Not to be overly dismissive, but it's the Boston fucking Herald. Any notion of that publication having tact, class, intelligence, sensitivity, or even good old fashioned common sense in the way in which it frames its reporting went out the window when Murdoch bought the paper (and it was a pretty weak notion even before then).

Why are people so afraid of gays and lesbians? Lots of things are supposedly prohibited by the bible, but they take this one issue and bang on about it to the point of obsession.

It sucks, but I'm not surprised by it at all. The show kind of treated their relationship with kid-gloves too, I thought. There were comments by other contestants every now and then but for the most part they stayed away from the Jen/Zoi relationship.

Hopefully a girl will win tonight's finale, though.

1) Newspapers and news programs which pretend that homosexuality does not exist among normal successful people, or when they to acknowledge it they try to make it "cute", suck.

2) Reality TV shows suck, no matter if it's a bunch of morons fighting over some loser for a wedding ring, or a bunch of people who want to be famous chefs.

What you're observing is an attempt to insert crap in a game-show which has fuckall to do with the game. Turning life into a soap opera only works if the viewer is dumb enough to watch a soap opera. It also creates a belief in exotification and reinforces the "other" concept by overly dramatizing what is just normal life (being gay or being het or whatever) for most folks.

I agree with Matt. The Herald is such a rag that it's not even worth italicizing:)

I didn't know they were a couple, but I read the headline as "gaypals" by accident...

In my defense I was horrified by the term "gaypals."

Of course the relationship isn't valued, it does not involve men. Society regularly downplays the seriousness of lesbian/gay love, consider the fact that gay people have a "lifestyle" and hetero people have relationships.

The article also refers to Zoi as Jen's "lesbian partner", because she couldn't just be her partner. I find all this kind of labeling fascinating, and often frustrating.

the herald is essentially boston's version of the ny post: prone to sensationalism and totally devoid of common sense. god forbid they challenge some readers' assumption that a couple is a man & woman who are dating, instead of just two people who are dating. oh, and how clever of them to use the word "outed" to describe jen's elimination from the show.

Uh, LogrusZed? People aren't "dumb" if they watch soap operas. Or reality TV, for that matter. I'm sure plenty of your most esteemed friends watch at least one out of either genre. I, personally, love So You Think You Can Dance -- and I'm not dumb.

But thanks for judging people based on what they decide to view on their downtime. I assume you don't watch or read any kind of fluff, right?

marileec:

I'm willing to concede that I over-generalized by stating a direct correlation exists between being dumb and watching soap-operas, however I'm unwilling to concede that reality T.V. is anything other than fake melodramatics through editing and off camera prompting which appeal to people's prurient and base drives and antithetical to intellectual development.

Melodrama is not inherently creative and detracts from any merit such programs could potentially offer.

Let me ask you two questions:

1) What is your opinion of people who watch Jerry Springer?

2) What is it about "So You Think You Can Dance?" that compels you to watch it?

Soap Operas at least have the potential to display genuine creativity through acting and scripting. So my statements regarding them may be overly harsh.

And yes I do certainly watch some stupid shows (or at least non-intellectual shows; I think I could argue that Metalocalypse and Battlestar Galactica each have moments which challenge the viewer intellectually and ethically), but I have not watched "reality" T.V. since Pedro died. I'm certainly not establishing some intellectual hierarchy with me at the top, nor am I trying to say that the things I do are all the best things to do.

1) What is your opinion of people who watch Jerry Springer?

They like to watch idiotic tv shows on occasion for mindless entertainment? There is seriously nothing wrong with occasionally enjoying mindless entertainment. I'm sure you have your own "guilty pleasures." I know a lot of amazing, intelligent people who love Judge Judy and other shows like that. Or Cops. All rather mindless and pointless, but who cares? Entertainment doesn't always have to make you think.

I mean, my little sister loves cheesy romances for some God awful reason. I don't take her intelligence into account, even though I find them rather appalling (I'm kind of a literary nerd). It's just what she likes to do when she has some free time.

2) What is it about "So You Think You Can Dance?" that compels you to watch it?

It's a LOT of fun. Some of the dancers are so talented it nearly makes me cry. I like the contest aspect of it as well -- it's exciting to find someone you want to win, and follow them all season. It's an hour or two of somewhat mindless entertainment. My job is sometimes stressful, the news is almost always depressing ... and sometimes I just want to watch something that's entertaining and fun.

And besides, those dancers put a LOT of work into it -- I think it's a lot better than American Idol because it actually takes some SERIOUS dedication (not to say that singing doesn't, but dancing, for one, is very, very physical and it's not something people tend to do if they don't love it).

I got into a season of Survivor once. It was fun, stupid entertainment.

Also, I really enjoy silly pop music.

Entertainment doesn't always have to be "smart."

I too love "So you think you can dance"-- the talent level is just amazing! LogrusZed, what have you got against competitions? Do you never watch a sporting event or contest of any sort, and you think those who do are stupid? The people there don't vote each other off or win by backstabbing and manipulating other contestants, they win by being incredibly talented and dedicated dancers. These people have spent years perfecting an art/sport, and they're entering a competition, which is interesting to watch. What on earth is wrong with that?

Just last night, I showed a friend one of the auditions I had made a point of saving on the DVR, just to show her because it was the coolest thing I'd ever seen, just amazing and unique body movements and style!
(For those who watch: that would be the dude whose class raised money for him to go, had only $10 for the day, danced to Kanye West's "stronger". I'm bummed he couldn't handle the choreography, I would've loved to watch him dance some more).

For the record, I can't watch certain reality shows. They make me CRINGE. And certain shows, like The Hills. But I don't think people are "dumb" just because they watch such shows. There are other ways to decide if someone is worth your friendship/love.

My boyfriend likes stupid kung-foo movies. I don't love him any less because of it!

I'm with marileec.

I personally really like Top Chef. Mostly because I find it creative and there are some very talented chefs on the show.

Cooking is also a hobby of mine and I have been trained through various culinary arts programs. For the record, the show mostly focuses on the actually cooking portion with some drama between contestants.

So no, I do not find it mind-numbing because I do learn things about food. And not all reality programs are based on any sort of skill but Top Chef and the dance shows (don't watch) involve some sort of talent and with people with intelligence may watch because the show reflects a hobby/interest.

Previous commenters are spot-on about how bad the Herald is, but this headline still kills because: It's Boston! We've had same-sex marriage for four years! I think we can wrap our heads around the concept of a lesbian couple!

Everyone has some junk food in their entertainment diet, LogrusZed. As long as someone recognizes it as junk food entertainment, and as long as they don't subsist solely on the stuff, there's no problem. And just because it's junk food doesn't mean its content is not worthy of examination.

I don't know that "partner," unqualified, is a sufficiently descriptive term. It might be, in other contexts, but in the restaurant business one might reasonably expect to find quite a few business partners who were in no way romantically involved. The term becomes ambiguous.

Not sure why anybody would really care what their relationship status is, but apparently people do. And it's certain that no couple in similar circumstance would be described as "hetero partners."

actually my friends have taken to using the term "partner" to describe non-marital relationships both gay and straight. i don't know if it's a new general trend, but i find it interesting--i think after a certain age the terms "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" become kind of silly.

I'm not familiar with this paper, but is it like the NY Post or Daily News where they try to make every headline cute and snappy (and in huge bold lettering) to grab you, even if it's inflammatory or even slightly inaccurate?

Those are both rags unworthy of italicizing, too (as someone else said of the Herald).

libdevil: They would have most likely described a hetero relationship as "couple" -- "'Top Chef" couple will heat up Macy's" would have sufficed. "Galpals" is ... odd, to say the least.

"Galpal" is pretty much an anarchronism to begin with, carrying with it a sexist undertone. (there is, afterall, no corresponding "guypal") So it'd be bad enough if the two actually were "just friends."

I can't understand why they wouldn't outright call them a couple in the headline. To me, it's much more interesting to read about a long time couple competing against each other to achieve their dreams than it would be for "galpals" which is such a luke warm, dismissive term and implies "this woman I met three weeks ago at the mall" instead of "this woman I met three years ago and hasn't left my life since."

speaking of bizarre references to women, does anyone else find it slighly weird this article: [ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/opinion/14blow.html?ref=opinion ] refers to 40+ year old women as 'moms' & therefore frame it as it as a safty of family/children issue vs. one of women's health