Talk:Sergeant Hathaway

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Television: British

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.

Life Born of Fire

I don't agree with a lot of what is written about Hathaway in this article. The fact is, it is interpretation. Especially (perhaps I mean particularly) what has been written about "Life Born of Fire" regarding Hathaway's sexuality.

One particular sentence: "At the end of that episode Hathaway is seen holding a copy of Loaded and a Yorkie bar, with the tongue in cheek implication that Lewis should not concern himself with his sexuality" is quite troublesome to me. When watching this episode I did not feel that this was the implication of the scene. I read it more as an intimation from Hathaway that he was, in fact, straight. The scene was rather a moment of growth in the relationschip between Lewis and Hathaway rather than Hathway telling Lewis that he 'should not concern himself' with his private life.

Anyway, the point is: Does anyone agree with me that this should be reworded/reworked/removed?! Or does anyone have a source in support of the wording? (or compelling argument for it staying the same?)EttaLove (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely all conjecture.

This page is definitely all conjecture and belongs in a talk or opinion article, not an encyclopedia.

Mind you, it's an interesting discussion, and I suspect the writers are leaving Hathaways' sexuality ambiguous on purpose, because, with this new generation that are Hathaway's age, they are simply less concerned with who is or is not gay, as it's become much more normalized for them as gays and queers have come out. If Hathaway's discomfort around women is due to anything, it's due to the ridiculous Public School System that segregates the sexes and allows them no contact with motos until they are far too old to not be completely inept at talking to each other. It's a miracle the upper classes in England manage to ever have sex, given that they have a long history of sequestering the sexes, and then beating and torturing the ones that are gay.

If you want to talk about "Life Born of Fire", the better question is Good God did they find an old manuscript from 1974 that they dusted off? I like this series but that episode was a severe fail. Gays != Trans, and any idiot alive in this millenium knows that the "I'll cut off my dick/breasts and become a woman/man so me and my gay love and me can marry and live a quiet, normal, HETERO life" is something no gay person anywhere, in the course of human history, has ever considered. Did they couple toss a coin to decide which one of them had to make the chop? I"m just curious what the writers were thinking. Maybe they have heard that most couples are "versatile"?

Yes. My opinions are quite apparent. And entirely based on conjecture and personal experience. This is just talk.

198.214.96.242 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]