Television It's Complicated: Bert and Ernie Are a Gay Couple, Says Former 'Sesame Street' Writer

[SaysWho?]

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/entertainment/entertainment-news/Bert-and-Ernie-Are-a-Gay-Couple-Says-Sesame-Street-Writer-493624851.html

 

Quote

"I remember one time that a column from The San Francisco Chronicle, a preschooler in the city turned to mom and asked 'are Bert & Ernie lovers?' And that, coming from a preschooler was fun. And that got passed around, and everyone had their chuckle and went back to it. And I always felt that without a huge agenda, when I was writing Bert & Ernie, they were," Saltzman shared with Queerty. "I didn't have any other way to contextualize them."

 

Saltzman explained that the duo is a reflection of his own same-sex relationship with film editor Arnold Glassman. He joked that he was Ernie while Arnold was Bert.

 

 

[Brick]

I mean what better show to introduce and teach young children about gay couples, so they can grow up already accepting them? Always seemed like the thing to do with me. 

[RedSoxFan9]

 

[legend]

Doesn't really matter but....

 

 

 

[Jason]

Talk about being desperate for something to be outraged over:

 

 

[Reputator]

8 hours ago, Jason said:

Talk about being desperate for something to be outraged over:

 

 

 

"I don't think it matters that Bert and Ernie are gay, but I'm tired of straight people telling me it doesn't matter."

[sexy_shapiro]

Should we really be teaching kids about butt fucking?

[Bacon]

That's fuckin' gay, dude. 

[number305]

So a bunch of old men arguing over where puppets like to stick their non existent wieners.  

[SaysWho?]

12 minutes ago, number305 said:

So a bunch of old men arguing over where puppets like to stick their non existent wieners.  

 

I don't see much arguing besides one young person quoted above, but I think whether or not they're homosexuals deals more with inclusiveness and less with the sex behind it.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Reputator said:

 

"I don't think it matters that Bert and Ernie are gay, but I'm tired of straight people telling me it doesn't matter."

I think you misunderstand what that tweet meant, because it doesn’t mean this. But I can also understand why it may read this way. 

 

The author of the tweet is saying they don’t care particularly about the debate over whether or not Bert and Ernie are gay though they read them as such, but that they are really tired of straight folks saying the equivalent of “I don’t see color” when it comes to gay identity. It matters in our society whether you are straight or something else, just as it matters in our society whether you are white or something else.

[ort]

So who is the top and who is the bottom?

[sexy_shapiro]

23 minutes ago, ort said:

So who is the top and who is the bottom?

 

Ernie is a power bottom.

[Reputator]

7 hours ago, sblfilms said:

I think you misunderstand what that tweet meant, because it doesn’t mean this. But I can also understand why it may read this way. 

 

The author of the tweet is saying they don’t care particularly about the debate over whether or not Bert and Ernie are gay though they read them as such, but that they are really tired of straight folks saying the equivalent of “I don’t see color” when it comes to gay identity. It matters in our society whether you are straight or something else, just as it matters in our society whether you are white or something else.

 

Then it was him that was misunderstanding Oz.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Reputator said:

 

Then it was him that was misunderstanding Oz.

I don’t think he did, actually. What did you take Oz to mean other than the LGBT equivalent of “I don’t see color”?

[Reputator]

16 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I don’t think he did, actually. What did you take Oz to mean other than the LGBT equivalent of “I don’t see color”?

 

Asking if that question needs to be asked is no where NEAR saying a group's identity is irrelevant. That's quite a dramatic exaggeration.

[legend]

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

I don’t think he did, actually. What did you take Oz to mean other than the LGBT equivalent of “I don’t see color”?

 

Frank left a bunch of replies on twitter which perhaps helps gives some further context to his thoughts. My read of what he's saying isn't the gay equivalent of "I don't see color" it's that society insisting on knowing the sexuality is a perverse tabloid kind of thinking. It's not important to who the characters are and it would be no one's business if they were real people, but society insists on knowing and labeling them all the same. 

 

In something more grounded to real people, it parallels society's in insistence on knowing what the relationship status was between Tessa Thompson and Janelle Monae. Something I only know about because I saw people on twitter obsessed with it, despite the fact that they just wanted to be private and not have to label it themselves.

[darkness35]

To be honest, I'm not sure why they can't be left as platonic friendly guy friends.

 

 

Most guys pre-college were legit straight assholes, especially the self-proclaimed "friends"

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Reputator said:

 

Asking if that question needs to be asked is no where NEAR saying a group's identity is irrelevant. That's quite a dramatic exaggeration.

 

His tweet doesn’t end with asking why the question needs to be asked. If it did, you would have a valid point, but he continues.

 

29 minutes ago, legend said:

 

Frank left a bunch of replies on twitter which perhaps helps gives some further context to his thoughts. My read of what he's saying isn't the gay equivalent of "I don't see color" it's that society insisting on knowing the sexuality is a perverse tabloid kind of thinking. It's not important to who the characters are and it would be no one's business if they were real people, but society insists on knowing and labeling them all the same. 

 

In something more grounded to real people, it parallels society's in insistence on knowing what the relationship status was between Tessa Thompson and Janelle Monae. Something I only know about because I saw people on twitter obsessed with it, despite the fact that they just wanted to be private and not have to label it themselves.

 

He may have had additional thoughts, but these additional thoughts don’t seem to deal with what he said in the quoted tweet. I’ll look later. But the key line in the original tweet is the last one which is exactly the sentiment of the “I don’t see color” folks. The point is that straight people don’t have to be concerned with their identity in the same way white people don’t have to be concerned with their race, so it seems strange to many straight people and white people when marginalized people do.

[legend]

8 hours ago, sblfilms said:

He may have had additional thoughts, but these additional thoughts don’t seem to deal with what he said in the quoted tweet. I’ll look later. But the key line in the original tweet is the last one which is exactly the sentiment of the “I don’t see color” folks. The point is that straight people don’t have to be concerned with their identity in the same way white people don’t have to be concerned with their race, so it seems strange to many straight people and white people when marginalized people do.

 

I can see how in isolation it can be taken that way, but I also don't think it has to read that way either. Twitter is kind of awful in how its forced brevity can easily lead to multiple interpretations. It's easy to project a lot more onto what is said based on  expectations, often the worst expectations. On multiple occasions on twitter I've sat there and tried to find the best way to phrase something within the limit that would avoid bad interpretations; still have people leap to the misinterpretation I was striving to avoid; and then after they talk with me a bit more realize that's not what I was saying. 

 

I think in general when we look at a tweet we need to be a little more circumspect before we morally chastise some for that reason. (I'm also guilty of not being perfect about this)

 

Unless you're Donald Trump who (1) ought to have professionals supervising his tweets to make sure they come out well; and (2) for whom there never is anything deeper going on in his head.  

 

 

Also, I realize you already said you'd take a look at the other stuff, but I kind of felt like ranting about this for independent reasons  

[sexy_shapiro]

Frank Oz says that it doesn’t matter what sexuality they are but he obviously thinks it matters if he’s going out of his way to clarify that they aren’t gay.

[ort]

My wife and I had a long nuanced talk about this last night, and we both came to the conclusion that Bert has to be the bottom.

[legend]

55 minutes ago, sexy_shapiro said:

Frank Oz says that it doesn’t matter what sexuality they are but he obviously thinks it matters if he’s going out of his way to clarify that they aren’t gay.

 

He never thought it important to convey to people their sexuality and he's questioning peoples need to label it anyway. But if people insist on knowing, he designed the characters to be best friends and that's it; they were not designed to be lovers.

 

Speculating on my part: he might also be a little annoyed that people insist that their relationship can't be one of just friendship: the original motivation; that it has to have a sexual component too.

[SaysWho?]

Thread title changed accordingly

[Mercury33]

1 hour ago, sexy_shapiro said:

Frank Oz says that it doesn’t matter what sexuality they are but he obviously thinks it matters if he’s going out of his way to clarify that they aren’t gay.

You can think something doesn’t matter while simutaniously, as their creator, stating how you created them. 

 

Also i thought it was pretty well known that Bert and Ernie were meant to reflect Frank and Jim’s friendship. 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

On 9/19/2018 at 7:22 AM, sexy_shapiro said:

Should we really be teaching kids about butt fucking?

If your approach to teaching kids about relationships is "who sticks what, where", then you're a terrible teacher and parent. 

[sexy_shapiro]

4 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

If your approach to teaching kids about relationships is "who sticks what, where", then you're a terrible teacher and parent. 

 

No need to bring my mother into this.

[ort]

I had a woman at my work tell me that one of the main reasons she didn't want gay marriage legalized was because she didn't want to have to explain it to kids.

 

Do you know how easy it is to explain gay people to little kids? You just fucking tell them, and they say okay like it's normal, because to them it is.

 

Here's how our big talk went down when my kids were like 6 and 3...

 

What's that mean? Gay?

 

Well, you know how boys and girls get married or be boyfriend and girlfriend? Most kids we know have parents that are one man and one woman, but some men prefer to get married to other men and some women prefer to get married to other women. It's called being gay. You'll meet lots of gay people in your life. It's not a big deal. Some people are gay and some people aren't. You don't really need to worry about it too much for now.

 

Oh, okay... like how charlie has two moms?

 

Yup.

 

Oh, okay. (goes back to doing whatever)

 

The end.

 

Wow, that was hard. You can almost feel the moral fiber of America unraveling as you speak the words!

[Jason]

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

Thread title changed accordingly

 

Wait what was it before.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, legend said:

 

I can see how in isolation it can be taken that way, but I also don't think it has to read that way either. Twitter is kind of awful in how its forced brevity can easily lead to multiple interpretations. It's easy to project a lot more onto what is said based on  expectations, often the worst expectations. 

 

So I just spent 10 minutes looking through his tweets at some of the responses and I feel some actually solidify the “interpretation” that Oz was giving essentially an “I don’t see color” claim. I think this is particularly clear in an exchange with one gay person where Oz says something to the effect of your sexuality isn’t your only defining characteristic.

 

The error here is that society does largely define individuals in marginalized people groups by those charactertistics! This is why people bang the drum of representation for marginalized communities. Notwithstanding his personal failures, it was a societal good for the Cosby Show to show a Black family in which both spouses were highly educated and financially successful in their fields, a Black husband who loved his wife and was faithful to her, a Black father who raised his children well.

 

I don’t think Oz was wrong, just as the “I don’t see color” people are wrong to feel the way they do, but it is a privilege to not be concerned about your race or sexuality or nation of origin or whatever else about you is an immutable characteristic that the society as a whole places as less than to some degree.

[TwinIon]

I think I would feel differently about this if we were talking about human characters rather than muppets. That Frank Oz didn't really consider the sexuality of muppets doesn't bother me in the least.

[Reputator]

31 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

So I just spent 10 minutes looking through his tweets at some of the responses and I feel some actually solidify the “interpretation” that Oz was giving essentially an “I don’t see color” claim. I think this is particularly clear in an exchange with one gay person where Oz says something to the effect of your sexuality isn’t your only defining characteristic.

 

The error here is that society does largely define individuals in marginalized people groups by those charactertistics! This is why people bang the drum of representation for marginalized communities. Notwithstanding his personal failures, it was a societal good for the Cosby Show to show a Black family in which both spouses were highly educated and financially successful in their fields, a Black husband who loved his wife and was faithful to her, a Black father who raised his children well.

 

I don’t think Oz was wrong, just as the “I don’t see color” people are wrong to feel the way they do, but it is a privilege to not be concerned about your race or sexuality or nation of origin or whatever else about you is an immutable characteristic that the society as a whole places as less than to some degree.

 

If the issue is representation, then Louis should have framed it as such. But society's obsession to ascribe a sexual identity to all living (and non-living) people isn't a strength, or a virtue, and should not be reinforced.

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, Reputator said:

 

If the issue is representation, then Louis should have framed it as such. But society's obsession to ascribe a sexual identity to all living (and non-living) people isn't a strength, or a virtue, and should not be reinforced.

 

The issue of representation flows from the issue of identity in society. Representation matters because identity matters.

[legend]

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

 

So I just spent 10 minutes looking through his tweets at some of the responses and I feel some actually solidify the “interpretation” that Oz was giving essentially an “I don’t see color” claim. I think this is particularly clear in an exchange with one gay person where Oz says something to the effect of your sexuality isn’t your only defining characteristic.

 

The error here is that society does largely define individuals in marginalized people groups by those charactertistics! This is why people bang the drum of representation for marginalized communities. Notwithstanding his personal failures, it was a societal good for the Cosby Show to show a Black family in which both spouses were highly educated and financially successful in their fields, a Black husband who loved his wife and was faithful to her, a Black father who raised his children well.

 

I don’t think Oz was wrong, just as the “I don’t see color” people are wrong to feel the way they do, but it is a privilege to not be concerned about your race or sexuality or nation of origin or whatever else about you is an immutable characteristic that the society as a whole places as less than to some degree.

 

I agree that telling someone they have other characteristics is much more guilty of the "I don't see color" analogy, I must have missed that one. But that doesn't seem to be his primary claim. He seemed receptive to the importance of gay representation, but that it simply isn't the case of B&E and that we shouldn't feel the need to label them or know their sexuality.

 

So maybe he is guilty of it while also pushing a more sensible position simultaneously.

[ALIEN-gunner]

Just like with humans, the sexuallity of a hand puppet is such a small fraction of ones self that it doesn't really tell me much of anything about their identity at all other than what kind of bar they might be hanging out on a Friday night. Gays and straights are a dime a dozen on this planet. Bert and Ernie aren't gay. Neither are R2D2 & C3PO or The Odd Couple. Plutonic friends living together is normal no matter their sexual orientation, even two gay guys living together aren't jumping on each other like animals like immature kids might think. Changing established characters to fit an agenda won't add anything to the "representation social justice cause" it only pisses fans of those characters off even fans who happen to "identify" with what the agenda tries to enforce. You want peoples sexuality to be in movies and TV shows, books and theatre? Too late, they already exist in droves. Identity politics are such bullshit.