Stevan J. Online

Two and a Half "Men?"

2013-09-08T20:30:00.000-07:00

It is safe to assume that the average American knows of the popular television show, Two and a Half Men, and the amount of controversy it has been associated with in recent years starting with the termination of the show’s lead actor, Charlie Sheen. Since the departure of Sheen, actor Ashton Kutcher has assumed the lead role on the sitcom as an internet billionaire who purchases the house that once belonged to Sheen’s character (known as Charlie Harper on the sitcom). Before the departure of Sheen, the plot of the sitcom revolved around jingle writer, Charlie Harper allowing his brother, Allen Harper (portrayed by actor Jon Cryer) and his son, Jake Harper (portrayed by actor Angus T. Jones) to live with him after Allen’s divorce from his wife. Though ratings for Kutcher’s debut season were reportedly lower than Sheen’s final season on the sitcom, ratings were seemingly high enough for a renewal of the sitcom.

During Kutcher’s debut season, controversy reared its head when actor Angus T. Jones released a viral video not only berating the sitcom, and discouraging viewers from watching and supporting the sitcom. Jones later apologized for his negative comments regarding the sitcom, and subsequently parted ways with the show this past season. Both Jones and current cast members on the sitcom have adamantly stated that he voluntarily left the show to pursue other endeavors. According to producers of the sitcom, an actress by the name of Amber Tamblyn will act as the replacement for Jones, and will appear in a recurring role in the upcoming season as Jenny, the long-lost lesbian daughter of Sheen’s former character, Charlie Harper.
Despite the inclusion of Tamblyn, the producers seem to be retaining the original name of the sitcom, which could possibly receive backlash from the LGBT community since it would seem as though the producers are equating lesbians with men; or in the sitcom’s case, “half-men.” Also, the text book definition of a lesbian is a female who is physically and/or emotionally attracted exclusively to individuals of the same sex. Point being, if the producers wanted to replace Jones’ character with a female character, they could have easily written a storyline in which the new female character were transitioning from female to male; which would allow producers to retain the original name of the sitcom, and avoid backlash from the LGBT community since transgender males (unlike lesbians) by definition identify as men. Nevertheless, viewers will simply have to take a “wait and see” attitude to see how the producers justify retaining the name of the sitcom with the addition of a female character. The new season of Two an a Half Men begins September 26, 2013.

Riddle Me This...

2012-09-04T21:51:00.001-07:00

According to a vast amount of individuals who do not, never have, or seemingly never will identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, homosexuality is a sinful choice that will eventually lead to a life of misery and despair. However, the average individual who identifies as either gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender will emphatically state that the sexual orientation of a human being cannot be altered or influenced by any means. Though there are various opinions pertaining to whether or not homosexuality is a choice, it is safe to assume that both sides agree on the idea that an individual cannot choose who they fall in love with. With that said, riddle me this homophobes, if it is true that an individual cannot choose who they fall in love with, how and why would it be possible to choose that particular individual's gender? If anyone feels as though they have a definitive answer to this, they are more than welcome to post their response in the comment section below.

No Means No (Not Just In the English Language)!

2012-08-30T00:01:00.004-07:00

     So the primary issue that this particular post will cover is one of which the average human being (regardless of one's sexual preference) has most likely dealt with at least once in their everyday life. Many individuals can relate to the seemingly random yet bother-some scenario when (typically) a guy that is far from intriguing or attractive will attempt to engage someone in conversation in an effort to obtain their phone number, and in many cases, a possible hook-up. Now that the base scenario is established, there seems to be only one question to ask: "Why is it that when someone is attempting to be generous with a guy's feelings and politely decline, it gives the guy even more incentive to annoy that individual even further?" If and when either a man or a woman (again, regardless of their sexual preference) is doing their best to not be rude and inconsiderate by saying "no," it seems as if in the guy's mind, "no" means "yes," which could only be the furthest thing from the truth.
     Often times, guys will attempt to act as if they were disinterested in someone who had just rejected them in order to avoid the feeling of embarrassment; however, there are a chosen few who cannot seem to take no for an answer, and continue to believe that they have a chance to hook-up with their individual of interest. In some instances, not taking "no" for an answer can be considered to be somewhat persistent, as well as displaying a certain level of determination; however, for a man to continuously pester an individual who has blatantly proven a strong disinterest in them is simply pathetic on many levels. There is no adequately explored reason for a man to pursue a one-night stand with a random individual that not only has no interest in him, but an individual that they know absolutely nothing about, let alone a relationship.
     The average individual on the receiving end of the harassment typically hopes that a consistent stream of declining will eventually put an end to the advances. While in some instances this may work, others may eventually succumb to the harassment as a means of pacification due to a lack of success with the previously stated solution. However, this particular "solution" could actually cause much more harm than good since there is virtually no definitive way to determine what a persistent harasser may be capable of in terms of the recipient's well-being. Unfortunately, there are numerous negative outcomes that can occur if one were to resort to the pacifier "solution" as a means to end the harassment such as abduction and/or rape, which could lead to the possibility of STDs/STIs; some of which are incurable. In some instances, this "solution" could end in death. With that said, it is extremely important for individuals of all genders and sexual orientations to know for certain that no one has the right to forcibly impose their will on others, and the simple fact that the word "no" truly means "no."

All Films Are NOT Created Equal

2011-08-02T18:53:00.000-07:00

     Well, with the recent legalization of Same Sex Marriage in New York, this post could go the cliché route and discuss how this is a huge step forward in the ongoing fight for gay rights, and it is. However, in an attempt to be somewhat unique, this particular post will discuss an issue that may be considered overlooked in the LGBT community. In today's society, Drama/Romance films such as: The Notebook, The Last Song, and Beastly typically have the cookie-cutter storybook endings in which boy meets girl, falls in love, rides off into the sunset, and lives happily ever after; where as a very large percentage of LGBT films of the same genre, such as Brokeback Mountain, do not seem to have such happy endings. Since there have been few mainstream American LGBT films of this particular genre in recent years, I took it upon myself to research other LGBT based films in other countries.
     After watching several films of this particular genre, I noticed that at the end of nearly all of them, the main couple never gets their "happy ending," because at least one of the two either dies of mysterious causes or is abruptly murdered in a senseless act of violence. The primary issue with these films is the fact that it seems as though by ending most LGBT films in some variation of death, they in turn send an extremely negative message to the LGBT community essentially giving them the impression that they can and will never lead a happy and fulfilling life. Though it is true that the LGBT community has come a very long way in the fight for equality, society's view on the homosexual lifestyle is still heavily influenced by how gays are depicted on both television and film in a somewhat stereotypical fashion. As a film director, an individual has the power to manipulate its audience into thinking and believing whatever he/she wants others to believe. The average Drama/Romance film is idealized in a way that makes its audience believe that they themselves can one day fall in love and have the cookie-cutter happy ending.
     Point being, although death is a realistic and natural part of life, not every LGBT film has to end in death; especially since the majority of Drama/Romance films that feature heterosexual couples do not, despite the unfortunate fact that every individual is susceptible to an untimely death. It would be quite refreshing to watch more LGBT films where the main couple actually lives to bask in their love for one another instead of having their happiness abruptly shredded by the cold, unforgiving hand of death. There are many individuals who would strongly take offense to the subliminal message in many LGBT films of this genre that same sex relationships are not meant to last. If the idea that same sex couples are not meant to be together were a proven fact, there would be no possible way to ignore the fact that at least 50% of all marriages (not "Civil Unions") in America end in divorce, meaning that directors would have to incorporate that legitimate statistic in films featuring heterosexual couples.