Yet another bisexual villain

I know. It's really annoying. I think they like to put the idea out there that all bisexuals are just evil tempters (temptresses) and they will fuck someone and kill them because they can't get enough sex and death in their lives.

 

Bisexual woman is a fetish of straight male. (90% of movies are made for straight male audience)

For that reason femmefatale ladies like woman from basic instic or this bisexual.Why they are evil? because they don't cry for men.Because its immoral for straight world.Because our fetishes are kinky.

Movies are made for money.Some hot bisexual femmefatale is major attraction for young male audience. (4 tits > 2 tits :lol

 

Holywood is full of stereotypes about gay people

Bisexuals are just sex hungry temptresses who can't be trusted.
Lesbians are just girls who haven't found the right guy yet.
All gays are either huge over the top stereotypes, or hate themselves and have huge problems coming to terms with their sexuality.

There are so few (mainstream) movies/tv programmes that have bi,lesbian or gay characters that don't conform to those roles.

 

LOL isn't this like the whole Albino's being portrayed as villains as well. XD

 

It doesn't help that it happens in real life too...... The media's been pretty good about it here but there seem to be a lot of overseas news stories around where someone's been accused of something and their sexuality has been needlessly dragged into it to make a better headline.

 

Just a quick question here now...
Don't the majority of the movies they make have heterosexual villains in them? So making a few with bisexuals isn't so bad right?

 

Olivia Wilde's character on House is bisexual. I'm pretty sure she ain't evil. She's extremely hot though. xD

But I definitely notice what you are saying. There are the bisexual assassins in 24 as well.

 

I wouldn't say that it is necesarily true that they are purposly making bisexuals evil but rather that evil characters many times are portrayed as overly sexual and obsessed just with oozing sex and lust and focused on the act and pleasure not the other person which means they don't care if it's with a male or female.

This however is a problem. That the only time bisexuality comes up is in this circumstance.

If you mean Hollywood to mean juse movies, then yeah, can't think of anyone. If you mean television too, there's Britney and Santana on Glee, 13/Hadley on House off the top of my head.

 

Seriously? Umm did you watch Interview with a Vampire or Queen of the Damned? Damn near every vampire is Bi. Plus the people already mentioned. Just because its not main stream doesn't mean its not there. Besides a hot bi chick in a lead roll is going to sell tickets and a bad girl twice that. I plane marketing. If you want to say it promotes a bad image well only sheep believe what the media tells them or what people who listen to that garbage think for that matter. Frankly if it bothers you that much vote with your wallet and dont watch Hollywood any more

 

I'm pretty sure mainstream is what they are looking for: they are saying that bisexuals are almost universally portrayed as deviant in the mainstream media, including especially Hollywood.

I'm afraid I think we have to include vampirism as deviance. Anne Rice's vampires are hardly creatures of profound goodness, even when they are very sympathetic. They kill people and drink their blood. Louis dislikes killing people, and sometimes does other things instead, like hunting rats. But other times, he kills people and drinks their blood. That's a little more "bad" rather than just "not mainstream."

Obviously, if you have never met an out bisexual person, and you've never had any reason to do research on the subject, then your opinion of bisexuality is going to be formed by what you encounter by accident in the media and culture. Which is basically, bisexual = oversexed murderer. Definitely oversexed, possibly a murderer. It's not fair to call people "sheep" just because they are influenced by their only exposure to an idea.

Also, propaganda is often very effective, whether you think that makes people "sheep" or not. What people think about queer people has an impact on how they treat us. Improving the way queer people are portrayed in the media therefore would have a direct effect on the quality of our lives.

It would only really be possible to "vote with our wallets" if there were movies with bisexual characters portrayed positively that we could spend our money to go see. They have to exist first. Boycotting is not effective unless it is very widespread and organized. Boycotting all Hollywood movies because we would like to see a few movies with good bisexual characters is obviously not going to accomplish anything. Possibly, it could be effective to boycott movies with negative portrayals, but the boycott would have to be large--a lot of people would have to agree. Probably, more people would have to agree and participate in the boycott than there are in the entire queer community.

Do you respond similarly when racial minorities complain of racist stereotypes being portrayed in film? The thing about minority status is that the majority population is always going to be able to outspend you, and outvote you. There are more of them. If we want to stop seeing negative stereotypes of queer people in films, we have to convince enough of the straight people to actually have an impact. By complaining about it, and explaining the problem, as people have been doing in this thread.

With (pretty much universally female) bisexual characters on TV, things have improved some. But that doesn't mean that there isn't anything to complain about anymore. It just means that the dialog about it is beginning to have an effect.

Which surely means that we should continue talking about the problem, so that more people become more aware of it.

 

Ok frankly I just think its foolish to get upset with a company doing what it needs to do to sell tickets. Really people why does ANYONE have to respect the feelings of people minority or not? Frankly in my not so humble opinion its peoples right to be a total jerk or put whatever they want into their art. Dont like it? Dont pay to see it or put something out there that you want to see. Fund those movies,books,art works that are in line with your views. I dont have to like a person opinion or work to defend their right to make it how they see fit. I mean really there are a lot better ways to promote a positive image for people in the LGBT community then to worry about what Hollywood pumps out for the sheeple.

This isnt a case of dont like it get out of the water Pseudojim its a case of dont give your money to an organization you think is biased against you. Frankly Hollywood just gives the masses what they think will sell and I dont blame them for trying to make money. But if you have a real issue with them stop supporting them. Get others to do the same.

Ianthe I am sorry but I think you take a very simple view on how peoples opinions are formed. I mean really do you think people are so foolish as to not be able to separate the movies from real people? If they cant well they are sheep as I described them. I lack faith in humanity as a whole but still I think that even if you have no exposure to an idea you SHOULD be able to separate Hollywood from how REAL people are. Also to answer the rather loaded question about racial minorities in the same situation YES I would respond the same. Sorry but look at the bad guys in most movies. Rich white guy with minions or Ethnic gangster.....stereotype much? Yet I dont see a whole lot of people crying about it.

 

The point I was trying to make was to another poster that asked if I would respond the same to a racial minority that had the same gripe and my answer was yes. I was saying that there are a TON of negative portrayals of many races,religions, and such and yet its only a few hard core activists that I see crying about it.

What was odd about what I said earlier other then a hasty post before I left for duty forcing me to type out my thoughts in a condensed manner. Yes people are sheep that cant separate the TV from real life, I can agree. However why does it make it Hollywood's issue to put out a positive image so people can all be represented "fairly" whatever that's supposed to mean? Is it big name movie companies fault that no one has written a script that would sell with a good Bi character in it?
What is odd about me saying stop supporting something that puts out messages you cant agree with? Or better yet make something good enough to go mainstream to contradict the garbage that offends you. It should not fall on other people to put out the message you or anyone else wants seen. Its the writers job to create as they see fit not to pander to what people think is PC . If people dont like it dont buy it.
As for the best way to do it you have me on posting here. So kudos there. However there was not a call to stop support of these things. Its more of a cry about how unfair it all is. The fact is the reason there are few good LGBT characters out there is because there are not people writing them into movies good enough to hit the big screen. This isnt Hollywoods fault.

 

Ok Pseudo you make some fair points. For me it comes down to this, if someone made movies good enough with good Bi characters they would be out there. I am not about equality in a business and that's what selling movies is. I am for whatever will sell. A business should not have to give equal treatment at the expense of putting out a sub par product and clearly nothing good enough has come up to give your message the voice you would like. So why harp on Hollywood for not putting something out there? Its the lack of writers doing it not Hollywood's deliberate schem to portray us poorly. So sure dont support the message but dont shoot the messenger. Frankly I would do more to encourage LGBT writers with talent to get thier stuff out there.

 

I frankly think sure why not if you could keep it open with that limited cilentle and the mindset that would come with it. Frankly I dont see how this relates to putting out a good product that isnt PC and one that is sub par but PC. (Which was the point I was shooting at) But I get the idea you present and I say sure why not? Why is it any less messed up to do this then the women's only gyms? I just doubt you would stay open long because people would not support it.