Changed w/o discussion: Cast Full Of Gay

thedarkestlight (who only has two edits) replaced this image◊ with this one◊, claiming they felt it was inappropriate.

The original image wasn't chosen in an Image Pickin' thread, but the picture they changed it to doesn't illustrate the trope at all. It's just the cast of The L Word, which I wouldn't have known if I hadn't clicked on it.

I'm not sure whether the original picture is actually appropriate or not, but the page definitely needs a better picture than the one it currently has.

edited 26th Mar '17 4:13:16 PM by supergod

I guess a revert is in order, at least?

Change it back, pending other suggestions. At least the original is not JAFAAC like the current.

I've swapped the original pic back in. Should we look for something else or just close this up?

It works, so I don't mind the thread closing up.

I don't see a need to find a different one. The original was fine.

Just thump the overly offended Blue Nose Boldwererizer who changed it in the head and put the first one back.

edited 26th Mar '17 2:42:28 PM by shoboni

If anyone can find a cast line-up (or something like that) where all the couples are together, I think that has potential. I cannot easily find such an image, but I'm gonna keep trying for, like, the next ten minutes ish

Something like these maybe?

• Noahs Arc: [1]◊, [2]
• Queer As Folk: [3]◊, [4]◊

Idunno, I think a parody film thing is less good than shows or films that are slightly more serious...

edited 26th Mar '17 6:01:23 PM by WaterBlap

9.4 is the clearest of those, and not by much.

I agree, it's in the body language. For the sake of more suggestions, see this photo of the cast of Banana, you can clearly see which ones are supposed to be couples and which ones aren't.

I'm fine with keeping the current, though.

edited 26th Mar '17 7:19:13 PM by Synchronicity

It's not clear in any of those images unless you're assuming stereotypes of "feminine/flamboyant man equals gay" and/or "two people touching in a photo must be a couple"

Which carries even WORSE Unfortunate Implications than using a clear parody.

edited 26th Mar '17 7:16:10 PM by shoboni

I don't see that. The context of "This is what our show is," at least for 9.2, does not conform to your "Anybody touching is gay." Straight men wouldn't be conveyed by cuddling or overly affectionate touching.

Images can and sometimes do illustrate affection by certain poses that incorporate touching. It is absurd to say that "Anybody touching is certainly gay (or sexual)," and anyone complaining that that leads to UI is, imo, too prudish to talk about Unfortunate Implications.

10 isn't a bad suggestion either.

edited 26th Mar '17 8:34:01 PM by WaterBlap

I don't find the kind of touching shown in those suggestions to be clear enough to be clearer than the current one.

Seconded.

The one with the black gentlemen is borderline, but it's still reliant on the audience assuming the men are gay by default because they're feminine/flamboyant.

This one of those tropes where the best course of action is something that's INTENTIONALLY parodying the trope to avoid Unfortunate Implications from trying to have a serious example.

edited 26th Mar '17 9:04:20 PM by shoboni

and make good points. The difficulty in finding a better image, the fact that the current is pretty innocuous, and the fact that an intentional parody is still a good example, I'm fine with the current. Just thought I should try to suggest something that didn't so heavily rely on parody, but again, y'all made good points..

Keep current

Don't see a reason to change it. Not sure we'll find a better image anyway.