Pepper & Spice
Wifey and I watch Neighbours each and every night (we even tape it to watch later if we're not going to be home at 6:30pm). It's our little guilty pleasure. I recognise that this is considered extremely strange behaviour by most of you (but not all), as it's not exactly a show with a high level of respect by most Australians.*
But lately the show has been doing its darnedest to push that "G-rating" barrier to further and futher extremes. One wonders (doesn't one) if they'll cross the line ... if they haven't already.
Allow me to elaborate:
In recent months, the storylines have included Paul Robinson's did-he-or-didn’t-he swearing fiasco, as well as his repeated seductions of various womenfolk in the fictitious Erinsborough. These unhappy lasses have included Rosie (in all but the Biblical sense), Pepper, Lyn, some blonde floozie, the brunette woman he was seen doing business with before he started dating Lyn, and two chicks he basically forced Ned to invite over after they served them "electronic goods" in some unstated furniture store (surprisingly not called Erinsborough Furniture - has anyone else noticed that the characters all use "Erinsborough Mail" addresses for their email accounts?). This wouldn't be too bad, but his treatment of them all leaves a lot to be desired.
Add to that the fact that he has one leg shorter than the other (by a whole calf and foot), and you have to wonder how he keeps pulling so many women. It must be the money, I guess. ARE WOMEN QUITE SO ONE-DIMENSIONAL??!
He continually discards his women after sleeping with them, and never has to encounter an angry, jilted ex. That doesn't seem fair, does it?!
Not to mention the message this is sending young kids watching the 6:30pm timeslot. I'm aware of at least one reader who's felt uncomfortable with her children watching the show during all this carrying on, and we haven't even gotten to the main point of this post yet.
Wow, there it is. Bang. Just like that. A lesbian kiss. One that came out of nowhere, I might add. The blonde (Pepper Steiger) was lamenting her bad luck with men, her job, and so on, when the brunette (Rosie Cammineti) tried to assure her she was an attractive, intelligent woman of substance, blah blah blah. Naturally, because it's the most logical thing to do, Pepper then lent in and kisses Rosie, leaving both of them looking awkward, weird and surprised.
Cut to the credits.
Next episode opens on the same scene, but this time - instead of looking awkward, weird and surprised - Rosie leans back in for more. Just in case anyone wasn't watching the previous episode. Lesbian kisses for everyone!
(As an aside, I admit that I did find it humorous when the two girls later agreed to keep their kissing encounter to themselves and never tell anyone else about it, and then went out to the local bar arm-in-arm for a friendly drink ... only to announce to the other characters who saw them enter - and who now knew about their secret dalliance because one of them spied it happening and told the others about it - that they felt like "coming out tonight".)
I posted the above pic earlier in the year, so I knew it was coming, but to be honest I expected them to flog the pants off the moment. (Um, no pun intended. If that was one. I can't be sure.) If I'm being completely frank about it, I was really waiting for the weekly ads for the show to promise sapphic coupling, the likes of which we had not seen on Ramsay Street since the last time. (Actually, the last time was just a before Christmas, when Pepper’s own mother was spotted kissing her female lover by Janae Hoyland, so this is becoming familiar territory for the show.)
So I was surprised to see the moment arrive with absolutely NO pomp or circumstance to draw in extra viewers. And the following episode wasn’t touted as “the follow-up to the most AMAZING lesbian encounter you’ve EVER SEEN (in a 6:30pm timeslot)” as I thought it’d be. So I must at least credit the applicable Neighbours personnel for not using the moment as a cheap ratings stunt.
But still.
Is it ‘wrong’ for parents to feel concerned for their children when they’re watching a same-sex kiss at such an early hour (and with no warning)? I don’t think it is. I believe it’s fair enough for such content to be on at a later hour and/or with a warning beforehand. Consider the airing times for such shows as Queer As Folk, The L Word, and other such shows. They’re not aimed at children, and for good reason. Parents have the right to shield their children from that kind of awkwardness for a few years at least, don’t they?
I’m not making a political or discriminatory statement, here. This is totally irrespective of my views on “same-sex kisses in society”, et al. I’m just saying that it’s pretty risqué material for a show like Neighbours, and I wonder what their reasoning is for pushing the envelope so much in recent times.
Clearly they have plans for this moment between Rosie and Pepper to evolve into one or both of them questioning their sexuality (my tip is that neither will ‘switch sides’, though), once they’ve had their fun with the amusing misunderstanding their friends all currently have about them (which they’re unaware of at this point). Then there’s the whole “Pepper feels like she’s turning into her lesbian mother” thing, and the “escalating tension between Frazer and Rosie” thing … so I’m sure the writers will get a bit of mileage out of it. But does that make it okay?
And one other thing; that’s three lesbian kisses the show has given us (all since 2004). Are they planning to reciprocate with a man-to-man kiss at some point? Somehow I think they won’t. There are some things even Neighbours wouldn’t do, and – fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your point of view) – that’s one of them.
* Although, within the industry, it still holds a lot of sway.
.
posted by BEVIS @ 8:25 AM
22 comments
22 Comments:
See, I have to disagree here. I liked the fact that they actually did it with absolutely no over-the-top pre-press. It was way less exploitative than, say, the OC lesbian storyline, which they hyped up to such an extreme it was kind of revolting, really.
I don't think you can compare it to Queer as Folk, or The L word. It was a kiss, is all. I don't think there was anything explicitly sexual about it any more than there would be if it was a kiss between Boyd and Janae. Making a big deal of it - because it was same-sex - just enforces the whole idea that same-sex relationships are freakish and abnormal. The more of this stuff we see - not promoted like crazy - the sooner public attitudes might change.
If parents don't want to discuss it with their kids, I actually think that's indicative of an attitude they maybe should have a look at. Kids will be exposed to this stuff in the real world, and they will want to discuss it, and if their parents get uncomfortable, that discomfort will show and influence the attitude their kids develop to same-sex relationships.
Sorry to go on. It's an issue that I feel really strongly about.
And no - it'll be years before they do it with guys. It's sad that that's the case, but it is.
I, too, disagree.
A kiss is a kiss, be it boy/girl, girl/girl, or karl/the sheep he used to have.
It isn't risque. It isn't in the slightest bit 'naughty' for television. It's a kiss.
It's not illegal. Like black slavery, the powers that be have at least relented on this issue (BUT HEAVEN HELP THEM IF THEY WANT TO GET MARRIED).
I agree with Ms. Larue. It's incredibly sad that this is even still an "issue".
I don't see what you're actually disagreeing with. Sounds to me like you're both actually agreeing with me (apart from the point about parents having the right to protect their children from what they feel is inappropriate for them at their age - to which I would categorically say that the parents in question are the only ones who have that right and no one else can force different values upon them, which is still kinda what you're saying, only in reverse).
I can only speak for my kids, and as I only have one (and he's five months old today), it's not really an issue at this point. Perhaps the parent I was referring to might weigh in with their views shortly and clarify their perspective - because it's certainly not my intention to speak on their behalf.
Chesty LaRue, your point about it not being exploitative was what I was getting at when I said I was relieved and surprised that the scene I knew was coming eventually actually arrived without any promotion that it was on the way. So we're also in agreement on that.
Tyson, Karl and Susan still own the sheep. The second one, anyway. Its name is Chop.
Either way, the point remains that the Neighbours crew are pushing the boundaries in relation to their G rating. Whether or not this is a good thing (as far as breaking taboos that need breaking, or offending little people who should or shouldn't be offended) is really by the by. I'm not so much concerned with how they're pushing the envelope; I'm more concerned with the fact that they might get a stern letter from the censorship board. And I'm not sure that's it's overly essential.
Paul treating women like trash? A supposed f-bomb being dropped before dinner? I notice you didn't have an issue with those points. Whether or not a same sex kiss is good or bad for society to see popularised on TV isn't the point I'm trying to make. We're all smart enough to know that there are plenty of people out there who would / do find it 'wrong' in that timeslot, and that's what I'm really discussing here.
But I love that it's opened up a bit of a debate! I always welcome counter arguments! :)
Yes, we aren't entirely on different tracks. Perhaps what I'm arguing is that it *isn't* breaking the G-rating code by popular standards. If it is, it shouldn't be. If they can show a kiss between boy and girl (or furry animal with an ironic name), a kiss between a girl and girl (or boy boy - and I shall offer my resume should anyone at neighbours be reading this) should be no different in terms of what can and can't be seen on television.
Congratulations on the 5-month thing. Can he work the digital recorder yet?
I don't watch Neighbours so I'm not going to enter this debate.
I just stopped by to let you know that you may want to program your VCR to tape a show that will air on Wednesday 14 March at 2pm on Channel Ten.
And you thought I'd been keeping it secret from you...
I disagreed with the paragraph that started 'Is it wrong ...' - other than that, I'm with you :)
'Cept I thought he said frickin.
Neighbours has always pushed it though - remember the brother-sister thing? That was not only pushing the g-rating but just ick.
Tyson, I wish! It'd be a lot easier if he could. He could teach me! :)
Magical_M, WOO-HOO! Thank you! yes, I actually thought we'd missed it by now (you originally said February), but I'll get Wifey to tape it for me. Thanks for the heads-up! I'm far too excited about this, but I'm glad you got a microwave out of it. And an attemped pick-up. Ahem.
Chesty LaRue, Neighbours has actually done the brother-sister storyline TWICE! But in twenty-two years, that's almost understandable and fair enough. As for the "frickin" affair, I originally thought it was a naughty word, but later accepted that it was indeed "frickin". That didn't stop the debate, though! Nor the point that maybe "frickin" was also too dangerous a word to use anyway.
I'm a bit late here but I have to agree that it's your use of the "is it wrong for a parent to be concerned" that concerns me. Yes it is. Just as it's wrong not to be concerned about the way Paul treats women.
In a perfect world parents would tell their children that sometimes people love and want to kiss people of the same sex, and sometimes men with money and power treat people like shit and those people let them get away with it.
I disagree with the mere concept that you're TELLING me what's right and wrong for other people, especially parents of young children. By comparison, at least I was only ASKING the question.
I repeat (for the third time now) that parents have the right to shield their children from anything they so choose. No one else can or should be able to force their views upon another. Even moreso when it's another person's children.
You wouldn't stand for it in politics or religion; so why tell parents they HAVE to accept certain "taboo" (or not) things that their children (of an underdetermined aged, mind you) must witness on TV at such a child-friendly hour?
If the mother in question said that her children were uneasy with the girl-girl kiss they saw on Neighbours last week (which is exactly what she said), then that's all I needed to hear to pose this question in the first place.
It might seem like we're disagreeing on semantics, but it's really quite different.
I'm asking "Is it wrong?" and you're answering that it is. I'm asking if parents have the right to prevent their children seeing something they don't want them to see, and you're saying they don't.
Frankly, I think that's the beginning of the end for parents of small children; not having a say in how they raise their own kids.
Tolerance of gay kisses and breaking the barriers of accepted norms is secondary to the point I'm trying to make. Political correctness goes too far sometimes; we're cutting off our nose to spite our face with these snap decisions to remove the rights of parents and families just so we can push our own agendas of allowing same-sex kisses on afternoon television. We need to stop having such knee-jerk reactions, stand back, and have a look at what we're really saying.
Especially when it comes to children.
Bevis, do you believe parents have the right to know if they're children's teachers are gay?
Do you believe they have the right to be forewarned if there are going to be Muslims on TV, or women working in high powered jobs?
The very fact that you believe they have the right to protect their children from same sex kissing has nothing to do with their rights as parents - it has to do with the fact you believe it's okay to reinforce intolerance sometimes just because it happens to be the particular intolerance of the parent.
This isn't a case of whether or not it's a parent's right to allow their children to date, or play football or swear in the home - it's about fostering ignorance because the parents are somehow not hip to the fat that gay people exist and what they do isn't WRONG, it's normal.
Sure, Anonymous, that's exactly what I believe. Way to be totally illogical about it.
I'm talking about parents' rights to raise their kids how they see fit. If that means introducing them to same-sex kissing and the concept of 'gay' at a later age than the age they're happy for them to be watching TV at 6:30pm, THEN THAT'S THEIR RIGHT.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with YOUR views on when the right time is for someone else to introduce these things to their own children, and no matter how much you or I get indignant about it, it doesn't change the fact that these parents have the right (and responsibility, if it helps you accept the point) to introduce such things to their children when they feel the time is right for their child.
It has nothing to do with intolerance.
It has nothing to do with my own views on the subject, which have never been stated and are not in contention.
Don't mistake my intentional neutrality on the subject for indifference. Or discrimination. Or condemnation. In fact, don't mistake it for anything other than moderator-style neutrality.
wow i just realised all this was here. as the "mother in question" can i just say that:
1. my kids are at the age where kissing between anyone except children and puppies is GROSS, EW, YUCK
2. i tell them if they don't want to watch it, fine, go and do something else. the youngest, a boy, does and takes himself off to his room. he's just not that interested in the show, kissing or no kissing.
3. i don't have a problem with my kids knowing about same-sex love and relationships. i would never censor that from them as it's a part of life, and i'm up front about everything my kids want to discuss with me.
4. i calmly told them that sometimes women like or love other women. they already knew about "man love". one of my best friends is gay and while he doesn't have a partner, early on princess asked about why he didn't have a girlfriend, and also why, when we were talking about him one day, were we saying he "went out with him" (picking up on pronouns)
5. my objection about the neighbours and the g-rating thing is that i feel they are pushing it and it's changing the show. i don't like the sexualisation of pepper, and the way paul treats women, as BEVIS detailed. it's not just the pepper and rosie kiss, it's ALL THE KISSING. i noticed it happening last year; there's been a definite change.
6. as mother to two pre-pubescent, on the cusp daughters, i am wary of material being over-sexualised, and the effect it might have on them. it's that simple. i'll be the same when the 8 year old boy reaches puberty. i'm not saying sex is bad. i'm just saying they aren't ready for it to be in their faces. they're not even teenagers yet, and we should be able to watch a g-rated show without this being a constant issue.
i want to emphasise again, though. it wasn't that it was a lesbian kiss so much. it's all the kissing generally. the kids didn't react any differently to it being girl/girl than for girl/boy characters. same response. EW. GROSS. YUCK.
And when you put it in general terms of mass kissing, it changes the issue completely.
But BEVIS specifically pointed out the same sex kiss as being something that parents should shield their children from. To me, that smacks of advocating we shield children from the reality that gay people exist.
I understand the argument about neighbours generally becoming oversexualised. That's completely different to singling out one form of sexuality as being something that we should be warned about seeing.
Also BEVIS, I don't think the argument was illogical. MelbourneGirl's children are, as she says, pre pubescant and almost 8. This is perhaps a respectable age for kids to be watching TV in the afternoons and early evenings.
However, Neighbours generally isn't a show that will be understood by children under the age of around 11 or 12 - if you want them to watch children's shows, have a blanket ban on all adult television and let them watch The Saddle Club or whatever it is they show these days.
Same sex kissing, however, shown without fanfare, without sleazoid music and without prejudice should be a milestone we celebrate, not question.
You can protest all you like about your own personal views on homosexuality. I don't know what they are specifically - but the fact that you consider it an issue for children to see a same sex kiss (as opposed to kissing in general, a la MG's argument) is indicative of the fact you consider homosexuality something that children should be eased into, because it's 'kind of a bit weird'.
I don't know, it seems to me that the early children are exposed to these images, the more they'll accept them as being normal. CALL ME STRANGE.
Alright then, you're strange.
I just want to iterate that Anon. said everything I was trying to say and more.
If Bevis believes parents have the right to introduce issues such as kissing (en mass), then that is related to the (over?)sexualisation of the show, and it would become the parents' decision to prohibit viewing of the show for their kids.
However, when it comes down to a parent wanting to isolate *gay* kissing, I think that immediately sends a message to the child saying "this is something different, not like normal kissing", and I fear that is powerfully dangerous.
On the other side of the coin, Neighbours has not broken any rules, so it must become the parents' decision to decide whether or not the show is watched by the kids. Neighbours have every right to put in what ever sort of kissing they like, and I do not believe people have the right to complain (and I'm not saying anyone was) because their child was *subjected* to it. It was within 'normal practice', and I think celebrated as such.
Thank you to Bevis for the opportunity and forum to discuss this maturely and seriously.
Hey, 'maturely and seriously' is my very nature.
< insert fart noise here >
to finish my points are:
i agree with tyson and anonymous pretty much here.
i am sorry if bevis misunderstood my earlier comment, that my kids' discomfort was related to it being a girl/girl kiss as opposed to a girl/boy kiss. they don't like watching any of them.
my annoyance was with the general increase of sexualisation of the show - but like someone said, it's my job to monitor what my kids watch. we will turn off if i think it's becoming too inappropriate for their ages. there's a reason why we watch neighbours as a family show, as opposed to the summer bay one, what's it called?
also i'd like to say, while someone mentioned that the neighbours plotlines etc are probably too sophisticated for a child to completely understand, princess is way ahead on all counts and understands all the intricacies and subtleties as much as any adult. but that's just her. most kids it might go over their heads. i remember watching stuff when i was younger, including listening to music lyrics and not understanding. but it didn't damage me, just went over my head. kids kind of attach meaning to some things and not others. i think it's the visual graphic images that affect them more than words, innuendo etc.
"also i'd like to say, while someone mentioned that the neighbours plotlines etc are probably too sophisticated for a child to completely understand, princess is way ahead on all counts and understands all the intricacies and subtleties as much as any adult. but that's just her. most kids it might go over their heads. i remember watching stuff when i was younger, including listening to music lyrics and not understanding. but it didn't damage me, just went over my head. kids kind of attach meaning to some things and not others. i think it's the visual graphic images that affect them more than words, innuendo etc."
Yeah, I was the same and that's fine given that you decide whether or not she watches the show. As we all agree here, the point is really that if sexualisation of the show is anathema to the kids then maybe they shouldn't watch the whole thing - not just the girl on girl kissing scenes.
Which you just perfectly said yourself anyway :)
that's right audrey. and for my last comment on the matter, unless someone starts it up again, i'd like to report back conversation in my car last night. present were me, and 3 kids
me: hey i'd like to ask a question. there's a conversation on the blogs about neighbours and the kissing and stuff. and the kiss between pepper and rosie. did you think that was any grosser than kissing between say...
princess: like a boy and girl?
me: yeah
princess: well it's a little bit more weird, but really... love is love. some people just like girls, or boys. it doesn't really matter.
so, out of the mouths of babes. a lot of adults could do with that sort of understanding, tolerance and acceptance, couldn't they?
Princess has always been wise beyond her years!
(Makes me wonder what kind of dolts those other two kids are, though.)
I'M KIDDING!!
Seriously ... thanks for sharing this insight, MG. And thanks everyone else for such a deliberate and intelligent discussion. It's been very encouraging all round.
princess is mine and mine alone. well, mine and ali's. she has the genes of greatness.
the other two, while certainly are not dolts, are not the precocious little madams that i've raised my girl to be.
i didn't say this, btw. eat this as soon as you've read it.
he.
Sorry, I've already eaten. I really couldn't fit another thing in.
Post a Comment
<< Home