Daring or Despicable?

I just completed reading your cover stories on “Queer as Folk” (“No Tea & Sympathy for Them,” by Kristin Hohenadel, and “Americanized Vs. Sanitized,” by Paul Brownfield, Nov. 21). Thanks for the time and effort put into telling the story of this groundbreaking TV show.

The reaction to the depiction of a consensual sexual relationship between a 29-year-old man and a 15-year-old boy was a great example of what Armistead Maupin called “the violent homophobia that rages in this country” and in Hollywood.

I immediately flashed on the scene in “American Beauty” of Kevin Spacey opening his daughter’s best friend’s blouse and beginning foreplay. Where was the “outrage” at an “illegal” sex act being depicted in the movies? The only honest conclusion is to realize how impossible it is for the holders of the double standard to acknowledge their bias and how this bias is once again entrenched in concerns for profit.

DOUG BRAUN-HARVEY

San Diego

*

So Armistead Maupin has not seen the British show “Queer as Folk” but feels strongly that “there are some very solid reasons why this kind of [sexual] honesty” should be displayed, arguing that exposure “to male romantic love” would have enlightened even Matthew Shepard’s murderers about violent homophobia and thus would have spared his life?

Oh come on! It’s not that people hate gays, it’s how some people, gay or straight, choose to publicly express the sexuality that really belongs at home, in private, that offends those of us in the mainstream; sexual conduct is really a private matter. Why else do you think every home has a private area for adults that’s called a “bedroom”?

What’s next for Showtime and HBO to attract pay cable subscribers? A “clever comedy” about fetishes? An “angst-driven drama” or even “a witty but sympathetic sitcom” calling for “tolerance and acceptance” of pederasts?

BILL MOORE

Westlake Village

*

I want to express my shock and disgust at your articles on “Queer as Folk.” You attempt to make the portrayal of homosexual acts seem cool, courageous and daring (and American TV as cowardly for not immediately putting it on the screen over here) when in fact the subject matter in question is immoral and dangerous. Your subject matter is not too “hot”; it is too sinful.

The television and newspaper industries have a responsibility to promote the public good, not seek profits at any cost. You have no fear of God whatsoever. I cannot believe that you did this.

If such a thing happens again I may have to cancel my subscription out of principle, then write a letter to the main editor telling him why.

THE REV. DEAN COONRADT

Oxnard

*

Hohenadel’s piece implies that the American producers have a choice whether to retain the show’s edgy premise of the sexual initiation of a 15-year-old. Not so. The decision was made for them, years ago, when federal law specifically defined such a depiction to be “child pornography.” It doesn’t matter if the sex is only simulated, or if the filming is done in a state where the age of consent is actually 15, or even if an adult body double is used for the simulated sex scenes. The law was intentionally drawn to encompass such cases. Even a computer-generated photorealistic image of a “virtual actor” who doesn’t exist was statutorily prohibited if it “appeared to be” under 18. I’m not making this up.

And don’t bother even raising the issue of artistic merit. The “redeeming social importance” defense that saved over a century’s worth of printed word from the censor’s bonfires was explicitly nullified as applied to images.

It goes against my core political beliefs to say so, but it appears that sometimes a measure of common sense (which the British possess) can protect important freedoms better than a written Constitution (which they don’t).

CHUCK HAMMILL

Los Angeles