prime time television

Men might feel self-concious about not being conventionally attractive and some women might choose not to date them because they don’t have a six pack or a handsome face or whatever but the lack of conventional attractiveness won’t inflict on them being seen as whole people, it won’t limit their opportunities, it won’t limit their job prospects, it won’t get in the way of them living their lives as they want and moving forward in the world, the can become politicians, tv hosts, and other media figures and get to speak on prime time tv despite their ugliness and that’s why I don’t want to hear “but men are expected to have muscles and six packs!” when I talk about the expectation and requirement of femininity women face and the social backlash and exclusion we face when we can’t or won’t conform.

One of the One Direction Guys Finally Showed Off His Dance Moves on Jimmy Fallon

On Wednesday evening’s Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, former One Direction heartthrob Liam Payne made his prime time television debut as a solo artist with a performance of his new single, “Strip That Down.” The big news for Payne fans is that he chose to accompany his tune with some slick dance moves. Lots of slick dance moves.

As part of the famous fivesome, Payne and the boys were known for their tongue-in-cheek attitude towards dancing: mainly, they avoided it. (Or if they did engage in some light choreography, it was with a wink and a nod to the fact that they certainly weren’t dance impresarios like their boy band forebears the Backstreet Boys or *NSYNC, groups of guys known for their sharply synchronized moves.)

But Payne is bucking the anti-choreography trend and kicking off his independent career with a much more pro-dance attitude, to the delight of fans. His performance of a minimalist version of hip hop bop “Strip That Down” lit up Twitter as long-time supporters finally saw what he’s working with, moves-wise. Joined by a few backup dancers silhouetted all in black, Payne shimmied, chasséd, and even threw in some fancy footwork while singing through the track. Looks like he’s feeling just fine onstage on his own.

Okay new show idea! Badass women scientists!
Half of them are lab people half of them are not, or they all are, some of them like shooting people it’s cathartic.
The science is right! They’re saving the world.!
Maybe they have superpowers? Who knows?
Lots are LGBTQ+! One of them has tried being with another woman and found out they didn’t like it and the teams just like “that’s cool fam”.
Lots are questioning!
They nerd out a lot but it’s never shamed! They have Harry Potter movie marathons!
References to prior shows the actors have done.
Staring: Katie McGrath, Sasha Alexander, Chyler Leigh, Samira Wiley, Anna Kendrick, Britney Snow, Sarah Shahi, Amy Acker, Taraji P Henson, Sophia Walker, Elise Bauman, Natasha Negovanlis, Kaitlyn Alexander, Ellen Page, Sara Paulson, Laverne Cox!

Please add more actually lgbtq+ actors and more woc! It’s almost like I don’t see them often enough on prime time television?!

anonymous asked:

I read your comment about the roundtable interview about YOI. Is it true that Yamada-san said how Victor and Yuuri are very clearly gay? I read some summaries, but I want to know if he or someone else really said it like that? (Idk, but I think even if he is a good/close friend of Yamamoto-san, he can not speak for her or Kubo-san...)

He is not exactly saying that “they are gay” (I mean, what he says means that, I’m just saying that he “didn’t use that exact wording”), but he is saying that they are clearly in love with each other and is commenting on how 20 years ago characters in BL would not accept themselves and think they are weird or “wrong”, but in YOI it’s all normal, which shows how things have progressed from the past.

They also comment on the fact that in YOI they could have shown their romance in a much more evident way but they didn’t, they focused on the entertainment, and that’s what made the show so popular. (So basically they are actually praising the fact that no explicit romance was shown, because that would have probably restricted its popularity and made it less appealing to people who dislike romantic or m/m elements. I think this is what most people familiar with Japanese society would say, and I agree too)

They also say how in episode 10, in the part where Victor and Yuuri go “on a date” (their words) and shopping, Yuuri’s reactions are “so much like a girl’s”. And “they have matching rings and are in their own world” (this I think he was saying about the scene in episode 11 where Victor kisses Yuuri’s ring before he goes to skate “Eros”, because then he says “and then Yuuri goes to the rink”). I laughed when then he says “I couldn’t look at it” and the other guy too “I couldn’t either”, and “guys (male viewers) were totally left out”. They are saying this in an amused way, they are not criticizing the scene, but yeah if they had shown something more evident in the series some people that are not as broad-minded as them would probably have quit watching the show. I myself wanted to hide under the table when they showed the scene at the end of episode 7 on Music Station (prime time music TV program watched by heaps of “normal people”, as in “non-otaku”) without any context at all, lol.

But yeah, he’s Yamamoto’s friend but he doesn’t know Kubo at all, and he wasn’t involved in the production of YOI in the least, so he’s just talking based on his own impressions watching the series and maybe some things Yamamoto told him. He almost never says “Yamamoto told me~” in the interview or use wordings that imply that it’s something he was told by someone (Japanese people will use this kind of sentence structure when they are referring to something they were told, they have lots of ways to express that), therefore I actually think it’s really mostly based on his interpretation. But what he thinks is probably what many people in the animation/entertainment industry, especially the ones familiar with BL and who aren’t creeped out by it, think too, though most of them will never say it out loud, so that’s why it’s interesting.

And a random note: in my experience watching interviews, reading articles and looking at people’s tweets, men are usually much more blunt about BL than women, especially creators and people involved in the production of an anime. I think that women are scared that if they say something that hints at BL people will not take their opinions objectively and just think “you see things from that point of view because you’re a woman so you like BL”, while if it’s men saying the same exact thing people are not going to think it’s because they like BL, so they don’t feel that they have to justify themselves or avoid certain topics. Kubo too actually says something like this in her interview on Febri (sorry it will be posted within today…).

Also I was told that the interview is now normally available on NicoNico as well (that’s where the Japanese transcript comes from apparently). There’s overlaying text on the footage saying that it comes from a “members limited program”, but I guess they decided to publish this part about YOI afterwards? Good to know Avex is tolerant enough to let this exist, lol. But then again they own the copyright to Osomatsu-san so yeah…

(By the way they don’t just talk about Victor and Yuuri in the roundtable, they also praise many other aspects of the series!)

Hey there is a Canadian sitcom called Schitts Creek and it’s really funny but also a main character is openly pansexual and his parents are accepting of it and they actually talk about pansexuality and explain what it is on national prime time television and it’s on Netflix and you guys should check it out
Pourquoi le ciné et la télé doivent arrêter de faire coucher des lesbiennes avec des mecs
Comme récemment dans la série Dix pour cent, il arrive régulièrement que des personnages introduits comme gays ou lesbiens couchent finalement avec une personne du sexe opposé... au plus grand regr...
By Marie Kirschen

Remember that French TV show (Dix pour cent) I told you about, that made their lesbian main character sleep with a man? Now that character is pregnant with him of course, but the creator of the show Fanny Herrero (a straight woman) has a very good reason, don’t worry!

“Andréa is gay but she’s liberated enough to, on a one-night-stand, have sex with a man and not have a problem with it, because her sexuality is mature and fulfilling enough that she doesn’t ask herself questions. From the beginning, I knew that this character would have a very rich, complex and liberated libido, and for me that goes beyond sleeping with women. I think Andréa is more modern than that.”

Did you hear, ladies? A modern woman with a rich, complex, fulfilling sex life = a woman who wants to have sex with a man! How progressive!

Anyway, for once a Buzzfeed article about lesbians isn’t completely awful, so @sespursongles and I translated it in English :

Why movies and TV have to stop making lesbians sleep with guys

Keep reading

so i’ve been watching doctor who and i’m really happy with what they’re doing with bill’s character so far, especially in terms of race. obviously we haven’t had a companion of colour in 10 whole years (disgraceful tbh) and a lot of things have changed and i had my doubts as to whether they’d deliver especially since rtd’s approach to a black companion wasn’t great at all. from the general sidelining of martha, to sending her back to 1913 to become a maid…. i expected the worst. 

but yo!!!!! the minute bill steps into the past, she’s concerned of how she’ll be treated because of her skin colour and twelve doesn’t just push that aside like ten did, he actually listened to her concerns unlike ten did who was just like “i’m an alien, just walk around like you own the place”, it doesn’t… work like that… fam…. and the ugly truths of racism aren’t ignored either, some dude is straight up racist to bill which is exactly what would have happened in the victorian times and the doctor punches him???? I DIDN’T EXPECT IT, especially when they got it SO WRONG before, i didn’t expect an interaction like that to happen, i expected it to be brushed past just like it was in the shakespeare code, but :)))) it wasn’t. AND ON TOP OF THAT THE DOCTOR SAID HISTORY IS WHITE WASHED AND JESUS IS BLACK I TRULY CANNOT BELIEVE THESE ARE THINGS THAT HAPPENED PRIME TIME ON BRITISH TELEVISION, doctor who did that, i’m a true stan once again. it makes me so happy that ever so slightly, we’re getting justice for how poorly martha was treated… even if it’s 10 years on! i hope it doesn’t fall downhill from here

Broadway Star Telly Leung Talks about his Upcoming NYC Cabaret Show

April 18, 2017

COTA: “Glee” was such a huge phenomenon. How did that show and its success affect you personally and professionally?

TL: I was on the second season. It was a big hit the first season—a water cooler show where people talked about it the next day. I thought, “Oh wow, what a cool job. I’m going to fly out to L.A. and do a couple of episodes. None of us, Darren (Criss) included, had an idea about the social effect that it was going to have. At that time teens were dealing with things like the Trevor Project and teen suicide and bullying. Because of the LGBT movement, kids were finding the courage to come out in high school, but they did not know how to deal with the ridicule and bullying they encountered. “Glee’s” creators of course wanted to create a hit show, but they also realized they had the eyes and ears of a captive audience—not just in America, but all over the world. They used the storyline between Darren Criss’s and Chris Colfer’s characters to empower kids who were being bullied, who were just coming out, and showed them a very healthy, loving relationship between two teenage boys on prime time television. And that was huge. The show said, “You’re not alone. You may feel really alone, because you don’t belong to any clique, but there is a clique for those people who don’t belong to any clique. And the common thing that will bond you all together is making music.”

[Link to complete article]
Hey, Young Queer Women, Baby Boomer Lesbians Are Not the Enemy

Dyke Culture and the Disappearing L

By Bonnie J. Morris

My generation of lesbian activists, who honed our identity politics and confronted racism and classism in the spaces of women’s music events and women’s bookstores, are approaching a cultural expiration date. Having achieved many of the radical goals we pursued through the late 20th century—same-sex marriage, antidiscrimination laws, openly lesbian celebrities and politicians—we are indeed celebrating new opportunities to be out and proud. Yet having been permitted to be “out,” many of us are now spending the energy of our menopausal years pushing back against encroaching disappearance; our own invisibility. Dyke identity, that specific nomenclature of the fierce woman-identified woman, has been replaced by the more inclusive queer, as a new era of thoughtful LGBT activists proclaim their disidentification with the categories woman and lesbian.

The recent, ongoing interrogation of those categories in academic theory and cyberactivism clashes with concurrent efforts to preserve, as historically meaningful and valuable, the past 40 years of lesbian cultural spaces. Yet making peace with the radical separatist past is an important historical step for those charting the progression of LGBT visibility, rights, and power. The present impasse, in the LGBT movement, is over how to frame lesbians’ successful construction of an autonomous subculture that was not G, that was not T, but L.

My concern is that as we advance further into the 21st century, we are witnessing the almost flippant dismissal of recent, late 20th-century lesbian culture, particularly the loss of physical sites such as women’s bookstores and women’s music festivals and their material legacies (books, journals, albums, tapes, magazine interviews with artists). This was a specific performance culture: a movement through which fresh ideas about woman-loving were transmitted via song, speech, and the written word and marketed to a like-minded audience at quasi-public but distinctively lesbian-feminist spaces. At its peak, lesbian performance culture in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s was every bit as unique as gay male drag, punk rock, Seattle grunge, and other genres, particularly because it put a new face on the tradition of grassroots American folk. However, because most women’s music recording artists earned very little money, and not only neglected but rejected commercial male approval and participation, their contributions are difficult to place on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame timeline.

Despite so many gains in LGBT rights, sexism and sex discrimination have not been vanquished, and scholarly support for examining women’s lives and communities remains contested. The traditional academic canon, with its focus on male achievement and leadership, embeds many contributions by gay men through the ages, whereas lesbians have had barely a generation and a half of scholarly scrutiny (corresponding to how recently women were allowed to attend college at all). Although women’s studies programs have always been charged with pushing a lesbian agenda, or just being controlled by man-hating lesbians, this was never true and is even less true now. In fact, as women’s studies programs expand to attract male and trans-identifying faculty and students, many administrators are backing away from the word women altogether, striving for inclusion by renaming departments gender studies.

Although various woman-identified, lesbian separatist platforms and events that characterized a self-proclaimed dyke subculture throughout the 1970s–’90s still exist, they aren’t yet popular subjects of historical inquiry. Instead, these remaining activists and institutions have become popular subjects of criticism and contempt. Despite a wealth of feminist scholarship on aging, elder abuse, and the intersectionality of ageism and sexism in older women’s economic vulnerability, far less work has been produced on the aging lesbian, who (whether activist veteran or not) offers a wealth of generational tales and insights.

The disappearance of lesbian spaces is also one aspect of the aging baby-boomer generation. Many, though not all, of the most creative, visionary, and accomplished lesbian activists from the 1970s and ’80s were born in the late 1940s and early ’50s, their politics informed by childhoods spent crouched in Cold War air raid drills, McCarthy hearings on new television sets, and the civil rights movement.  It’s not coincidental that the lesbian-feminist movement included intense scrutiny of militarism and racism and turned politics into a musical stance. Although younger women (and men) may feel that Americans born between 1945 and 1961 have been studied enough, have indeed monopolized cultural attention for decades, are a tiresomely overcredited American demographic, with lesbians it’s a different story. Despite our national fascination with the 1970s, most historians still fail to inscribe the accomplishments of that decade’s lesbian pioneers in our national textbooks. Right now, it’s imperative that we find better ways for the vanishing ideas, sites, and inherited stuff of late 20th-century lesbian culture to be valued, preserved, and known by future generations. Later, we’ll wish we had these feisty dykes in front of us to explain what they did—and what it meant—and how they did it with no internet.

Who’s still willing to bat for Team L? Once an empowered statement of out and proud, it’s now an identity buried within the topical hierarchy of queer studies, gay marriage, gender identity. The disappearance of the L may be due in part to mainstreaming LGBTQ civil rights issues into one catch phrase, but it’s also an intentional disruption of what the aging “flannel shirt lesbian” stereotype signifies: a person who symbolizes folk guitar at festivals in the woods; politically correct potlucks attended by crystal-wearing numerologists in Birkenstocks and bi-level haircuts. These images are all white, as well as derisive. If the L-defined woman and her separatist cultural spaces are troubling remnants of an exclusive, retroactive essentialism, why would anyone want to interview her now? Lost in the stereotype is the backstory of unlearning racism workshops, disability activism, drum circles, and poverty activism, which characterized events of the 1980s and ’90s.

Generational change is inevitable, healthy, and necessary to progress. What I am living through right now is a painful transitional moment in which some of those older lesbian institutions are still going strong, and seeking participation and funding, while a current generation of activists are distancing themselves from such events, or even demonstrating against them. Younger, queer activists were vocal in opposing the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival; right-wing religious groups once eager to shut the festival down had moved on to bigger targets. This dynamic—a next generation of feminists attacking earlier lesbian institutions and disparaging their participants as less evolved—is not unique to the 21st century or the United States; it is embedded in Jill Gardiner’s powerful book From the Closet to the Screen, which describes a 1970–71 Gay Liberation Front “zap” against London’s Gateways Club bar. As this generational shift grinds on, how should the most recent decades of cultural production be interpreted, understood, and preserved? How will we use the tools of history to examine something we know existed as an investigable community?

For veterans of a certain kind of lesbian activism, who poured time, energy, and resources into sustaining alternative spaces when other doors were closed to us, the triumph of civil rights is a bittersweet victory if our tremendous efforts and contributions are to be written out of the record. The fearless Amazon generation that built an entire network of lesbian music festivals, albums, bookstores, bars, presses, production companies, publications, and softball teams is teetering on the brink of oblivion, just gray-haired enough to be brushed aside with an impatient “good riddance” by younger activists, yet too recent a movement to enjoy critical historical acclaim.

The mainstreaming of gay rights and gay marriage, the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the elevation of Ellen DeGeneres to talk show mogul and cosmetics cover girl on billboards in every mall, and the gradual inclusion of same-sex couples by institutions of faith was inconceivable when I first came out as a lesbian teenager—on the eve of Ronald Reagan’s election, in 1980. There were few youth support services, no anti-bullying programs in schools, no LGBT studies conferences in academia. In fact, at age 19 I attended my first lesbian concert less than half a mile from the gates of Georgetown University, then in the midst of its costly legal battle against its own gay students, who simply wanted to form a campus group. Thirty years later, this same Jesuit campus now hosts an annual Lavender Graduation, as well as funding a well-staffed LGBT Center and paying me a handsome part-time salary to lecture on lesbian history. Today we see far greater representation of LGBT families and couples on prime time television and in commercially successful films. Thankfully, across global entertainment networks there are also more and more heterosexual artists willing to speak out for equality (and/or to play LGBT roles). This gradually LGBT-friendly media is redefining who “lesbian stars” are.

But while it is a victory to see lesbians gaining acceptance into the mainstream of American culture—due to stronger civil rights protections, informed political allies, and other successful advocacy—recent media validation has been limited to those lesbian couples with “successful” roles or individual women who are beautiful, able-bodied, affluent, and white. Less often depicted is working-class lesbian culture, which thrives in small towns and urban bars; in house parties and social events where women still meet as they always have. And the politically engaged lesbian activist is portrayed as dressed for Congress. For better or for worse, the stereotype of the angry radical lesbian marching with fist raised against the patriarchy has been replaced by the embossed wedding invitation to Megan and Carmen’s nuptials.

This shift in media representation idealizes lesbians’ participation in the American dream: settling down with a partner, marrying a beautiful wife, raising children, being active in the local school PTA and church community. It’s a wholesome, nonthreatening participation in middle-class values by women who just happen to be gay. This is the image mainstream LGBT groups have promoted since the late 1990s: lesbians as soccer moms, as consumers, as participants in faith, nuclear family, and military service. Vanishing from this landscape are the many large-scale gatherings once typifying dyke subculture, where talking points included some very tough critiques of church, state, family dynamics, and military imperialism.

We’re still here. But there we were. And we remember.

Adapted from The Disappearing L: Erasure of Lesbian Spaces and Culture, by Bonnie J. Morris. Reprinted with permission from SUNY Press.

anonymous asked:

what is the olicity scene people are talking about? and when in the series does it occur

Oh I suck at finding videos but you should watch it. It’s in season 3, episode 20 of Arrow and Oliver is staying with the Ras Al Gul to be his successor and Felicity has to say goodbye and she finally admits she loves him and they have sex and I have never seen a hotter love scene on prime time broadcast tv. SO intimate. Not just hot but full of love and beautifully shot and acted. Maybe someone can find you a link. 

Originally posted by oliverxfelicity

Originally posted by stellahellaviola

Originally posted by oliverfelicitygifs

Originally posted by hidden-in-a-dreams-gifs

[edited] the gifs are fine my ability to provide you with the video i want is crappy.  It is worth it to search out and watch over and over again. I mean it helps if you’re attached to the characters, but even without… super hot, sexy, loving, intimate. It’s, like, almost intruding into their private moment. The culmination of their love up to that point.

Something like this would be perfect for Bellarke. Not exactly, and no candles please. We did that already. But something this intimate and true.

I’ve heard the phrase “its just a tv show” more times than I can count in my life. I get a little obsessed at times, I’ll admit, but it’s what’s important to me, just the same way watching football games is important to some. In this world and time, more people are watching tv than reading. That’s not a judgement, just commentary. They watch tv shows, talk shows, movies. And although we do it for enjoyment, media can change how we see the world without us even knowing it. There’s no such thing as “just a tv show”. Tv shapes opinions, minds, and perceptions. As much as people don’t want to admit, their children learn a great amount of their “ideals” from television and movies. You are one person, and try as you might, even an hour of television gives your kids more exposure to the world than you ever could. Media allows for the introduction to things many people would never see in real life. Cultures, religions, race, etc. These aren’t the only things. How should relationships interact? What are socially acceptable responses to situations? These are micro influences tv can have on your personality that you don’t notice. 20 years ago today, the lead character on a prime time tv show (played by a queer actress) came out of the closet. On a show that was meant to be a comedy that was doing relatively well, the character admitted to the world she was gay. Although inevitably, it resulted in the show being cancelled due to sponsors pulling out and writers not knowing what to do with a lesbian character, it was the start we needed, the attention we needed for the real change to begin for the queer community. While she wasn’t the first queer character in tv, and she could have disappeared into the dark hole of cancelled tv, the actress refused. It was a career ending event, or could have been, but she never gave up. Instead of seeing it as a failure, and despite her popularity plummeting, she kept going and the world has changed completely because of her. She continues to be a beacon of light, even today. She’s taken over tv fearlessly and she has positively represented the queer community in a way that only she could. So thanks Ellen DeGeneres for taking the first few stumbles so the world could find its footing.

Originally posted by twloha


Disney World: Hollywood Studios - 50’s Prime Time Café by Wally Gobetz
Via Flickr:
The 50’s Prime Time Café opened in Echo Lake at Hollywood Studios in 1989. The restaurant replicates the kitsch of a 1950s diner and the wait staff act as though they are a family member of the guests they are serving. The menu includes nostalgic homespun comfort food like pot roast, fried chicken, meatloaf and milkshakes.

anonymous asked:

Hi! Your blog made me interested in The Man from UNCLE. But there is no translation to my language, and I need big motivation to watch it in english. If you don't mind and have free time, could you tell what you like most about this show :)

Tell you what I like most about my current great fannish love? Twist my arm, why don’t you. ;)

Actually, one of the first posts I made about The Man from UNCLE was an extended introduction to the show (it’s in four parts starting here on tumblr, or you can read the whole thing in one place on DW). That’s the long version, though – let’s see if I can’t summarise a little.

How do I love UNCLE, let me count the ways. I love its tongue-in-cheek approach to the spy genre. I love its shameless optimism – from the very idea of a benevolent international espionage organisation, to the guts it took to put a Russian character in a starring role on prime-time US TV at the height of the Cold War – and I love even more that it worked (within 6 months, that same Russian character was the hottest new thing on TV, with a fanbase big enough to make international news). But if you want just the thing I love most, that would be the characters, and their wonderful relationship.

This is the show that all but created the classic odd-couple buddy-cop partnership. You’ve got Illya, the mysterious loner with the bone-dry wit, the agility of a ninja, a disarmingly cute smile and a hidden playful streak a mile wide. You’ve got Napoleon, the obligatory James-Bond style womaniser, with his sharp suits with his martinis – but only if James Bond was suddenly a gentleman who treats women with genuine respect, who’ll back off when he’s not welcome without complaint. I love how they take to their jobs with style and humour. I love watching David McCallum in motion, doing his own stunts like the little ninja badass that he is, and I love watching Robert Vaughn pulling silly expressions with his wonderfully elastic face when things aren’t working out. We are all indebted to the show’s tireless dedication to gratuitous bondage and getting both its stars soaking wet at the least excuse.

They’ve both had to carry episodes solo on occasion, but I don’t think it’s much exaggeration to say that the chemistry between these two losers is absolutely what makes the show click.

Keep reading