Log in

No account? Create an account
petrini1 [userpic]

Just Sit Right Back and You'll Hear a Tale...

May 16th, 2011 (10:07 am)

I hesitated to post this link because I was afraid of expanding the reach of this ridiculous, homophobic theory. In fact, I was sure at first that it was a joke. Incredibly, it's not. This author truly believes that Gilligan's Island damaged our society by advancing a socialist, homosexual, and anti-Christian agenda, and by encouraging a generation of boys to be gay  -- though it's not clear if they were already becoming gay because of bad mothers or the influence of older schoolmates, or if Gilligan, the Skipper, and the show's "salacious subtext" turned them that way. I don't know if I want to laugh or throw up.
Yes, Gilligan's Island. And you thought it only damaged our society by advancing bad writing, far-fetched situations, and low-brow silliness. 

Think about it: Our seven stranded castaways lived in a community without traditional family units, sharing labor and food (all those coconut-cream pies). So they were socialists. The skipper and his "little buddy" Gilligan shared a hut (the term in the article is "conjugal hut") and Gilligan's hammock was ON TOP of Skipper's. (Wink wink.) So Skipper was the archetypal gay "bear" of a guy, with the youthful Gilligan as his smaller partner. Desirable young women Ginger and Mary Ann never had sex with the men on the island, so they must have been lesbians, clearly communicating the show's anti-heterosexual agenda (and not TV network programming guidelines of the era). Russell Johnson, the actor who played The Professor, even had a son who was an AIDS activist at the time -- a mystifying statement, seeing as how the show went off the air years before AIDS was first identified in the 1980s. Oh, and I almost forgot: Lovey Howell was a stand-in for cross-dressing males, so even the one seemingly heterosexual marriage on the island was a device for promoting homosexuality. Or sodomy, as the author keeps calling it. The term "sweaty violation" is used, as well.

Yes, I'm making fun of this, and I can't help laughing at how ludicrous it all is. At the same time, the ignorant, hateful, inflammatory language that is used throughout this article frightens me. How can people think this way?

My summary has only scratched the surface. If you think you can stomach the details, here is a link to the article: