Masters of Sex : William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

I don't know if anyone else caught this, but in the scene where Masters changed his mind about firing the new gay receptionist after finding out he was dishonourably discharged from the Military for being gay, he basically said that "homosexuality is not a dysfunction", basically disputing the Army's assessment which resulted in his discharge.

Masters's true stance on homosexuality could not be further from the truth! What angers me the most is that "Masters of Sex" is now making him out to be some sort of progressive "ahead of his time" proponent of gay rights. In actual fact, Masters totally bought into the whole "homosexuality is a mental disorder" ideology. In his defence though, homosexuality was indeed listed in the The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as a psychiatric illness at that time.

Not only did Masters buy into this, but he and Virginia actually conducted homosexual "conversion therapies" well into the 70s. As if that weren't bad enough, there have even been allegations that Masters fudged the data results in order to "prove" that their therapy was actually effective in curing the gay away!

Now I get that those were different times, it was a more conservative era and the gay rights movement hadn't really taken off, but I find that ideology highly hypocritical coming from Masters and Johnson, who didn't seem to be in any way conservative in any other aspect of their heterosexual sex research.

Anyway, I take no issue with artistic licence, and changing facts here and there to make the drama more interestingbut where I draw the line is for the screenwriters to twist facts around so much as to make Masters seem like he was the proto-saviour of homosexuals. I shudder to think of all of the inevitable psychological damage he caused to his gay "conversion" patients!

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

Shouldn't we be glad that they are presenting the more enlightened current thinking?

Can you imaging the outcry if they didn't?

This is an example of political correctness, and revisionist history, being put to good use.


Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

Why would we be glad that a historical drama distorts history. Many people struggled to create our "more enlightened current thinking." This is insulting to them and all gay people since it makes it look like things were easier for gay people in the sixties than it was.

And it is also insulting to people who like truth.

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

I guess you missed the part where it's a fictional drama.

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

I'm sorry, buy I do have to point out the serious flaw in your assertion. Yes I'm all for the representation of more enlightened thinking, but it is in the manner in which you present this that makes all the difference. The writerseven under the guise of a more "PC enlightened thinking", had innumerable ways to convey this thought in the programme. But the way in which (I think) is not appropriate to do so is by distorting the actual historical facts. Yes, this would in the end promote the more positive message of inclusion and anti-discrimination but a what cost? At the cost of transforming an ignorant and hypocritical homophobe into a gay rights advocate?

I hope you can see that this is not only unacceptable, but truly insulting to the real gay rights pioneers in that area. Forgive me for making this extreme analogy but this would be no different than someone making a biopic about Hitler, and showing that he had befriended a random Jewish guy, and gave him a job and told him that there was nothing wrong with being a Jew. Would that sound "okay" to you? There is only one difference between that example, and the one I wrote about: Everyone knows Hitler's sins, and it's a universal given that Hitler was evil. No so with Masters. In fact, for most people watching the show, the only info they get about him is from this programme. Unless you happen to be in the field such as myself or perhaps a psych major out there.. most people would not have known that Masters thought homosexuality was a mental disorder, and employed TORTURE to try to "cure" people from it. I didn't really mention this on my initial comment, but gay conversion therapy isn't just simple "talk therapy", it involved "aversion therapy", including getting shocked, burned, or forced to vomit whenever a gay patient was shown homosexual images (not too dissimilar to the 'Clockwork Orange' therapy scene.

To me, subjecting gays to systemic torture for sake of "curing" homosexuality (which, lest you forget, incorrectly presupposes that homosexuality is an illness to begin with) is made all that more disturbing, considering the fact that Masters intentionally manipulated his data results in order to falsely show that his therapy was effective. This is nothing more than torture. Plain and simple. If that weren't bad enough as it was, Masters had no problem saying that every other heterosexual act that was deemed to be a "fetish or perversion" was perfectly normal.

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!


Yes, this would in the end promote the more positive message of inclusion and anti-discrimination but a what cost?


Zero?


..someone making a biopic about Hitler, and showing that he had befriended a random Jewish guy, and gave him a job and told him that there was nothing wrong with being a Jew. Would that sound "okay" to you?


Not only is it "okay", it was already done.


This is nothing more than torture. Plain and simple.


Still don't understand why you would like to see hate and torture promoted in a fictional TV show.

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

Are you being sarcastic or just stupid?

It's like making a WW2 movie and saying Hitler liked jews. Do you like that kind of revisionist history?



If I don't reply, you're probably on my ignore list for something I forgot already

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

I agree with you. The problem isn't too much artistic license. The problem is that television follows these same predictable patterns all the time to the point of uniformity. To the point that there isn't any real artistic license at all.

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

This is very interesting David and I'm not shocked about the aversion therapy as there were probably numerous people who didn't want to gay and attempted to change this. If he fudged data - that is terrible

You raise a valid point about changing history to this extreme. It is a complete misrepresentation of the actual person and his beliefs. Very disappointing - more so that Masters actually felt that homosexuality was a mental disorder when he was such a sexual pioneer, but also because he was portrayed as supportive on the show.

Aside from that - I absolutely love Guy's character and he is incredibly valuable to that office!




Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

Sorry, but I do not wish to see hate and torture promoted in my fictional TV shows.

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

You can show something on a fictional show without it being your personal preaching.

Like they had the parents who denounced their lesbian daughter. They weren't preaching hate by doing that, they were just showing life like it was back then and still is in some places.

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

Completely agree! We already have more than tolerated aspects of the show that are completely dramatizedit's understandable for shows and movies to alter things. However, when the alterations could not be more in contrast with the facts or the real person, I can't abide by that. At all.

This is the worst example of this show creating absolute fiction. Masters is already shown as flawed. Why not delve into his erroneous beliefs regarding homosexuality? Not to mention him doctoring his own research.

This reminds me of completely white-washing Kinsey's dealings with pedophiles in the film "Kinsey," which wasn't depicted accurate at all. Can't sully the reputations of these sex "pioneers" with the pesky truth! Oh no, no.

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

I can see where you're all coming from, but you act like this popped up out of nowhere. Masters was portrayed as thinking "conversion therapy" was BS since the very beginning of the series, when he learned that Barton was gay.

"Leave me to do my dark bidding on the internet!"

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

I don't think any of us act like it came out of nowhere. It's true that there have been drastic alterations prerty much since the start, but when the show continues it, it's not exactly a stale topic.

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

I've always wondered what happened to that baby boy who was born with a deformed penis, so his father had it cut off. Masters tried to stop him, but he got another doctor to do it. He said he'd rather have a female tomboy than a male sissy. It was heartbreaking. I know it's fiction, butit's not, really. Things similar to that have happened.

"Leave me to do my dark bidding on the internet!"

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

That was life back then. Homosexuality was in the DSM until 1973, and their somewhere in the late 60's early 70's. My Dad worked for a Psychologist in the Public Mental Health department who was in Vietnam and he was discharging soldiers for being gay and he was gay. Talk about denial.

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

Yeah, when that played out in MoS, I couldn't help but think about Brian and David Reimer, the most well-known victims regarding that subject matter. They had the most devastating outcome to an alteady devastating case.

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

I totally agree with you, and believe me, I did make note of it but the reason that I let that slide and didn't bother with creating a post was that at that time, it was a very early side-plotbarely worth mentioning but then the screenwriters got more blatant, and I could tell it was getting worse and then.after tonight's episode (which came obviously after I wrote my original post)you can tell that they took this once-minor subplot waaaaaaaay to far!

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!


We already have more than tolerated aspects of the show that are completely dramatized


100% of the show is fictional.

Only the most basic details, such as the release dates of their books, are "real".

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

Why thank you, Captain Obvious! I made it quite clear that fictionalization is understandable, but some shows and films take too many liberties, as this OP outlined.

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

You're the one who wants a show that is 100% fiction to be historically accurate, Captain Moron!

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

I'm sorry for your inability to read. I imagine it's been a rough road in life. I said it's "understandable" for shows to fictionalize things, and you think I said a show should be "historically accurate." Now that is funny.

What is this "100% fiction" you keep saying? Some of the show is based on fact, so saying "100%" over and over is silly. Those of us who discuss alterations that are in such contradiction with the truth are hardly being unreasonable. We also don't expect all things in a fictional show to be historically accurate, lol. (I put that in bold so hopefully you can finally absorb it.) It's the level of alterations that raise eyebrows, and if someone doesn't care at all about what is altered, cool. However, there is nothing moronic about discussing big changes that weren't necessary and were done with ulterior motives.

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!


We also don't expect all things in a fictional show to be historically accurate, lol.


Okay.

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

You're right! Why even have a message board to discuss such things? Everyone should just "STFU" about everything. After all, it's just fiction!

That has to be the dumbest post I've seen in a long time. It's. A. Discussion. Board: TO DISCUSS. If you are tired of me seeming to repeat myself on this topic, don't repeatedly claim I said something I never said. Oh wait, you finally stopped, but only with the wisdom-packed retort, "STFU."

PROTIP: try to avoid calling people "morons." The irony just smacks you upside the head. Every time.

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

I should not have called you names, and I apologize sincerely for doing so.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

It seems OP jumped the gun. They hinted in the latest episode about Masters not being against therapy conversation



If I don't reply, you're probably on my ignore list for something I forgot already

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

Hilarious how badly the OP jumped the gun with it's hissy fit!

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

Not quite. It will be interesting to see how the next season goes with this subject, but the show is still making Bill mostly buckle at the idea of conversion therapy. He barely wants to support it for that one patient, and it's more nudged by Virginia, who is driven by ambition and keeping their intellectual property away from other scientists trying to take their research and patients.

The topic of conversion has still been totally whitewashed. It reminds me of that particular part in film "Kinsey," I was talking about in this thread last month. However, I am glad to see conversion be featured in a way that more accurately depicts the real Master's opinions. It will be interesting to see where next season goes with it.

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

I don't think Kinsey and Masters saw sexuality the same. Kinsey saw sexuality as fluid, and Masters seems to think it's unchanging. It seems to me that back then people saw life as a war: Quite a few women died in childbirth, suffered complications, and there was still a lot of child mortality. It was imperative that more babies are born and that you married young to raise a family. Life was easier back thenyou could work at a factory or diner and buy a car, a house, and have a lot of nice things.

Being Gay was a betrayalYou were a traitor, unwilling to sacrifice your body and life for the betterment of mankind. A woman's purpose was to have children and raise them to be good citizens. A man's purpose was to earn money to provide his children a good start in life.

Now we literally have too many people on the earth as it is.

If I wrote this 40 years ago I would receive death threats and hate mail.

Re: William Masters: A Gay Advocate? I DON'T THINK SO!!!

Well said. I agree. With times being so different now, I can even understand this show whitewashing the real Master's thoughts on homosexuality. His attitude fit with the times, but it is so inconceivable now, if would be hard to view the character on the show as a respectable scientist if they depicted it more accurately. Even if they are whitewashing the subject matter, at least it is being featured now.

In the film "Kinsey," it shows Kinsey interviewing a pedophile, as Kinsey really did, but Liam Neeson's, "Kinsey" was learning past stories of abuse and was disgusted with them. It implied he couldn't stomach researching sexual predators of children, and the real Kinsey may have felt that, but the truth was Kinsey kept in contact with pedophiles who were continuing to commit henious acts. Kinsey knew he was going to be getting continual reports of ongoing acts of abuse.

The truth is a horrible thing to comprehend, so the movie chose to whitewash that aspect of Kinsey's research. It would have been impossible for most viewers to look at the good of Kinsey's career if the movie showed that side. As a scientist of the time, he believed it was not his place to contact authorities, but it is a notion no one could tolerate in modern times. We're all familiar with dramas based on real people often protecting their image for the purpose of the project by omitting harsh truths, especially when the times were so different than now.
Top