Passions deserves it for its willingness to go there and not be afraid. I think Simone has been portrayed pretty realistically, and I've really dug it. ATWT I don't watch but will probably win next year because it's a much bigger deal than the Simone thing.

:lol:

I just love that backhanded compliment. It's like 'congratulations!' but you suck and don't deserve it. 'Oh, and congratulations!'

I'm not trying to start anything here, I just don't get why EVERY show must have gay people in it; at least, statements like yours suggest this. I mean, it's not an evil thing if only two or three soaps have gay characters. It also isn't a bad thing if only one has such characters. It's like the backlash against "Friends" for almost never featuring black characters. Big deal? Ideally, shows would be representative of everyone, but often times that just isn't possible; to have a black, a white, an Asian a Hispanic, a homosexual, a transsexual...and ultimately, it should be what the writer of a show wants. I disagree with the way gay groups and women's organizations and other causes lobby for writers to change their vision and present certain social issues or dominate shows with gay or lesbian characters. It all goes back to that saying "Let the writers write." That's all I'm saying here.

JSF, a sitcom like Friends is completely different than a daytime soap. The daytime soaps have always represented themselves as taking place in everyday towns in the US. When they were pictured as small towns it was different but now none of the towns are small anymore. They have airports, big corporate businesses, etc. It is not realistic anymore that there are not ethnic characters on the shows or even gay and lesbian characters. I know that all of these are still minorities in this Country but they are far more prevalent than ever. And it is sad that just about all the shows are so white-washed now to have done away with so many ethnic characters. Not only that they have done away with the classes. In every town in America there are all social classes. But not on the soaps. I would love to be able to dress like Bonnie on Days of Our Lives who is supposed to be so poor, and to live her life. She doesn't seem very poor to me - never has from day one when her character was introduced - even before she married into the Hortons and opened Alice's. And every show is just as guilty of that. That is the reason I love that ATWT still has the Snyder farm - at least it is still a small piece of rustic America - even though they have tried to change part of it.

Of course everything else is so unrealistic in the soap world today so why not that. I guess if they can have returns from the dead every year (not just every once in awhile anymore) then why not have whitewashed families with no ethnicities with all straight heterosexual people. Just tell me where in America you can find that city and I want to go see it. LOL

I think part of all of this is maybe why the soaps don't even attempt to do socially relevant stories that much anymore. I mean how in the midst of all this lack of reality can you try to teach America something when everything is just so unrealistic and far fectched.

I can appreciate the argument that soaps should be realistic to real-life constituents, but I don't get where this term "white-wash" comes from. Um, not everyone on the soaps is white. Have any of you even SEEN "Passions?" Check out the Lopez Fitzgeralds, the Russells, and how about Maya? (May she rest in peace). Then Simone and Rae. The Bennetts deal with money troubles; Miguel works at a fishery, for God's sakes, Luis is a poor cop...the classes are well represented on that show. (Although I must say, LOVED the old Lopez Fitzgerald home...now THAT was a poor family's house! And perhaps the best 'poor' set I've seen on soaps!) So, again, "Passions" doesn't need people lobbying for more diversity because it has more than plenty of it!

As for "Days," I disagree, Bonnie Lockhart premiered on the show as fat, with that red, see-thru blouse that showed her black bra underneath and it fit tightly around her to show off her belly rolls of fat. And she was lying, deceitful and PURE WHITE TRASH! Lovable white trash, but it was obvious. Ditto that with Mimi; yeah, she wore lots of makeup and had the earrings and the clothes, but none of those was name brand; it was AAAAAAAALL ghetto. And unlike Belle, Mimi was poor so she didn't know how to put on makeup very well and always went overboard, such that she looked like a whore. That was pretty realistic of a poor girl trying to show off with all the makeup! So that's why I always appreciated the Lockharts. They've always been true to their characters, inside and out. As for now, Bon-Bon isn't poor anymore. How can she be? She has Alice's, which can easily afford to host Lonestar and other great county names from time to time, AND she must have some money from her Horton divorce, right? If anything, I think they're wrongly making her seem 'poor' again when she SHOULDN'T be. I strongly hope that "Days" rethinks their decision to make Bons poor again. Because there's no way she could be. Stop with the scams, you already have a profitable restaurant and Horton money. So yes, be white trash, but don't play the 'poor' card, !@#$%^&*]!

So there, my two cents.

JSF, I have just started watching Passions again. And I admit that Passions has more ethnic characters than other shows, but the overall state of soaps is that there are not that many. They are very poorly represented overall.

I won't even begin to comment on many of your comments. All I am going to say is I have been poor and your idea of what poor is has nothing to do with being poor, or being lower class. Just because a person is poor does not mean they can't look okay when they dress and doesn't mean that we don't know how to put on makeup. Just because a person is poor does not render them incapable of doing what others do.

All of what you are talking about is just being "white trash" and that has very little to do with being poor or part of the lower class. Many people that I grew up with and were friends with in the lower class were more refined and dressed and acted better than many others in the upper class that I knew of. The only thing that the upper class could do better was hide theirs a little better because they could afford too.

And no Bonnie and Mimi have never been played realistically even as "white trash" as they should have been. AMC did a better job with white trash with Billy Clyde and Opal Gardner. Bonnie does not equal that at all. The classes were once represented very well on the soaps and even on Days, but every one of them does a very poor job of it now, and yes even Passions.

PASSIONS, the most homophobic soap on the air wins the GLAAD award for "Best Daily Drama?"

Yeah, there is Simone, but we are quick to forget Charlie, which ended up actually being Alistair. How insulting was that?

PASSIONS, the most homophobic soap on the air wins the GLAAD award for "Best Daily Drama?"

- Two lesbians in bed together and kissing

- Foxguel

- constant shirtless sporting events

- Chad's secret lover (just speculation)

Homophobic? I don't think so. LOL

PASSIONS, the most homophobic soap on the air wins the GLAAD award for "Best Daily Drama?"

Yeah, there is Simone, but we are quick to forget Charlie, which ended up actually being Alistair. How insulting was that?

I don't see how Passions is homophobic. I thought that TC's freakout was pretty damn realistic although the angry black man schpeel has got to go. Hell, they even did Eve's reaction well with her supporting Simone but having quiet issues about it. Plus there is the whole implication with Foxguel in the beginning.

I think the pseudo incest was a bit more of an issue considering that Charlie was Alistair, and Al is Beth's daddy.