People here will have to forgive me for not reading in depth to see if this has been covered before. I'm going to take a wild guess that it in fact has. For those who dislike this topic, either because they are homophobic/strongly tied to traditional Judaism or Christianity/think this TV show was too simple to get into sexual orientation/think this topic is idiotic/or some such similiar thought, please feel free to skip this thread. I think this is a valid topic of discussion here (yet again). Well, I haven't done much of it personally.
Honestly this show was not very good. It just isn't interesting. Not in the first 3 seasons anyway. And season 2 is supposed to be the best isn't it. Those YouTube videos are great though, because Lisa Whelchel, Nancy McKeon, and I would say especially Felice Schachter were very good looking, although the latter was seen in very few episodes (although originally she was a star). I believe that's called "eye candy." :crazy:
If this character is supposed to be hetereosexual, well, that is a very sharp dig at Nancy McKeon's acting abilities, because she does not come off like this at all (from what I've seen). Jim Nabors was a more believable heterosexual.:) (Incidentally, Gomer Pyle is about 100 times better a program). I don't think they talked openly about this though, beyond some quick jabs in the season 2 opener (Natalies commenting that she nearly asked Jo out, for instance).
Despite what I wrote earlier, Jo as lesbian makes much more sense. Gays and lesbians were just starting to become visible at this time, and the first episode did get into homosexuality (even though it had a lame PC ending that made the whole episode a waste).
Also, remember that although in real life, many things are coincidences, this is much rarer in fiction. Now, the writers could have given Nancy McKeon nearly any name they wanted Heather, Rachel, Mary, even Nancy (although the last would not be in the best interest of the character's integrity). Why choose a name that sounds (to most Americans anyway) so inherently masculine as Jo, which when not knowing the spelling could be confused with Joseph? I would say the boyfriends were just beards.
Of course anyone is free to disagree with me, but it would be appreciated in advance if nobody criticizes me for bringing up the topic, accusing me of being gay/lesbian, etc. etc. etc.

Hi, Im a Christian. I really dont think Jo was a Lesbian. I dont like stereotypes. Jo is obviously short for "Jo Ann" . There are men who can be very effeminate but aren't gay. Same with girls who are masculine. She may have been bi, but I really think she was a straight girl who was raised in the tough area of the Bronx.

Jo was street wise and rode a motorcycle. But I don't think she was gay.

Jo was street wise and rode a motorcycle. But I don't think she was gay.
I don't either. She rode a motorcycle and was a tomboy, but that doesn't mean she was gay. Jo had that boyfriend Eddie that she loved very much and came close to marrying (before Blair and Mrs. G stopped them). She seemed very maternal to the abandoned baby a former Eastland student left behind. Then, at the end of the show, she married Scott Bryce's character (I don't remember the character's name). I never saw any hints that Jo had a thing for girls - but that's just my take.

People here will have to forgive me for not reading in depth to see if this has been covered before. I'm going to take a wild guess that it in fact has. For those who dislike this topic, either because they are homophobic/strongly tied to traditional Judaism or Christianity/think this TV show was too simple to get into sexual orientation/think this topic is idiotic/or some such similiar thought, please feel free to skip this thread. I think this is a valid topic of discussion here (yet again). Well, I haven't done much of it personally.
Honestly this show was not very good. It just isn't interesting. Not in the first 3 seasons anyway. And season 2 is supposed to be the best isn't it. Those YouTube videos are great though, because Lisa Whelchel, Nancy McKeon, and I would say especially Felice Schachter were very good looking, although the latter was seen in very few episodes (although originally she was a star). I believe that's called "eye candy." :crazy:
If this character is supposed to be hetereosexual, well, that is a very sharp dig at Nancy McKeon's acting abilities, because she does not come off like this at all (from what I've seen). Jim Nabors was a more believable heterosexual.:) (Incidentally, Gomer Pyle is about 100 times better a program). I don't think they talked openly about this though, beyond some quick jabs in the season 2 opener (Natalies commenting that she nearly asked Jo out, for instance).
Despite what I wrote earlier, Jo as lesbian makes much more sense. Gays and lesbians were just starting to become visible at this time, and the first episode did get into homosexuality (even though it had a lame PC ending that made the whole episode a waste).
Also, remember that although in real life, many things are coincidences, this is much rarer in fiction. Now, the writers could have given Nancy McKeon nearly any name they wanted Heather, Rachel, Mary, even Nancy (although the last would not be in the best interest of the character's integrity). Why choose a name that sounds (to most Americans anyway) so inherently masculine as Jo, which when not knowing the spelling could be confused with Joseph? I would say the boyfriends were just beards.
Of course anyone is free to disagree with me, but it would be appreciated in advance if nobody criticizes me for bringing up the topic, accusing me of being gay/lesbian, etc. etc. etc.


I'd say there's almost no one on the planet who is totally feminine or totally masculine. Almost all men possess SOME feminine qualities and all women possess SOME masculine qualities.

Some of Jo's masculine qualities were more external than most; the love of cars, the attitude, the clothes (sometimes). But none of this means she was intended to be gay. I think the character was intentionally written as a "tomboy" (a term that seems to have disappeared from our cultural lexicon) and I've known tons of tomboys who were not gay in any way. I'm guessing you have, too.

I have always wanted ti discuss this. I definitly think Jo was gay/ Yes there are many masculine women out there that are straight. However, Jo just acted gay. I mean even her excitment about going out with boys was not believable to me. But again, there are many very masculine straight women out there. And another thing we have to consider is that Jo was arround guys A LOT in her childhood, as well as other masculine women. My point is that maybe the way she acted was because of the way she grew up. Is she gay? I don't know, but it sure as hell seemed like it to me!

I have always wanted ti discuss this. I definitly think Jo was gay/ Yes there are many masculine women out there that are straight. However, Jo just acted gay. I mean even her excitment about going out with boys was not believable to me. But again, there are many very masculine straight women out there. And another thing we have to consider is that Jo was arround guys A LOT in her childhood, as well as other masculine women. My point is that maybe the way she acted was because of the way she grew up. Is she gay? I don't know, but it sure as hell seemed like it to me!

But...does this mean you think the writers MEANT for the character to be gay or that somehow Nancy McKeon PLAYED her as gay? Honestly, I can't see either of those happening. There is no way the writers of a family friendly relatively conservatively themed sitcom in the 70s and 80s would have purposely made a major character gay without explicitly stating that they were, as with Jodie Dallas from Soap. And the fact that she had boyfriends and no girlfriends really seals it for me. If they'd have wanted her to be gay, they wouldn't have soft pedaled it.

And McKeon can't have purposely played her as gay against the wishes of the writers, that would be career suicide.

But...does this mean you think the writers MEANT for the character to be gay or that somehow Nancy McKeon PLAYED her as gay? Honestly, I can't see either of those happening. There is no way the writers of a family friendly relatively conservatively themed sitcom in the 70s and 80s would have purposely made a major character gay without explicitly stating that they were, as with Jodie Dallas from Soap. And the fact that she had boyfriends and no girlfriends really seals it for me. If they'd have wanted her to be gay, they wouldn't have soft pedaled it.

And McKeon can't have purposely played her as gay against the wishes of the writers, that would be career suicide.
Exactly. The way they were always cranking out very special episodes - there's no way they would've soft-pedaled it.

Besides, I think they wanted Jo to be the complete antithesis of Blair. Blair was the debutante princess and Jo was the tomboy from the Bronx. I think they always really played up the differences (by dressing Blair way up and dressing Jo way down) to increase the conflict. And it worked.

No I don't think Nancy just played her character in a homosexual way, I don't think it was intended. I also don't think the writters meant for her to be gay and kept it a secret. I think maybe it's just one of those mysteries a lot of shows have.

My take on Jo was that she was a tough straight gal - tough cause she came from a rough neighborhood.

I've seen plenty of woman who had a tough quality but were totally straight. And gay men who are extremely masculine and lesbians who were ultra-feminine. You really can't peg sexual orientation onto specific mannerisms - because there will be times you are totally wrong.

i think that the original poster is just projecting their own feelings onto the Jo character (and implying that Nancy McKeon herself is gay); Jo was a tomboy, I knew many girls about that age during that time period that were similarly-acting tomboys that weren't gay and eventually grew out of the tomboy phase, although the Jo character's toughness was exaggerated on the show.

the fact that that the original poster basically comes here to take shots at the show, insults the actors and the fans of the show, then accuses anyone that disagrees with them of being homophobic or religious nutjobs, then invites them to "skip this thread" rather than try to disagree with them speaks volumes about the strength of their argument.

i think that the original poster is just projecting their own feelings onto the Jo character (and implying that Nancy McKeon herself is gay); Jo was a tomboy, I knew many girls about that age during that time period that were similarly-acting tomboys that weren't gay and eventually grew out of the tomboy phase, although the Jo character's toughness was exaggerated on the show.

the fact that that the original poster basically comes here to take shots at the show, insults the actors and the fans of the show, then accuses anyone that disagrees with them of being homophobic or religious nutjobs, then invites them to "skip this thread" rather than try to disagree with them speaks volumes about the strength of their argument.


I think the thread starter was just voicing an opinion that some people who watched the show had; I don't think they thought Nancy was gay, it's just that there was something there that some viewers saw.

I have always wanted ti discuss this. I definitly think Jo was gay/ Yes there are many masculine women out there that are straight. However, Jo just acted gay. I mean even her excitment about going out with boys was not believable to me. But again, there are many very masculine straight women out there. And another thing we have to consider is that Jo was arround guys A LOT in her childhood, as well as other masculine women. My point is that maybe the way she acted was because of the way she grew up. Is she gay? I don't know, but it sure as hell seemed like it to me!

I disagree. I just think the agenda of the gay community is to take any character on TV that doesn't quite fit to identify with. Which, while thats not a bad thing, its not fair to point to a tv show or character and claim it as "gay". Heterosexual people dont go around doing this, why should it even be an issue? To me , Jo does act quite butch at times, but shes a tough girl who is from New York. New Yorkers are known for their lack of manners and being that way.

i think that the original poster is just projecting their own feelings onto the Jo character (and implying that Nancy McKeon herself is gay); Jo was a tomboy, I knew many girls about that age during that time period that were similarly-acting tomboys that weren't gay and eventually grew out of the tomboy phase, although the Jo character's toughness was exaggerated on the show.

the fact that that the original poster basically comes here to take shots at the show, insults the actors and the fans of the show, then accuses anyone that disagrees with them of being homophobic or religious nutjobs, then invites them to "skip this thread" rather than try to disagree with them speaks volumes about the strength of their argument.

You make some valid points. However you will have to forgive me I am a jump the shark fan for nearly a decade. It's amazing how much people know about programs they supposed hate LOL.:crazy: But I don't care it's still a good read.
- I do not insult people for having different tastes in TV shows than I do.
- I do not think Nancy McKeon is a lesbian
- Lisa Whelchel, Nancy McKeon and especially Felice Schacter are very good looking (I probably wrote that already:wave: )
-the other actresses are much less so
-This was a children's show. This (like most sitcoms) probably wasn't meant to be taken at much more than face value (although it doesn't stop many of us from doing it anyway, now does it?)
- It has since occured to me that there is not all that much that is particular homosexual about Jo, it's just that many on YouTube are good at synching up videos with homoerotic music, which has nothing to do with a show, and making it look like the show was a lot "gayer" than it really was. Jo had boyfriends, no girlfriends. She was a fictional character; we saw nothing lesbian so she could not be.
-although this show was mediocre I find myself watching anyway. Go figure.Great theme song in any case. :wave:

I believe Jo wasn't gay. I mean come on just because Jo wasn't really girly and acted tough doesn't mean she is gay. She had boyfriends such as Eddie and she married Rick. Jo reminds me allot of myself and I am not gay I am happily married to a guy. I have a girlfriend who is tough and loves to ride motorcycles and is not girly at all and she isn't gay either. I mean this is like people thinking Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street were gay and that's not how the writers wrote those characters to be they were just two roommates that slept in the same room but had separate beds. I think if the writers wanted Jo to be gay they would have made her act gay and probably had something go on between her and Blair. To be honest I am glad they didn't make Jo's character gay I like Jo the way she is but I wish she would of married Eddie instead of Rick, Eddie is way hotter in my opinion.

Although we all know Jo's character was straight, I believe that had the writers wanted they could have easily made Jo's character gay (or at least bi-curious). It would have made for a much interesting episode then the duds they were cranking out by the final seasons. (In today's episode, Natalie gets a paper cut. How will the girl handle this drastic change!? Next week, the girls lose the TV remote!)

Meade:You've managed to offend of gays and New Yorkers. Good job.

Depends on how they would have handled it. It would have had to have been in the Langley years, possibly even after Beverly Ann came, and they would have had to make sure every episode wasn't about it, but still not shove Jo into the background. There's no way it works any earlier, if only because Jo was too young to be having sex with anybody, male or female. Speaking as someone who wrote a Jo/Blair story on another board, it's a tempting prospect, but Lisa would never have allowed it due to her own personal beliefs, so it would have most likely been "girlfriend of the week", which would have been awkward at best. Most likely, you'd have had a few subtle references and that's all, even if they had confrmed that Jo was in fact gay. To put it bluntly, by the time they could have pulled it off reasonably, it would have been too much trouble for everyone involved. Nancy wanted to leave by that point, and the show was just barely hanging in there in the hopes of either spinning off one of the characters on her own (Blair) or somehow hoping that Andy and Pippa could take the lead, which never happened. As interesting as it might have been, it was probably best that they never tried it.

I'm gay and I never got the impression that the character of Jo was gay at all.

And those Youtube videos with Blair and Jo insinuating there was something else going on with their chemistry? Hilarious...and just some people having fun, folks.

Besides, as the show went on, Jo was seen wearing skirts and dresses a bit more often, and was wearing her hair loose (and very moussed! :lol:) as opposed to the ponytail all the time. Was she still driving a motorcycle at the end of the show? I haven't seen much of the last seasons.

She was straight. That's all there is to it.

Despite Jo's having boyfriends, and no matter how (unfortunately) femmed-up she became in the later shows, there were still many moments where she seemed very much attracted to Blair. The more involved 'hint-hint' Jo/Blair storylines and interactions were in the earlier seasons, though, with episodes like 'Magnificent Obsession'. While Nat, Tootie and Mrs. G. were understandably disgusted by Chad and worried about Blair, with Jo there was more - she looked like she wanted to kill him! She seems downright possessive of Blair and jealous of Chad's effect on her... And don't forget that snuggly scene on the couch, in the hideous neon blanket, when Jo and Blair are musing over the latter's obsession...

Blair: "But if I'm not perfect - and that's a big 'IF' - it certainly wasn't his place to say so!"
Jo: "Right! It's my place."

...Then they both giggle knowingly and fall asleep (Hello-o-o-o!). Also, watch Jo's eyes near the end of the episode when Chad called: Despondent, when Blair said she wanted to go with him... Then happy and hopeful when she said that she didn't... Hurt, when Blair suddenly insisted on taking the phone... Tearful, as Blair pondered the phone in her hand... And when Blair finally raised it up to her ear and paused like she was going to speak, Jo cringed as if she'd been slapped in the face.

I suspect that at least Linda Marsh & Margie Peters wanted Jo to be a lesbian character - perhaps sensing that she'd be an excellent and sorely-needed role model for gay youth in the '80s. Sadly, it would indeed have been considered too huge of a risk in those days.

On a side note - and I'll probably get hated on for this, but whatever :rolleyes: ...Remember back when Ricky Martin hit the scene, how many gaydar alarms he set off? The more rabid female fans always insisted he was straight, but I was among the many other folks who could tell that he wasn't. Well, I get the same gaydar "ding" with Nancy, ever since I first saw her when I was a kid. I know that she has a husband and children and no doubt loves them dearly, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that somewhere, tucked away inside, have been different desires. Maybe TFOL's writers sensed this, too, and let it peek through in Jo's touchingly deep devotion to Blair. Unfortunately, many things can stop a person from actively pursuing what they want: fear, insecurity, peer-pressure, parental influence, religion, religion, religion (-oops, I stuttered)... Just saying, you never know; think Meredith Baxter. ;)

Cheers.

I think y'all are trying to look to much into this. Jo was a tomboy pure and simple who had a great friendship with Blair. It's called having a best friend and looking out for them.

D

I guess what some of us are trying to do is look beyond what we saw on the screen. Everyone already knows that Jo wasn't portrayed as gay; that's not the question. The question is: were her tomboy tendencies flagrant enough that she could have been believably portrayed that way in a time and place that would have allowed it? Some say they were, some say they weren't, and some, like me, say that even if they were, it was better for the show's health that the writers didn't go there. But the fact that Jo married Rick and dated boys throughout the series isn't really relevant to this question; NBC would have forced that however the producers might have intended to portray Jo, because American television wasn't ready for out lesbians in the early eighties in any case. This isn't a question of what we actually saw, rather, it's a question of what we might (some say should) have seen in a more forgiving place and time in television.

I think y'all are trying to look to much into this. Jo was a tomboy pure and simple who had a great friendship with Blair. It's called having a best friend and looking out for them.

D
I agree!!! :nod:

Jo and Blair were best friends, of course... But do friends usually share long, silent gazes into each other's eyes (ie. the scene at the end of 'New Nork, New York'), without there being something else between them? I've had very close friends, too, but that's not something I ever found myself doing with them.

It makes sense that straight people (or anyone lacking gaydar) would see a great friendship between Jo and Blair and leave it at that, which is fine. For others, though, who've gone through life on a different, more subtle wavelength, something more was going on - even if it was only ever hinted at in the scripts, without even the actors being made aware of it. For us, TFOL takes on a whole other level of comfort and enjoyment, which is bound to happen when you grow up finding virtually none of your inner-self represented by popular media.

Unfortunately, if anyone attempted to make a Jo/Blair romantic relationship for TV these days, it would probably dissolve into ridiculous smut, considering subtlety is like a dirty word now... And, of course, there could never be another Nancy McKeon and Lisa Whelchel.

I'm gay and I never got the impression that the character of Jo was gay at all.

And those Youtube videos with Blair and Jo insinuating there was something else going on with their chemistry? Hilarious...and just some people having fun, folks.


Not to be overly reundundent, it is probably not very difficult to edit videos, and change music to create scenes that do not accurately represent the show at all. Also, the first one was clever, the others much less so. Although I would say the "Chemicals React" one was very good, most of the rest were pretty crude.

[And don't forget that snuggly scene on the couch, in the hideous neon blanket, when Jo and Blair are musing over the latter's obsession...

Blair: "But if I'm not perfect - and that's a big 'IF' - it certainly wasn't his place to say so!"
Jo: "Right! It's my place."

...Then they both giggle knowingly and fall asleep (Hello-o-o-o!). Also, watch Jo's eyes near the end of the episode when Chad called: Despondent, when Blair said she wanted to go with him... Then happy and hopeful when she said that she didn't... Hurt, when Blair suddenly insisted on taking the phone... Tearful, as Blair pondered the phone in her hand... And when Blair finally raised it up to her ear and paused like she was going to speak, Jo cringed as if she'd been slapped in the face.


I recently saw this episod in context (not a YouTube edit job) and sure seemed pretty homoerotic to me. Jo and Blair were sleeping in the same bed? Wow, how did that get past the censors?:crazy:

I recently saw this episod in context (not a YouTube edit job) and sure seemed pretty homoerotic to me. Jo and Blair were sleeping in the same bed? Wow, how did that get past the censors?:crazy:

'Magnificent Obsession' was definitely one of the most obvious Jo/Blair episodes. I get the feeling TFOL was about to bravely venture into uncharted TV territory - but in the early '80s, it just wasn't meant to be... :censored:

Look anyone can see whatever they want to see in a character but it doesn't make it true. Jo wasn't gay.

Jo was straight. I never thought otherwise.

[ but Lisa would never have allowed it due to her own personal beliefs,

If that's the case, and it were the only reason, they should have fired her as* and replaced her with an actress who would follow the script. As it was that wasn't the only reason. QUOTE]

'Magnificent Obsession' was definitely one of the most obvious Jo/Blair episodes. I get the feeling TFOL was about to bravely venture into uncharted TV territory - but in the early '80s, it just wasn't meant to be... :censored:

If you'll remember, the first episode (not the pilot) was about homosexuality, although I guess NBC didn't allow the word "lesbian" to be used. Obviously the producers wanted to make Cindy a lesbian, but NBC said they couldn't. And as soon as NBC did that, they should have pulled the script. The final product was a bomb. And what of the characters name Jo?

On a side note - and I'll probably get hated on for this, but whatever :rolleyes: ...Remember back when Ricky Martin hit the scene, how many gaydar alarms he set off? The more rabid female fans always insisted he was straight, but I was among the many other folks who could tell that he wasn't. Well, I get the same gaydar "ding" with Nancy, ever since I first saw her when I was a kid. I know that she has a husband and children and no doubt loves them dearly, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that somewhere, tucked away inside, have been different desires. Maybe TFOL's writers sensed this, too, and let it peek through in Jo's touchingly deep devotion to Blair. Unfortunately, many things can stop a person from actively pursuing what they want: fear, insecurity, peer-pressure, parental influence, religion, religion, religion (-oops, I stuttered)... Just saying, you never know; think Meredith Baxter. ;)

Cheers.[/QUOTE]

Snuffy- I know this may be hard for you-but you have to try to keep your sexual fantasies to yourself. Nancy McKeon is not Jo. She was just acting. In addition to being a man's wife, she is a Roman Catholic. You should not be trying to "out" her. It is in very poor taste.

@ PartyOfOne: What I'd tried to express - raised as a Roman Catholic, myself - is that I'm very familiar with how religion in particular can prevent latent homosexual feelings from ever being acted on. Knowing of Nancy's faith and upbringing, my point was that if she did have gay/bi leanings, she would most likely have quashed them rather than expressed them... Therefore, nothing to "out", as you suggest. I'm also happily aware that she loves her husband, as expressed in her recent Biography Channel interview. I just find it amusing how some people insist that everyone who has ever been married with children must be 100% heterosexual, even in thought; that is simply a closed-minded assumption (which is why I'd mentioned Meredith Baxter). Incidentally, gaydar isn't "sexual fantasies" :rolleyes:, it's an intuition, and it doesn't determine whether a person is or ever has been actively gay/bi, in a physical sense.

If you'll remember, the first episode (not the pilot) was about homosexuality, although I guess NBC didn't allow the word "lesbian" to be used. Obviously the producers wanted to make Cindy a lesbian, but NBC said they couldn't. And as soon as NBC did that, they should have pulled the script. The final product was a bomb. And what of the characters name Jo?

By "uncharted TV territory", I meant a lesbian relationship. The first episode was of course significant for its day in that it discussed a girl's potential homosexuality (albeit with a butchered script), but an actual romance between two girls (Jo and Blair) would have been truly groundbreaking.

By "uncharted TV territory", I meant a lesbian relationship. The first episode was of course significant for its day in that it discussed a girl's potential homosexuality (albeit with a butchered script), but an actual romance between two girls (Jo and Blair) would have been truly groundbreaking.
Maybe they'd be able to get away with it today, but no way would they be able to get away with it back in the 1980s.

Maybe they'd be able to get away with it today, but no way would they be able to get away with it back in the 1980s.

Yes, a teen/young-adult lesbian romance could probably be done now, but sadly it could never have the quality and depth that TFOL would have given it, considering how TV has degraded so much in the last 20+ years. Particularly in earlier seasons, the writers/producers of TFOL really cared about their viewers; they strove to have a positive, thought-provoking effect while still being entertaining, and they succeeded. It would take a rare group of people to create an atmosphere like that today. I guess we're just fortunate the show existed at all.

Enough of the bickering! This show was not about lesbian lovers or anything like it. It was about 4 friends who became more than best friends, they became family. Now lets change the subject and get back to talking about what we liked about the show instead of listening to lurkers who try to raise trouble!


D