Change the Absurd Into the Routine

Good morning everyone,

The “Airplane” films are wacky comedies. The first, “Airplane!”, was released in 1980 and the second, “Airplane II: The Sequel,” was released in 1982. I called them wacky comedies because they consist of illogical and highly improbable scenes parodying current events and popular movies.

For example, scenes in the opening sequence of Airplane II depicted terrorists nonchalantly pulling hostages out of a van in the loading zone in reference to the Iran Hostage Crisis which took place from early November 1979 until late January 1981, an alien trying to “Phone home” like the titular character in 1982’s “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial,” and, pertinent to today’s post, a pair of businessmen kissing in public. (Scandalous ! 😉 )

The two businessmen act like a typical married couple. After smooching, one reminds the other to feed their cats. The joke being that the men are behaving like married heterosexuals, but no one is reacting or publicly acknowledging that they’re actually homosexual. The film’s director and writer Ken Finkleman presumably thought “How absurd would it be if a gay couple was treated as unremarkable as a straight couple?” To put this into narrative context, shortly before they pressed lips an airline employee pretended to shoot a family’s dog! The act of casually murdering a beloved pet and the act of male lovers openly displaying romantic affection were apparently both strange and worthy of a laugh.

Fast forward from 1982 until 2021 and it’s safe to claim that this scene would be perceived differently. Please note that I am definitely not stating that there still aren’t people who react violently at the mere idea of gay people existing. Sadly, hate crimes are still a thing with the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting being just one particularly horrific example from the modern era. To bigots, the idea of other people seeking happiness in a manner that is different than the way they seek happiness is repugnant! Undoubtedly, even in this day and age many would respond with disgust and would loudly proclaim their disapproval of the kissing businessmen. Nonetheless, American society has changed. Same-sex marriage has been legal in the United States since the Supreme Court decided the “Obergefell v. Hodges” civil rights case on June 26th, 2015. Furthermore, a recent poll conducted in May 2021 by Gallup found that 70% of the 1,016 people surveyed supported same-sex marriage. That’s a huge change compared to a 1996 Gallup poll in which only 27% voiced their support. (Source: Record-High 70% in U.S. Support Same-Sex Marriage by Justin McCarthy)

I recently watched Airplane II and came across that brief scene with the gay businessmen. Seeing that got me thinking about how far we have come and have far we still have to go. Why is it only 70% that support same-sex marriage?

One hundred percent approval might be impossible to reach, but how about 95%? Let’s normalize the previously absurd idea that consenting adults should be able to love each other without governmental or societal interference. How about we accept gay marriage as a routine and unremarkable element of modern life? Additionally, we should allow plural marriages. To give just one potential scenario, why should we prevent one woman and two men from forming a marriage? What concerns is it of others if three or more adults voluntarily form a permanent commitment to each other?

I understand that many people have religious or spiritual beliefs that do not accept such practices. However, their views should not affect other people that do not share those beliefs. For instance, if a person does not believe it proper to eat meat on Fridays then no one should force that person to eat meat on Fridays. In the same manner, if a person does not believe in same-sex marriage then no one should force that person to marry someone of the same sex. However, if other people want to eat meat on Friday then they should be permitted to do so. In the same manner, if other people want to partake of gay or plural marriages then that should also be permitted.

Perhaps content producers in the size community could also embrace what used to be concerned absurd. They could draft comics featuring gay giants and lesbian giantesses who not only partake in homosexual intercourse, but also have emotional relationships with their same-sex lovers. That’s not to assert that such depictions are nowhere to be found, but that they are rare and often stigmatized in the community. For instance, male content is flagged with tags such as “Warning Penis” in forums like Giantess City.

I guess the fear is that the mere act of seeing a penis is detrimental. Do such men urinate in the dark for fear that the sight of their own genitalia will taint them forever? Or is it only other men’s dicks that would make them homosexuals? Is their sexual orientation so fragile that the mere image of a penis may cause them to wander?

(SIDE NOTE: Let’s test this theory! Here’s a crude ASCII representation of a penis: 8—–> Straight men please comment below if that altered your previously strictly heterosexual orientation 😉 )

Previous generations survived (somehow) without requiring “Warning Penis” on their adult magazines and videos. I humbly suggest that the current generations could do likewise and skip these unnecessary and degrading warnings.

That’s it for today folks. I hope to put something out on Thursday, but may not have Internet access at our new place for a few days. Regardless, until next time, keep growing everyone!

All Rights Reserved.