The L Word is a television show made by lesbians. (writers producers and actresses) about lesbians. Through this essay I will discuss this show’s representation of lesbians and the lesbian community. Analysing the show through feminism patriarchal and hegemonic outlooks which we as a society are influenced by when considering our preconceptions about the lesbian community as a whole. The media today sees a rise in popularity of what is known as. “Gay TV”. Shows such as Will & Grace. Queer Eye For The Straight Guy and Queer As Folk explore homosexuality in an open forum. However in all of these shows the gay characters are mostly all male. Why are lesbian characters/shows not as popular or numerous? In the history of the media any sign of physical affection between two women especially in America has been met with controversy and usually a fall out. The first on-screen lesbian kiss shown in drama L. A. Law in 1991 resulted in. C. J the character of the bisexual lawyer being written out of the show. The arrival of TLW with its ensemble cast of lesbian characters is groundbreaking television crashing through barriers not yet attempted by television networks. But why up to this point has lesbianism been somewhat of a taboo subject for the media? And is this growing popularity for this TV show and more of its kind a sign of a more open minded and tolerate society? All of these questions and more I will attempt to answer. It is important before I discuss the development production and airing of TLW to discuss past representations of lesbians in the media concentrating mainly on American television (as this show was first aired in America). In many cases in the past and continuing today lesbian characters are first portrayed as straight or at least their sexuality is not unveiled until we are introduced to the character “as a person”. A typical example of this would be that of comedian and sitcom star Ellen Degeneres the star of the sitcom Ellen. For the first several seasons of this sitcom Ellen the character was a heterosexual. Audiences were introduced to this funny intelligent witty character. That was until Ellen the actress came out as a lesbian. Then too the character also “came out”. As in most television shows with a lesbian character she is first “…depicted as likeable attractive good at her job…” and then later as a lesbian. As a result it gives the impression that the character must be accepted before conveying her sexual orientation. Television shows feel the need to produce standard token lesbian characters in conformance to what they believe will not shock or upset their audience. “Television packages oppositional values and repackages them within dominant terms.” These “dominant terms” stem from the ideals of hegemony. Hegemony is a basis on which fundamental aspects of our society are determined by the ruling class of that society. In the case of the Television this ruling class is made up of straight white male network executives who make all decisions concerning televisual content. In my opinion lesbians. (unless portrayed in an affable and therefore unthreatening light) are restricted from our screens due to the patriarchal influences brought about by these executives. “He [man] confirms his image of us [women] - of what we have to be in order to be acceptable by him”. Patriarchy sees gay women as an affront to the very core of its beliefs due not only to the fact that a lesbian is independent but more importantly due to the fact that a lesbian does not need a man at all. Therefore. “to theorize about female-female desire…is precisely to envision the taking apart of this supposedly intractable patriarchal scholarship.” This is also why gay male characters are not seen as big as a threat to patriarchy as lesbians are. However the characters in TLW are most certainly different from these past representations. All characters are conveyed as gay from the start its examination of these women’s sexuality is the main theme of the show which can be seen even in the slogan used to advertise the show. “Same sex. Different city.” Yet again there are still some obvious patriarchal influences. All of the main characters are affluent white attractive females. Especially in the case of Bette a successful art curator who is hard working intelligent and in a happy seven year relationship with her partner. “…female characters for example are constructed as ‘strong women’ with the help of those two televisual signs of feminism. ‘power dressing and assertiveness training.’” The irony is that the media have not started to portray strong female characters on our screens due to a need for society to see such characters or to represent this minority it is like all other businesses mainly to do with profit. Women are the largest consumers of television serials and dramas advertisers know this and target women as a group due to their buying power. “…the collation of feminism with consumerism means the feminist audiences “count” for programmes in a way that few other minority groups do.” Although it is important to note that lesbianism is different from feminism. Lesbianism is a small aspect of feminism which is somewhat sidelined in favour of feminism as a whole. Feminists resent being assumed to be gay and as a result lesbians are often overlooked by the very people one would expect to support them. Radical lesbians believe that lesbianism should be the forefront of feminism as “…lesbianism was an example of feminism in action and preached that the only true feminists were those who renounced relations with the opposite sex entirely.” However this is not the case. Queer theory which came to the forefront in the 1990’s examined premises dealing with homosexuality in both females and males. It acts as a vehicle for the politics of homosociality. But yet again lesbians are again marginalized. “To equate lesbian existence with homosexuality because each is stigmatised is to erase female reality once again.” Lesbianism is therefore independent of both feminism and queer theory. This is obvious to see through the development of the show. The executive producer of the show. Ilene Chaiken approached the television network Showtime to pitch the idea for this show. At first the network resisted. It wasn’t until the very same network aired the American version of British television show Queer As Folk that the concept for TLW was even considered as a possible show. If it wasn’t for the success of the predeccessing show about male homosexuality then it is very possible TLW would not have been made. This represents the hierarchy in queer theory between lesbians and gay males. (Again it is important to note that the success of Queer As Folk was very profitable for the network and airing a “lesbian version” would no doubt attract yet even more attention). However queer theory does outline many of the issues surrounding lesbianism and the quest for equal rights in the eyes of the law public employment etc. The storylines portrayed in TLW act as a vehicle for highlighting gay rights. An example of this would be in the character of Dana. A ‘closeted’ professional tennis player. Dana must hide her sexuality in order to succeed in her career. She is advised not to publicise her sexuality as advertisers will not endorse her and therefore her career will be effectively ended. (It is interesting to note here that after legendary women’s tennis player. Billie Jean King ‘outed’ herself as a lesbian she lost all of her advertising endorsements.) This mirrors real life issues dealing with equality in the workplace for lesbians and gay men. Other storylines deal with such issues as gay couple parenting and gay marriage. In this effect. TLW acts as a positive force in the process of accentuating gay rights and therefore educating the audience as to what the lesbian community have to endure politically. As a result it shapes our assumptions of the lesbian community as a whole. But due to the sexual content of the show the majority of the audience of the show is made up of lesbian women and straight women. Therefore the opinions voiced in the show are not accessible to a wider audience than one would hope. The producers of the show believe there is an “open and receptive dialogue with the straight white male executives” but an important criticism is that of the sexual content of the show. There are numerous scenes in each of the one-hour long episodes of the show. Most viewers admit to watching the show for its sexual content. This contradicts the beliefs of the producers of the show who aimed to create a show depicting the trials and tribulations of their lesbian characters concentrating on relationships life issues and careers of the “dynamic intellectual inspiring group of women.” However by showing innumerable scenes of detailed sexual situations are they not conforming to the pressures of what is expected of a show about attractive lesbians? The answer lies in whether or not the scenes are erotic or pornographic. “The erotic has often been misnamed by men and used against women.” Whereas some straight males will find the scenes to be purely pornographic and view them for their own titillation some lesbian women would disagree and be of the opinion that the erotic scenes are vital in order to fully examine lesbianism. “…we have often turned away from the exploration and consideration of the erotic as a source of power and information confusing it with its opposite the pornographic.” In the past television shows which had gay women characters would not show the physical relationship between two women even though it is a fundamental aspect of a lesbian relationship. Love scenes between two women rarely went past an affectionate hug. Therefore is the depiction of these intimate scenes merely to publicise an important part of lesbian relationships which has long been hidden by the media? There is no doubt that the sex scenes are almost always between two characters who are emotionally involved and since. “…pornography is a direct denial of the power of the erotic for it represents the suppression of true feeling.” it can be said that the scenes in question are an important and fundamental part of the plot of the show. Surprisingly many lesbian viewers of the show believe that it is not diversified enough. Some of the opinion that depicting each of the shows main characters as attractive feminine lesbians is patronising and fails to include other lesbian identities such as the ‘dyke’. A dyke is “Not only a lesbian but also a ‘masculine woman’ the dyke in this definition blurs the borderline between masculinity and femininity.” By not showing this aspect. TLW fails to highlight a very substantial characteristic of the lesbian community. Therefore it cannot be a true representation. The people involved in the making of TLW admit that they “certainly can’t represent all lesbians at every end of the spectrum” but Ilene Chaiken also says that “there are a lot of subcultures within the lesbian community and I think we’ll portray them as they come into our stories.” One should also note that by showing the ‘lipstick lesbian’ as the main character type makes the show more accessible to straight women who will be able to compare themselves to these more familiar characters in every other way except for the characters sexual orientation. As a result this will aid in widening the audience and therefore educating more people about the lesbian community. In my opinion. TLW is a show that is a making a step in the right direction towards highlighting a minority group that is marginalized in numerous ways. It is trying to educate people in the ways of the lesbian community by depicting likeable strong female characters that can act as role models for any women gay or straight. Any information supplied on the gay community that can help obliterate the ignorance that fuels homophobia and therefore help create a more tolerable society can only be described as a good thing. I believe the show does emphasise important issues for gay rights which like any other human rights deserved to be acknowledged and granted to all people despite their sexual orientation. I also am of the opinion that the sexual content is essential in order to fully explore the dynamic of a lesbian relationship as this is where the difference from heterosexuality is based. I do not think that it is a pornographic show in any way. Its representations of lesbians are somewhat lacklustre but I believe in time as the show grows and becomes more popular it will begin to include more diverse lesbian characters which help quash old stereotypes of lesbians and the lesbian community as a whole. As to it’s effect on society it is hard to say if the show is influential enough to cause any worldwide difference towards the attitudes towards gay women. However this is the first show solely about lesbians and their lifestyles. It is a huge success worldwide and therefore more and more shows will continue to be made that will further accentuate the plight of the lesbian community. This will aid in educating more and more people eventually leading to a social change. Through this essay I have set out the difficulties met by the production staff of this show when setting out to create this very important and influential television show but also how they overcame them. I have highlighted how the show conforms to patriarchal and hegemonic views of lesbianism and also how it has tried to convey a true representation of the lesbian community by resisting these same ideologies.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

queer theory bloggers, take a bit of your day to say Hi to Carli Banks. She has a nice new teaser video for you.
~Ray



comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

queer theory visitors may need more sites to be happy.
Here are more adult websites to visit that are free for you...
exclusive video
web cams
strip blog
gay blog
tranny blog
nude pictures
shemale blog

feel free to browse around and maybe you will find something that you like?

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

"Bisexuality and forbid Theory: Intersections. Diversions and Connections"A special double air of The Journal of BisexualityEdited by Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio. PhD. University of Puerto Rico and Jonathan Alexander. PhD. University of California. IrvineThis special manifold air of The Journal of Bisexuality invites scholarly and research-oriented essays that explore potential theoretically or empirically understood connections and intersections between bisexuality andqueer theory. For the full Call for Submissions contact Dr. Jonathan Alexander at and to Dr. Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio at.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

"Bisexuality and Queer Theory: Intersections. Diversions and Connections"A special double air of The Journal of BisexualityEdited by Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio. PhD. University of Puerto Rico and Jonathan Alexander. PhD. University of California. IrvineThis special double issue of The Journal of Bisexuality invites scholarly and research-oriented essays that investigate potential theoretically or empirically understood connections and intersections between bisexuality andqueer theory. For the full label for Submissions contact Dr. Jonathan Alexander at and to Dr. Serena Anderlini-D'Onofrio at.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

I'm deeply indebted to the people who commented on my previous affix and to the other posts and discussions that undergo sprung up in recent days on this subject. I came across the concept of fandom as a queer female lay a while back and open it very intriguing and productive. I wasn't around for the initial formulations of the concept and I haven't followed all of the posts or discussions since then. But I was fascinated by the posts by and a few days approve and ensuing comments. First each seemed to take diametrically opposed positions even at first glance irreconiliable on the meanings and values of describing fandom (or at least slash-centric. LJ-based media fandom) as a queer female space. And I could see the merits and rationales for each position (or rather set of positions since the original posts and ensuing comments each expressed a be of multiple arguments and stances). I didn't feel more drawn to or persuaded by one "side" or the other; I'd basically describe my state as one of equipoise. Which entangle strange in itself -- because I definitely have some long-held and baroquely-elaborated opinions on "queer" in/as politics culture and theory. Moreover. I'm very much interested in these kinds of representations of fandom and fan cultures and a significant be of my LJ participation and social network comes from exactly those kinds of discussions. So my equipoise felt like something requiring explanation. Second this was the first discussion of the fandom-as-QFS concept that I'd seen which didn't read to me as centered around academic queer theory as its origin and compass. This may have been a misreading on my part -- and certainly I saw many people referencing and invoking academic queer theory in those discussions as well as people who described themselves or whom I recognized as "in" academia. But in my reading. I got a strong comprehend that these discussions were dialogues located and grounded in the community. My previous exposure to the QFS concept was primarily through posts by or explicitly oriented towards academic queer theory which took on the role of ur-text: they centered more around how to understand and apply academic queer theory (and which queer theory) though they also posed the question of whether to accept or reject academic queer theory as a useful or accurate or appropriate framework. In contrast while academic queer theory certainly circulated throughout the discussions initiated by kaluprna and mskatej it didn't seem to function.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

I'm deeply indebted to the people who commented on my previous post and to the other posts and discussions that undergo sprung up in recent days on this subject. I came across the concept of fandom as a queer female lay a while approve and open it very intriguing and productive. I wasn't around for the initial formulations of the concept and I haven't followed all of the posts or discussions since then. But I was fascinated by the posts by and a few days back and ensuing comments. First each seemed to take diametrically opposed positions even at first glance irreconiliable on the meanings and values of describing fandom (or at least slash-centric. LJ-based media fandom) as a queer female lay. And I could see the merits and rationales for each position (or rather set of positions since the original posts and ensuing comments each expressed a be of multiple arguments and stances). I didn't feel more drawn to or persuaded by one "side" or the other; I'd basically describe my express as one of equipoise. Which felt strange in itself -- because I definitely have some long-held and baroquely-elaborated opinions on "queer" in/as politics grow and theory. Moreover. I'm very much interested in these kinds of representations of fandom and fan cultures and a significant amount of my LJ participation and social communicate comes from exactly those kinds of discussions. So my equipoise felt like something requiring explanation. Second this was the first discussion of the fandom-as-QFS concept that I'd seen which didn't read to me as centered around academic queer theory as its origin and compass. This may have been a misreading on my part -- and certainly I saw many populate referencing and invoking academic queer theory in those discussions as well as people who described themselves or whom I recognized as "in" academia. But in my reading. I got a strong sense that these discussions were dialogues located and grounded in the community. My previous exposure to the QFS concept was primarily through posts by or explicitly oriented towards academic queer theory which took on the role of ur-text: they centered more around how to interpret and bear on academic queer theory (and which queer theory) though they also posed the question of whether to accept or evaluate academic queer theory as a useful or accurate or appropriate framework. In contrast while academic queer theory certainly circulated throughout the discussions initiated by kaluprna and mskatej it didn't seem to function.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Blogging about an academic symposium - it seems desire an attack on everything I get taught in grad school but I do conclude that the more interesting move of a panel desire this are the interactions and the personal reactions from the audience (believe it [retroactive] liveblogging in an academic setting). Check out part one. When you mouth an communicate with "Let's not fight" you have to query whether that's what Jeff wanted to do once it was his turn to communicate - mainly because you could sense his (albeit playful and always purely academic) irritation at Lee and Joe's project and their conception of the big "QT" - queer theory. After parenthetically praising ("J'adore!") the wikipedia buzzword "disambiguation" Jeff proceeded to disambiguate both 'history' and 'nostalgia' as they were being discussed. If as Jeff would undergo us evaluate there are indeed many histories of forbid Theory he made it very clear it was the one rooted in the late 80s and early 90s with the looming fear of AIDS the solidarity open in ACT UP and seminal academic texts (Gender Trouble. Epistemology of the confine) the one he wished we would embrace. Campy as his tirade against Bersani (who can be "brilliantly nasty"). Lee and those who try and understand and perpetuate a vision of queer theory 'up here' (waving his hands in the air) where issues of (capital earn) Time and (capital letter) History alter him think of Heidegger was. Jeff was nonetheless come up received (at least by the vocal members of the audience) when he tried to think of Queer Theory as a historical and cultural moment in measure even if to do so he had to 'crave the indulgence of quoting himself.'[ed note: what was probably more interesting - for me at least - was not Jeff's speech but the hilarious though arguably subtle and ambiguous reactions from fellow adorn members who will remain unnamed - a demure smile a bemused look a quick write - priceless]What a pleasant surprise Kate Thomas was. From the initial "I took the 'after' as affix - but for me post refers to both postal office and posthumous" I knew it was going to be a good talk (anyone who can say "the promiscuity of the postal bag" in an academic setting is welcome in my books). Though I am a tighten believer that everything sounds sexier in a British evince what I think made Kate's presentation a perfect way to end the panel presentations was the way in which quite seamlessly she had managed to produce a piece that at once spoke about her interests (queer temporality postal) her bring home the bacon and her handle (I'm looking up Michael handle cram as I type) but also framed the conversation in relation to the volume's contributors building up to her inspired image of 'being prone' as one which permeated the collection. Prone as she explained it is to be bent (indeed she had isolated images of people lying down in the volume: sleeping exhausted dead) - "leaning send but looking down." All in all. Kate's communicate worked perfectly as a wrap-up and made for a nice segway into the Q&A session that followed. Q&AAt this inform my note-taking skills floundered and so instead of trying to weave a narrative out of them I'll just discriminate some interesting snippets of the conversation:The first thing to be brought up alter after Kate was done was Lee's suggestion that the framing device of the volume (in particular the choice of putting Sedgwick's essay at the end disregarding the alphabetical request the be of the volume followed) sought to create a narrative drive within the works. Andrew Parker came out and quite politely took a stab at Lee by arguing that the framing of the piece did in no way try and allow Eve's piece but that the main reason for placing her act at the end visually presented the fact that it was the one conjoin that was not move of the call for submissions of the volume something Janet echoed leaving Lee to smile and just say he had just offered "one observation" and that he never expected everyone to accept with his opinion but that one couldn't back up but accept that the placement also suggested an 'ending' - a framed and purposefully placed endpoint to an otherwise arbitrary (alphabetical) ordering. After Lee and Joe left (to catch the train) the conversation veered towards (oddly enough) an attack on the vision of 'Queer Theory' that Jeff Nunokawa had already mulled over both in his act and in his presentation. Aided by supportive comments from the audience this seemed to act on currency among the attendants: forbid Theory as rooted in a particular historical and cultural moment (Jeff had begun his communicate with an acknowledgment of his nostalgia and never did he try and enclose that during the panel). One of the more interesting lines of discussion was actually brought up by the controversy over whether Queer Theory could ever be thought of as divorced from progressive politics to which Janet's anecdotal Law experiences offered a nice counter-argument. Elin Diamond's comments and questions cementing Jeff's currency in the discussion actually offered a nice compromise between this nostalgia of measure long lost and an anxiety in graduate work regarding this past-ness of queer theory: she offered us a way to think about our present situation in lighten of theory (in times of theoretical upheaval that's what populate do - "you have plenty of crises!" she told us why not use those to help you theorise in the same way the ACT UP meetings did for those in the hey-day of forbid Theory?)Also very welcome was this suggestion that one could understand QT as an object-less methodology; a praxis more than an object of study (something that echoed Janet's earlier idea of this volume being quite 'writerly' - it could be indeed style which cut across the essays if one did not want to see a thematic narrative-like connection between them). And there you have - mostly nonsensical ramblings of an audience member at this event. I will not try and talk about the dinner that proceeded the event for the conversations were much too fun and interesting to undergo them be put to public speculation. Maybe blogging about Rutgers English Events ordain become a fasten of A communicate Next Door - now if only that could have an attentive and responsive audience...

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Blogging about an academic symposium - it seems like an contend on everything I get taught in grad school but I do feel that the more interesting move of a adorn desire this is the interactions and the personal reactions from the audience (believe it [retroactive] liveblogging in an academic setting). Kicking off the Rutgers English Sexuality Speakers Series we welcomed to the Rutgers New Brunswick campus a handful of respected scholars working in the handle of 'queer theory,' celebrating the publication of the special issue of SAQ entitled 'After Sex? On Writing since forbid Theory' and despite trying to downplay the event here goes a post dedicated to what I enjoyed about the talk. After a turn of introductions and thanks. Michael Cobb took to podium and kicked off the event: Apologizing for his rather casual presentation last measure he was at Rutgers. Michael came prepared this measure with a talk focusing on privacy and the bring together - a nice affiliate to his piece on 'loneliness' (and 'singlehood') showcased in the volume. Swiftly moving from American Law to Wizard of Oz references (in talking of how "there's no place like home," where both the concept of home and of privacy were contested in a queer context) to an attentive reading of Woolf. Michael kept the conversation lighten enough and change surface garnered some laughter ("and" is a terrible evince sometimes he quipped) in a presentation that while a bit too formal (matching his suit and glasses) still proved to be a good go away. I particularly enjoyed his discussion on 'the 'tyranny of two' (which reminded me of my favourite passage from his essay - his suggestion of appending an S to the LGBTQ.. acronym to rest in for "singles" as yet another sexual minority) and the ways in which 'two' makes the private public - what happens when you're only one? Ending with the epigrammatic "When you're in like with someone else you suffer your privacy" Michael stepped down and opened the floor for Lee to mouth:Unaided by a script or even notes. Lee maintained the attention of the audience with the eloquence and 'airtight' theoretical model of thinking that was later to be criticized by a fellow member of the adorn. Picking up on one of Michael's lines ("They've lost their protection of home") Lee pursued a rather hostile (abrasive?) take on 'queer theory' and the nostalgia of the volume as well as its narratological framing (issues and questions that for anyone familiar with Edelman's bring home the bacon were not surprising). Lee argued for a concept of queer theory that does not be approve on its 'founding texts' and a locatable 'origin' (circa early 1990s) and revels in nostalgia for a time where we didn't just be back in time and think of the time where the Academy was doing something. This nostalgic looking approve this reading queer theory in a narratological sense is unnerving for Edelman mainly because it fosters an optimism and a comprehend of home that he does not endorse - to work in queer theory is to suffer one's sense of domiciliate. The 'Edelmanian lie' (as opposed to the suggested Bersanian line that Halley and Parker suggest in the Introduction) works to disentagle this appraisal of 'goodness' (optimism a vision of hope of a horizon) in queer theory that for Edelman negates the communicate of queer theory itself. Following Lee - being 'after Lee' must be hard. Unless you're Joe Litvak and then with a furnish like 'After the Jew' you know you can command attention back to your work while the audience is still reeling from Lee's electric musings on Queer Theory and in particular his opinions regarding the framing and structure of the volume (but more on that later). "I ordain be incoherent" he began - clearly contrasting his own method of delivery with Lee's suspiciously understated eloquence. After savouring the evince 'resentiment' more times than I could ascertain. Litvack went on to flesh out what was 'queer' about blacklisted Hollywood Jews in 1954. If Lee had suggested we could say Plato and Shakespeare were footnotes to forbid Theory (or was it the other way go? I should undergo taken exceed notes) and could be placed at the 'beginning of forbid Theory as opposed to the forbid triumvirate of Sedgwick. Butler and Warner; Litvak wanted to suggest we could also see the McCarthy era as creating one of the first notions of queerness in the evaluate of the Jew. The salient portion of Litvak's communicate actually came towards the end when he veered away from his own project and suggested that one way we could think about current forbid Theory - as a provocatively autobiographical and writerly methodology: a stylistic marker rather than a theoretical one (which this humble grad student wishes had been fleshed out by other panelists). analyse out

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

The evince queer has traditionally meant "strange" or "unusual," but its use in reference to LGBT (gay lesbian bisexual transgender intersex asexual etc.) communities as well as those perceived to be members of those communities has replaced the traditional definition and application. Its usage is considered controversial and underwent substantial changes over the cover of the 20th century with some LGBT re-claiming the call as a means of self-empowerment. The term is still considered by some to be offensive and derisive and by others as a re-appropriated term used to describe a sexual orientation and/or gender identity or gender expression that does not change to heteronormative society. i was remembering queer nation for some cerebrate the other day i anticipate i was speaking to someone about the word queer i absolutely loved the queer nation manifesto i loved the idea of reclaiming the power of that evince it had been used against me many times when i was very young and it held its mystical krypton-like powers for years beyond that i reveled in being radical about my chosen culture i say chosen because i did choose to act in queer grow voluntarily it's not as if i had a choice really but i knew i couldn't belie to belong anywhere else besides my feeling was that the queers really had some insight with regard to how to live a fantastically bohemian lifestyle that is what held interest for me when i came out actually it comfort does anyway i bequeath marching in a gay experience parade in 1990 chanting we're here we're queer and we're not going shopping all this with the back up of a megaphone that's when the guerrilla queer bar concepts got started too and the kiss ins oh the gay ol' nineties did hold some declare i also open this bind which describes a "queer nation" complain during halloween in the castro i think it describes succinctly the power of this short movement a moving quote is: While we were chanting and singing a very attractive woman. I thought called me by name. I was surprised as I didn't know this person at all. Actually it was a guy I knew from QN in the most amazing draw I'd ever seen. I'd only ever seen bad draw but he was really good at it. It changed my mind about drag alter on the spot. It was an instant consciousness raising. I no longer thought that draw queens were sad and pathetic (which is what many people thing whether they're willing to say it or not.) Here was this beautiful man as a beautiful woman in my state it probably had change surface more of an effect than it would undergo normally. Just as importantly. "queer" became an important concept both socially and intellectually helping to broaden what had been primarily a gay and lesbian social movement into one that was more inclusive of bisexual and transgender populate. Rather than denominate a particular genre of sexual identity. "queer" came to be any number of positions arrayed in opposition to oppressive social and cultural norms and policies related to sexuality and gender. The lived political necessity of understanding the nexus of gender and sexuality in this broadening social movement in turn helped launch the handle of "queer studies" in higher education. Use of the term "queer" was never universally embraced by all segments of the constituencies that the concept of "queerness" could potentially represent; indeed the term often evoked intense hostility. forbid Nation chapters were rife with dissension over issues of race gender and class and they ultimately collapsed under the weight of their own internal contradictions--"queer," after all means "diversity," whereas "nation" implies "sameness." Still in arouse of its shortcomings the alter in perceptions and tactics marked by the emergence of Queer Nation is an important foundation of the current notion of an inclusive gay lesbian bisexual and transgender community. forbid is one of the first examples I experience of of a successful reappropriation and reclaining of a negative term to a positive one by the populate it was used against. But what I sight most fascinating is that in England "fag" still means "cigarette" and "queer" still means "nauseous." You'd evaluate we'd have the same speak by now what with all the cross-fertilization in music and TV www marcolmsted com/blog

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Tonight I went to a screening of the independent film at the. This enter has been causing quite a stir amongst trans people across the country and in the queer blogosphere. The film has actually been banned from a few LGBT(qai...) film festivals for supposedly being anti-trans. I will say that I do not think that this film was anti-trans. I do not think it had anything to do with transgender issues AT ALL. Before I go into an analysis I ordain give you a brief synopsis. A young non-gender normative lesbian woman falls asleep at a party in the 1970s after smoking much marijuana (or what appeared to be marijuana). She wakes up 75 years later to find that the religious right has taken over. A person can only be a man or a woman and MUST fit into rigid gender categories brave-new-world-style. One can have surgery to fit the gender that they like but once they are in their new be they MUST comply with the rigid roles. This young woman is forced by medical professionals to be surgically transformed into a man. This petrifies her because while she likes women she also likes her androgynous body. In something of a cop-out (on the director's part) the sequence ends up being a dream and she wakes up again to find the 'real' world. Fin. Anyway the controversy has arisen because many populate see this film as being transphobic. I do not see that. I think the enter is a dystopian conceive of in which we see what would happen if the religious alter had their way and choice was taken away. This film is very much about force and removal of choice. The surgery in this enter was not a prove of some deeply felt yearning or life desire struggle with one's body image not matching her/his gender identity. This surgery was about a woman being forced to become a man because of her clothing and her sexual desires. That is something very different indeed. After screening the enter there was a panel discussion with the director. Catharine Crouch and five other activists/theorists in the gender queer field. The discussion was fascinating. The amazing was on the panel!! She had the most insightful comments. I desire I could have heard more from her. I have long been a fan of her bring home the bacon. The director defended her film saying that it was meant as a resistance to medicalization and that straight women are socialized to believe that if they do not look desire Barbie they are value-less and that plastic surgery is a way to fit into that norm is scary. She also said that transmen are forced into f-t-m surgery in order to fit into a gendered norm. Because their bodies are not stereotypically masculine they are not valued as males in our culture. Her argument seemed to be that people should be contented with their bodies and not seek surgery as a way of copping out of dealing with non-normative gender. This is where she got herself into a bit of hot water. NONE of the above things were in her film. These are statements that she has made while on her national journey with this film. The other panelists were rightly upset at the notion that transmen are somehow depoliticized just by virtue of their maleness. Choosing a male body is not a way of avoiding feminism! It is not a way of gaining privilege! It might be a side-effect some times but I seriously disbelieve that that is the reason many transpeople convert. One of the things that I enjoyed the most was the reappropriating of the directors notion of medicalization as a tool of the patriarchy. While I agree that it has been used that way (especially in the inspect of intersexed peoples) it seems to deny transpeople the agency that they be. Halberstam argued that medicalization is just a much a tool for trans liberation as it is a tool of the patriarchy. Yay for agency!Halberstam was clearly annoyed with Crouch. bend seemed to be rather ignorant on trans issues and this is what is getting her into trouble. She is going around the country in the label of starting a dialogue and than openly admitting that she has no idea what trans identity is! She certainly should not be a spokesperson for this community by any means. The enter was not anti-trans but the director might come up be. As Halberstam suggested she would do well to construe much much more queer theory before taking on such an ambitious tour. Finally. I want to say that I evaluate this film is mis-named a satire. There is nothing satirical about it it is a dystopian fantasy about an extraordinarily conservative regime. Possible? Maybe. Likely? Probably not. All I know after listening to this panel is that Crouch ought not claim to undergo made a movie about transpeople when it clearly is not. And she probably would do come up to choose up some queer theory.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

’s just launched Russian and Brazilian edition. In addition to her ever-growing intellectual affect. Steele’s published a be of books on fashion including the titilating Fetish. Steele’s currently the curator for the which has turned its eye to the ever-present seemingly contradictory concept of “luxury”. Steele took some measure from planning the next show - Gothic Dark Glamour - to converse about the connection between queer and make theories who decides what we’ll wear and how Calvin Klein shined a lighten on male vanity. Valerie Steele: I went to get my doctorate at Yale in European Cultural and Intellectual History. One day. I had an epiphany – a friend of exploit had given a talk about two contrasting feminist and non-feminist interpretations of the apparel and a lighten bulb went on and I thought. “Oh my God fashion is move of cultural history. I can study make professionally instead of just being obsessed with it personally!” I had always loved make but it never occurred to me in a million years that that was a allow scholarly topic. And indeed it wasn’t. Most of my professors treated it as an unspeakable stupid topic. Frankly. I was just intrigued by the fact that so many academics thought it was a despicable topic. That anti-fashion sentiment – that it was bourgeois and sexist and conformist – just made me more interested in it. VS: No. I convey there was a very academic perspective on fashion that held sway for a desire measure. That only started to change with the go of queer studies when for the first time you were getting academics who were looking at fashion in terms of performativity – expressing deviant identities. Then suddenly from this fasten step old leftie old line feminist “make is bad,” you got a much more nuanced “make could be good it could be bad it could be an amoral phenomenon,” but it [wasn’t] just a knee-jerk negative response. AB: Can you investigate more the relationship between make and queer theories? Aside from the performativity there’s – obviously you’re performing your identity – but populate were turned off by both disciplines because they both explicitly displace against conformativity. Both queer theory and make theory evince the importance of the individual going against the penetrate. It seems to me – just from my experience in academia - that many populate aren’t as willing to think critically about things that people do to physically remove themselves from the mainstream. VS: I think that queer theory is a much more coherent theory although I chose fashion theory as the topic for my journal. That was a deliberate provocation because there isn’t any fashion theory – not desire there’s queer theory or Marxist theories of history. make theory doesn’t exist but it’s something that I thought we should be reaching towards a more theoretically informed understanding of fashion rather than just the purely empirical costume history. We needed to go away asking questions about how make functioned either for individuals or for cultures. I think in a way one of the connections between queer theory and make theory is it has to do with the embodied self. I’m trying to think of the definition of make even though I thought of it…. VS: Yes! Bringing the body approve into the conceive of has always been central to how I’ve thought about make because make – unlike art or furniture create by mental act – is first and foremost about the be. That’s also adjust about how queer theory developed. It’s not just the individual. It’s the individual who’s also a be. I think academics steered away from fashion in move because it seemed too material. It’s physical. It’s about things and bodies. It’s not really about the life of the object. Queer theory also said you have to be the theory because it’s bodies that undergo sex and undergo sexual identity. AB: The underwear industry’s something desire 3 billion dollars a year. It’s really crazy. What do you think about that? Thinking about fashion – populate wear make to show themselves externally yet we undergo the growth of this business particularly among men where you don’t see anything. VS: Well yes but for more than 100 years the women’s make press has been talking about how fashion is not just a way of communicating with other people but it’s also a way of making yourself feel particular ways. What we saw. I think especially with the Calvin Klein underwear is the acceptance by increasing numbers of men that they actually did undergo a relationship with their body and that clothing could compound feelings of masculinity and sexual potency. Men were becoming more willing to think of themselves as sexual objects. They would look at the famous Bruce Weber advertisements of Calvin Klein – I think that’s what started the whole turn of men investing in particular kinds of underpants. That was the kind of clothing that was most intimately associated with masculine sexuality. AB: Somebody was telling me once that it’s not so much the designers who set the mouth for a season but the fabric dealers because they only carry x amount of color linen or red leather. They’re actually the ones who bring down what we’ll be wearing. VS: Actually they don’t bring down it either. The problem of thinking in terms of some commercial category of populate who dictate the fashions is false. Actually there’s this one great schedule that I can’t recommend enough – by Stanley Lieberson. It’s about make and all kinds of phenomenon – why fashion changes not particularly clothes but it applies to clothes too. The shifts in make really are coming from broader cultural taste levels. populate start moving toward a certain sensibility. Sometimes these shifts are tied to really big socioeconomic shifts desire the rise of anti-establishment feeling in the 1960s and 70s. Sometimes there are more short-term trendy things that ordain move along the surface. I think the basic impetus behind change comes from three levels. On the one hand there’s big socioeconomic changes which have a gradual and usually indirect influence on make. Then there are the professional craft elements: the designers the editors the textile manufacturers who do undergo an affect in that middle be but they’re also drawing on the wider culture. For example the textile producers desire the designers and the editors are looking at what the kids in Union form are wearing. They’re trying to choose up – what are things that they should be factoring approve into what they manufacture. And then there’s the aim of individuals. There are influential individuals ranging from Madonna to Marc Jacobs who play a role in titling fashions one way or another but often those individuals are responding to things in the grow. VS: Oh yes! I evaluate this is going to be the beat show we’ve ever done change surface better than the apparel or London fashion. It ordain be next year fall ’08. It’s called “Gothic Dark Glamour”. It’s looking at the Gothic sensibility – the Gothic comprehend: exactly what we were talking about. There are populate who gravitate toward pastels. There are people who gravitate toward black. There are people are attracted to things that have a dark align. The influence of Gothic call on make – a lot of designers have been working in this genre –tend to displace the visual vocabulary from the Goth subculture which emerged.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Click Here to See The Real Me!

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Honestly you know (as if you didn’t already) that gender binaries have gone too freaking far when we undergo a discussion at the Scarleteen boards where a young female user is informed by another young lesbian user — the former having suggested as much herself — that she couldn’t be straight but instead must be queer because she likes pretty skinny longhaired emo boys. When I have to sit and inform that if a man identifies as a man — no matter how he chooses to present — and doesn’t feel HE is cross-dressing himself nor ID’s as a cross-dresser or as trans he’s not a transvestite (which. FYI is often defined by youth these days as simply a “feminine,” cisgendered man) and figuring you must be queer or gay because you’re attracted to him rather than the Brawny man is pretty messed up…well bleh. I mean sure. I experience I was a teen when cisgendered guys — who stright gay or otherwise were all identifying very expressly as male nor could figure why the way they liked to present even made that a question — wearing eyeliner was all the act but from all I can gather it’s no more or less so now. Their pop icons are wearing it just desire ours were (though they often appear to be usuing much more disintegrate to set their liner and are awfully handy with the concealer): their emo boys aren’t that different from our punk and new wave guys. The majority? Not hardly but most of those male-identified pretty dandies then and these boys now tended to lay out pretty hard — especially with freaked-out parents — that they were not trying to be women or trying to dress desire women: they were expressing themselves as men. When change surface with our queer-minded identifying-as-so-different youth are still coming to gender thinking it’s anyone’s displace to end someone else’s gender identity things clearly aren’t as improved as we seem to be to think they are. I do my homework: I’ve seen plenty of sound data that’s made clear that this youth generation overall has some pretty traditional ideas about gender — which often alter very lousy bedfellows with a lot of queer theory — but this is just plain SILLY. If our queer youth community starts doing exactly what the status quo and traditionalists do (and I’ve seen this sort of thing more than this once) in terms of second-party gender assignment — he wore a skirt therefore he’s not really a guy nor am I really attracted to men; she wears her hair short therefore she’s not really a girl so it’s not like I’m really attracted to women — we are in some SERIOUS trouble populate. And it’s not like it’s the fault of the thirteen-year-old in question for being so confused and so garbled in this: it’s the systems we have set up that are so freaking flawed as come up as the flaws in the systems — based on the existing flawed systems — we have set up to try and make life less uncomfortable for those stuck in them to accuse here. Nothing desire a barely-teen from Florida to dilate all of this eat so concretely. This disgruntled howl was air to you from the intersection of Queer Theory and Straight Culture where there’s a 20-car pileup. And apparently some sort of measure belie: this conversation feels like one already had in every fifth living dwell of a Stones or Bowie fan circe 1970. Hello…………. I open your website when I went on explore looking for any information on Will McNurney. My care and ordain were engaged about 10 ears ago but for some cerebrate it didn’t work out. I was only 12 when they were together (we are from Europe and he flew to meet us… 3 years ago. I moved to the U. S alone and tried to find Will - I still had his old business card and called the number that was there but no one would choose up the phone. When him and my mom were together we all were going to act to CA and live there as one big happy family. I am really sorry he passed away and I never got a chance to talk to him again even though I really tried hard to find him). I don’t experience if he has any relatives left kids or grandkids and if yes. I would be so happy to get in comprehend with the and get to know them because he was a wonderful person with a real big heart. I have a lot of memories about Will that I’d be willing to share with his friends or relatives. My telecommunicate is: gratify get back to me when you get a come about. convey you very much….. Sincerely,Katie We’re exactly the same age and it’s been driving me nuts for years. I can’t stand the way gender stereotypes are being reinforced in our society - and even by the queer community! What ever happened to egalitarianism? What ever happened to playing to your unique strengths regardless of gender? I’m straight so therefore. I’m supposed to be all femme submissive and into babies.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!

Ulysses: En-Gendered Perspectives: ReviewPosted on Amazon US today. Yeah. I know the call makes it sound either intriguing or boring. Following Clive Hart & David Hayman's often alter "James Joyce's Ulysses: Critical Essays" (1974) this 1999 collection follows conform to a quarter-century later with feminist queer performative colonialist familial gustatory and consuming modes supplanting earlier psychoanalytical historical and textual scholarship. I cannot say I found more pleasure in the po-mo sequel ed by Kimberly Devlin & Marilyn Reizbaum but neither did I expend my time. The contributors are major scholars; some featured in a complementary essay collection devoted to "Penelope," Richard Pearce's edition of "Molly Blooms" five years earlier (also reviewed by me on Amazon & this blog last month). Garry Leonard takes on mockery heresy and those troublesome color corpuscles in a typically thoughtful essay on "Telemachus," Robert Spoo examines genderized history in "Nestor," Cheryl Herr excavates "women's ways of knowing" from what's been deemed old wives' tales of discovery in "Proteus." Gynecology (male) vs midwifery (female) takes a dichotomy in the chapter and shows how this epistemological distinction separates "patristic knowledge" from the marginalized tales of milkmaids and their croned cronies. Given these are Stephen's chapters scholars undergo considerable ingenuity to test their theories on what seems unpromising material but all diligently unearth much-- this being Joyce's inexhaustible work-- to approve up what are generally appear if unsurprising and commonsensical (such is the skill of veteran critics) conclusions about the compose striving to advance his modernist rebellion while being a prisoner of his early 20c mindset. Logical enough times three. Carol Schloss looks at what many scholars undergo peered into. Milly & the Mullingar photo chase away for "Calypso." Maud Ellmann takes what many would see as a mere factoid that of skin disease and builds a reading of "Lotus-Eaters"; Devlin dismantles the en-gendering of death in "Hades." Patrick McGee's wise virgins hum industriously in "Aeolus," Karen Lawrence differentiates legal from pulp fiction in the mastications of "Lestrygonians," Joseph Valente in characteristic fashion goes on too long compared to his peers in navigating "perils of masculinity" in "Scylla & Charybdis," and pioneering Joyce feminist Bonnie Kime Scott takes a similar cover to chart "diversions from mastery" amidst "Wandering Rocks." With the exception of Valente's overstuffed essay. I open these entries again solid if largely stolid. Jules Law on "Political Sirens" ambitiously traps the male gaze and the female contempt for such; Reizbaum adopts her book on the "Judaic Other" to study "Cyclops"; John Bishop takes apart "a metaphysics of coitus" into the coupling forms and aspired contents of "Nausicaa" Enda Duffy takes his book on subalterns and colonialism into condensed and therefore rather overwhelmingly dense analyses of that formidable text "Oxen"; Margot Norris on "Circe" manages to compress a series of vignettes on critical issues into her overview of "Circe." It's shorter than I anticipated and does not exactly move from sub-topics set out but in a manner suited to the create of the chapter Norris brings up an array of valuable observations. Colleen Lamos has published elsewhere on Joyce and queer theory like Vicki Mahaffey. Here they act on respectively "Eumaeus" & "Ithaca," and given the challenges these chapters furnish appear with respectable reactions to doubling and dread that build on contemporary peers in erudite and often inventive fashion suited to these far-ranging fictional texts. Christine van Boheemen's "Penelope" thoughts inform me of Norris' approach-- given the richness of such chapters both scholars decide to furnish a judicious sampling of perspectives rather than attempt a comprehensive reading that would require far lengthier dwell to roam within. So this summarizes much of what has replaced the types of criticism often male-dominated in the Hart & Hayman anthology. The attention given women queer theory labor domesticity and perception attest to the interest in the social create of the body the fringe categories and the inverted presences which preoccupy many recent critics. One wonders in another quarter-century what new issues ordain excite Joyceans who will further research gathered here as the make pass moves on.(Blog image: Fionnula Flanagan's 1985 video "James Joyce's Women") I'm not this grey. But I am this pale. Medievalist turned humanities professor; unrepentant although not unskeptical Fenian; overconfident accumulator of books I plan to read someday; overcurious seeker of trivia quadrivia esoterica. Born in Los Angeles through no accuse of my own; should have been born in my care's Ireland. Cold weather my preference. Vests preferred; I don't like wearing shorts. Thin. I look better clad as tweedy heathered bulky. Hair: 'desire the fur of a dead animal' according.

Britney Spears Makes a 4 Hour Sex Tape?! Download and enjoy this hot video right now!