd thank you to not judge me.

abzug, I do believe that I said we should agree to disagree...which we most certainly do.

My post was a long one, and you apparantly took one or two words or sentences out of context and decided that I was judging you, when nothing is further from the truth. You need to read it again carefully.

If I argue against something, I argue against a central thesis...not the individual who put it forward. All points are directed towards that thesis. If you take that personally, then the problem is yours.

Having been born and raised in NYC and Long Island, I do know who Bella Abzug was. That alone should tell you that anything I said was directed to the thread and its central assumptions...nothing else.

This thread is being monitored for now.

I have followed this thread at a distance partly as I have felt that this has been an area of debate that I couldn't really contribute to. What has prompted me to post has been the possibility that backward elements in English cultures (Brit and American) have not had many hangups about blood and guts being spilt out on the screen but have been squeamish about what might be called the expression of loving sexuality, to broaden the whole argument.

I have always felt that any struggle for a freer society works over a spectrum, where culture and politics shade into each other and one must avoid trying to neatly compartmentalise and segregate aspects of life into little boxes as life isn't like that. The pithiest example of where politics and culture cross has been my inescapable conclusion that George Bush has a John Wayne fixation.

Working from the other end of the spectrum, Bad Girls has obviously had a very real impact in portraying a same sex couple as resolutely normal and Simone and Mandana have testified to the huge number of letters from lonely individuals saying that they have validated their lives which is an enormous compliment to them. The impact of the high level of artistic expression as a whole spills out beyond the gay community.

I am a firm believer that freedom is indivisible. If one particular subculture is having a rough ride of it, then it spells trouble for that society as a whole. You don't have to think too much to know what side you are on. As a matter of interest, Bella Abzug read into the Congressional record a eulogy for the late Phil Ochs who had organised a rally to celebrate the end of the Vietnam War. Phil Ochs is an all time hero of mine, being an uncompromisingly left wing political folk singer whose songs like 'Cops of the World' have a very modern resonance.

As a mod, I am also registering some concern about the thread and that debate should be conducted in a sororial tone, as befitting a BG board.

http://www.glaad.org/eye/ontv/07-08/overview2007.php