Chris Colfer | Darren Criss | Glee | Television

BigGayDeal.com

Watch: 'Glee' Ends Concert Tour With Same-Sex Love

Glee_Kiss

The cast of Glee brought the house down in Dublin, where they ended the Glee Concert Tour last night, complete with a surprise kiss between actresses Heather Morris and Naya Rivera.

Sure not to be outdone, actors Darren Criss and Chris Colfer also exchanged some same-sex smooches.

Watch the video, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Why so much intolerance about Chris Colfer's character? There are three gay male characters on Glee, that is to say major characters that are integral to the show and its plot development: Kurt (the Broadway show tunes type), Blaine (not at all the Broadway show tunes type) and Karofsky (closeted football player). That's balance, but what the haters are asking for is censorship of the Kurt Hummel character. Censorship is wrong. If you're in love with censorship so much, move to North Korea.

    Posted by: Phil | Jul 5, 2011 12:24:10 AM


  2. Um, does anyone think that these kisses were spontaneous and unscripted?

    Posted by: EdA | Jul 5, 2011 12:31:14 AM


  3. @EDA. No. But who cares?

    Posted by: Paul R | Jul 5, 2011 2:31:59 AM


  4. that's an open question.....

    they did this skit for at least 43 audiences previously without the Klaine or Brittana kisses.

    My guess is that the kisses were improvs for the last performance.

    Posted by: Bobeau | Jul 5, 2011 8:13:53 AM


  5. There are many good additional thoughts and emendations here to what Mark@ said earlier about gay people having constructed somewhat warped oppositional forms of behavior which would not exist if they - gay people and others - were more easily welcomed into the larger society. As a result my original enthusiasm for Mark's point of view is modified...indeed, there will always be great variations in human behavior which have nothing to do with the oppositions of society. Still, the heartache, anger, and resultant extreme behavior (you name it) which accompany exclusion and rejection will surely lessen both within and without for many of us when we are fully able to take an unopposed "place at the table." That time is evolving and a show like Glee - and so many others - makes at least a fitful contribution to us all.

    Posted by: uffda | Jul 5, 2011 8:18:55 AM


  6. whether you agree with mark or not, he sure prompted a slew of interesting responses.

    didn't watch the clip, but the lesbian kiss is very chaste, non sexual way of kissing. no wrapping arms around each other. isn't the dumb blond character in love with the wheelchair nerd? isn't she more "lebanese" than lesbian? forgive me, i've only seen half a dozen episodes.

    Posted by: kodiak | Jul 5, 2011 8:56:20 AM


  7. Jason, the kiss wasn't pandering to straight males, it was pandering to Brittana fans (the Brittany/Santana coupling). Both actors are very aware of the huge fan base for this couple. Naya Rivera, especially, plays to this base and has completely embraced the fandom. There have been many instances where she's intervened to push the Brittana relationship and also her character's coming out process. That said, the kiss was chaste, because the world still has issues with anything but chaste.

    On a side note, yes, Brittany dated"the wheelchair nerd" Arnie, but after he called her stupid, she dumped his ass.

    Posted by: zz | Jul 5, 2011 9:45:49 AM


  8. My original comment had nothing to do with gender. That many reflexively believe it did is pure fantasy and, most importantly, PROOF of my original point that "Official Gay Identity" is a defensive post-traumatic-stress-disorder.

    Whether acting feminine or masculine, WHETHER REBELLING OR CONFORMING, it's all an ACT - conditioned by the society in control.

    Arguing that gushing, prancing and a love of show tunes is AS natural (i.e. biologically determined) as sexual orientation is dangerously reductive and misses the point entirely.

    while many "Gay" men ACT feminine, many other "Gay" men ACT masculine, each behavior is exactly the same: an insecure, defensive, posturing ACT conditioned by the oppression of a hegemonic culture that rejects all homosexuals.

    MY POINT IS ABOUT CULTURAL IDENTITY...NOT GENDER. How would any Gay man ACT if homosexuality were NOT hated and vilified? Probably somewhere in between the two clownish gender extremes currently embraced.

    Whether we like it or not, hegemony controls the thinking, self-perceptions and behavior of marginalized population­s...BY DESIGN. That is how power works.

    As a consequence, those oppressed groups coagulate. They form identities and communities in opposition to the dominant culture that repudiates them.

    Whether rebelling or conforming­, the cultural identity of all members of a given society (whether they be enfranchis­ed or dis-enfran­chised) is determined by that society's rules, mores and power structure.

    As long as homosexuality is deemed unacceptable, both "Official Gay Culture" and "Official Gay Identity" will be a defensive construction bolstering a fragile, insecure, damaged population.

    Posted by: Mark | Jul 5, 2011 11:05:01 AM


  9. Mark - Your concerns are becoming moot, seeing as how the feather/leather drag extremes which previously dominated media representation of GLBT folk are now rounded out with representation from the entire spectrum. Kids aren't stupid. They know there are lifestyle choices *within* the gay community. I've met kids like Kurt and I'm thrilled they feel comfortable to be themselves. As long as they aren't using the self-descriptor "diva" as license to be bitchy, of course.

    Posted by: Sean Mac | Jul 5, 2011 11:10:36 AM


  10. Consider this:

    Increasing rights for "The Gays" (like marriage in New York) is great news we all welcome.

    It is also the death knell for "Official Gay Culture" and "Official Gay Identity"...as it is currently contructed.

    How oppositional and marginalized can you ACT once you are enfranchised members of society?

    How does one rebel from the inside?

    Posted by: Mark | Jul 5, 2011 11:12:20 AM


  11. Same question put another way:

    Who is Kurt WITHOUT Karofsky?

    Does Kurt's identity have any meaning or relevance without the hate of world on his shoulders?

    While powerful and politically relevant, it's also dangerous to have Gay Characters who's entire identities are nothing but defensive reactions to hate.

    Is the character of Kurt (or Official Gay Identity as currently constructed) even possible without that hate? NO. That is exactly my point about "Official Gay Culture" and "Official Gay Identity".

    Posted by: Mark | Jul 5, 2011 11:23:50 AM


  12. Mark, if you are enfranchised why rebel?

    Posted by: uffda | Jul 5, 2011 12:45:45 PM


  13. @Mark

    You are totally right that what makes Kurt obnoxious is not his homosexuality, but the fact that he is self-absorbed and spoiled. But I think that both his homosexuality and his obnoxiousness make him an interesting and unique character. And regardless of how you feel about the character, you gotta admit Chris Colfer does an excellent job playing it, especially for somebody so young and inexperienced.

    However, I think you're 100% wrong in believing that gay people won't act up or whatever you called it if/when there is equality. Anybody who has ever worked around kids can tell you as little as about 4 or 5 it is pretty obvious which boys will grow up to be linebackers and which will crow up to behave like Kurt, regardless of which gender they grow up to be attracted to. If anything I think equality would have the opposite effect and there will be more flamers out there because more straight guys will feel the freedom to express themselves. I have straight friends who LOVE musical theater and poetry, but they downplay that among their straight friends.

    Posted by: testintgon | Jul 5, 2011 1:02:05 PM


  14. @ Testintgon

    Sure, young people will always act out. I never said "that gay people won't act up...when there is equality." What I said was the reasons will be different.

    Posted by: Mark | Jul 5, 2011 2:55:17 PM


  15. "Mark, if you are enfranchised why rebel?" - UFFDA

    Yes. That is EXACTLY the point.

    It might be fun now but what happens when there is nothing and no one to rebel against? How do The Gays define themselves then?

    Posted by: Mark | Jul 5, 2011 3:06:32 PM


  16. Mark - great fun here.

    There will always be someone and something to rebel against, it's the nature and value of contrast itself. However, gay men and all the rest will find new reasons for rebellion even when being gay isn't one of them. Won't that be nice, whether macho or fem it will take something more to stoke the disapproval of others. The challenges will never be over, the changes and growth unending. That's why the process is the journey.

    Thanks for your many thoughts, clarifications, patience and good humor.

    I would ask, after all this discussion, is there any way in which your first post now seems inadequate or overstated? I am not asserting anything here. This simply interests me because it is rare to find anyone willing to step up to any form of post humility, let alone to the horror of apology. You're fine with me as you are, but...

    Posted by: uffda | Jul 5, 2011 4:49:47 PM


  17. How is an effeminate pre-pubescent child whom would rather play with dolls than cars, conforming to a (supposed) cultural category of sexual orientation?

    It's those whom could NEVER pass as straight who threw open the closet doors to let ALL OF US through.

    Posted by: Justin | Jul 5, 2011 5:26:20 PM


  18. @ UFFDA

    My first post stands on its merits. Of course we'll never get rid of rebellion. However, the reasons for it will change.

    It's my impression that most readers comprehension was "inadequate" and their reactions "overstated". Proof of the very point I was making in the first place: marginalization produces an oppositional culture of insecure, self-conscious people who affect counterfeit poses with defensive bravado.

    Yes, the marginalization is wrong. Yes, it's all beyond The Gays control. No, they're not excused for not realizing this...in 2011.

    I've learned that attempting an intellectual discussion with The Gays about any of this is like trying to reason with a Scientologist. You can't have an objective intellectual discussion with people who are emotional and threatened.

    Posted by: Mark | Jul 5, 2011 6:22:51 PM


  19. Mark..."trying to reason with a Scientoligist". Ouch. I can't say it's not true but you DO need actual, thinking grownups who are gay as friends. T-road doesn't appear to be the best working pool for this. At the same time it must be said that your tone is not inviting, which means less than tactful, therefore insensitive and unpersuasive to people who are "self-conscious...emotional and threatened.". Right. So then your motives can only be to vent (in the hopes, perhaps, that someone will listen). Not the maximum use of argument perhaps, or your skills.

    Sadly, however, it does perfectly match the tone of most
    commentators here - the defensive "Scientolists". Thus you are wedded in perfect, hostile irony to one another. Talk of "oppositional". Another tactic might work better.

    Posted by: uffda | Jul 5, 2011 7:23:02 PM


  20. @ UFFDA

    Correct: my "tone" betrays my frustration. Most Americans would rather watch Dancing with the Stars than have an intelligent discussion about Global Warming or Iraq. Similarly, most American Gays would rather watch America's Next Top Model than have an intelligent discussion about the future of "Gay" Culture, or the nature of "Gay" Identity. As long as The Gays continue to substitute political reality with pop culture escapism, they perpetuate their own indentured status.

    I disagree my tone matches that of Towleroad readers, specifically those responding to my comments. While I approach this discourse with knowledge they, as I've already stated, respond with anger and insecurity. Here's an inconvenient truth: I really haven't stated anything unusual or offensive; I've only stated the obvious.

    Still I am met with the raging, misguided id of so many damaged people. Which only proves my original point: "Official Gay Identity" is POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER from a lifetime of being hated and vilified. Consider:

    1. It's only natural (and obvious) the condition of post-traumatic stress disorder would result from such grotesque, bigoted circumstances.

    2. It's only natural for people living through such thorough and unexamined trauma to be completely unaware of it. BY DESIGN hegemonic oppression renders victims ignorant, preoccupied with the burden of their oppression only.

    3. It's predictable for such people to create what they think is a positive identity in opposition to their oppression. What they fail to realize is the "postive identity" they have worked so hard to create is OPPRESSION DEPENDENT - constructed as a response to their marginalization only. Such and "identity" can never be complete or, therefore, positive.

    4. It's predictable for such people to take offense when presented with the very uncomfortable fact they're damaged, that the Cultural Identity they cling to so desperately is not merely inadequate but invalid.

    5. Gays taking offense at this simple truth is proof of the PTSD and that "Gay" Identity is a sham.

    I feel I must state, AGAIN, the "damage" I speak of IS NOT sexual orientation but a cultural identity the result of bigoted hegemony. The flawed condition in question is NOT homosexuality. Sexual orientation is natural, determined. The damaged state I reject is Gay Identity constructed as necessarily oppression dependent.

    Instead of faulting my comments and motives, why not examine the psychology of The Gays responding to those comments?

    Instead of asking me why my comments are so incendiary, it's actually better to ask why The Gays respond to them with anger. If it's true my tone matches theirs, how is it you and I are able to have a reasonable discussion here? That seems to contradict this idea that everyone here is a raging mess.

    Posted by: Mark | Jul 6, 2011 11:56:11 AM


  21. @ UFFDA

    As an analogy look at American Blacks. Would anyone argue Black men are born "gang banging thugs"? No, of course not. That would be racist. It is clearly understood the persona of "gang banging thug" is an ACQUIRED CULTURAL IDENTITY.

    It is clear everyone easily makes the distinction between race and cultural identity. The former is biologically determined, the latter is culturally constructed and acquired.

    Strangely, that SAME DISTINCTION is lost when we examine sexual orientation and cultural identity. Homosexuals are all magically expected to be "Gay" - born with a love of Lady Gaga, Cher and show tunes. How can anyone argue this and NOT be accused of being reductive and offensive?

    It is grotesque and deeply offensive to me, as a homosexual, that I am told (and expected to believe) that ALL homosexuals are actually born "Gay" - when "Gay" is a cultural identity that is NOT inherent but ACQUIRED.

    It is even more offensive to me that "The Gays" believe this, as it is proof of their own subjugation.

    Posted by: Mark | Jul 6, 2011 12:17:21 PM


  22. Hey just a thought, you would probably get more readers if you interviewed controversial people for your blog.

    Posted by: Oil Painting Reproductions | Dec 28, 2011 10:19:10 PM


  23. « 1 2

Post a comment







Trending


« «New Zealand Church's 'GayDar" Billboard Vandalized« «