so i just did some extra credit on the book, Dude You're a Fag by C.J. Pascoe and I wanted to talk about it here and about some of the realizations i had while doing it. There is one quote in particular that struck a note with me " the abject identity must be constantly named to remind individuals of its power. similarly, it must be constantly repudiated by individuals or groups so that they can continually affirm their identities as normal and as culturally intelligible" (Pascoe 15:2007) This quote put the dynamics of high school in perspective for me.  i never looked at the constant torment that individuals (especially males) who were thought to be homosexual endured in high school as a power struggle, but it makes total sense now. High school is such a chaotic time for everyone, obviously because its a time of growth, development, while kids are trying to find themselves. of course it would feel 'good' for someone who is unsure about who they actually are to ridicule and torture someone who they believe they are not. i now look back on instances in high school when i saw some of my friends being called a 'fag' because the 'jocks' thought they were homosexual as proof that the so called popular 'jocks' were just as insecure and unsure of themselves as anyone else. obviously I'm not justifying their behavior, i myself was subjected to endless torment in high school. I'm just saying that it makes a little more sense looking at it through this lens.... your thoughts?

BU Today Article Says Women Increase Their Risk for Rape

The most recent headline article in BU Today started with this sentence: "Women who start drinking freshman year of college or who increase their consumption once on campus face a greater risk of sexual or physical assault than nondrinkers, according to a new study from the Research Institute on Addictions at the University at Buffalo." Wow. I mean, I know this article was written by a man, based on interviews of 2 men and no women, and written for notoriously anti-woman BU, but wow. The whole article focuses on women's alcohol use and why that makes them more likely to be assaulted. The tone makes women not-so-innocent victims -- only assaulted because they're drunk but only drunk because of societal factors (i.e. marketing of alcohol directly to young women). The entire concept that women shouldn't put themselves in vulnerable situations is practical but puts all the responsibility on women, saying it's our job not to put ourselves out there to be assaulted. What about the guys? Maybe we should put some responsibility on them to not "identify women whom they plan to assault" and then "use alcohol as a tool to lower someone’s defenses" as a BU's Director of Health Services says "many men" do. Why is it still acceptable for people to use this "she was asking for it" excuse? And why is did this article not even mention that men can victims of abuse too? And why did the author see it acceptable to focus the entire time on why women's drinking is what creates the at-risk situation, not men's drinking or behavior or mindset?

At all the parties I saw freshman year there were lots of guys and lots of girls, both drunk. This is just another example of how there are different societal consequences for men and for women for the exact same behavior: They both get drunk, but one has a 38% chance of being raped if they do so. BU's women's groups (Every Person Counts, etc.) have been trying for years to get a Rape Crisis Center on campus and have been told it's not necessary since there's one close enough to campus to count. Even the assaults that happened at BU at the beginning of this academic year that were discussed in the FreeP for weeks didn't prompt any action. They haven't even been able to get a Women's Center, let alone some better support system for women who are raped or some kind of preventative education for men. It's time BU took this seriously and stopped sending out articles that further the problem by victimizing and blaming women.

"Oversexed Youth" Idol?

Watching American Idol last night, I was amazed by the amount of styled youngsters there were. It seemed that the Top 12 guys consisted of old crooners (by old, I mean 25), rockers, and "gay" 17-year-old theatre kids. All the kids performed with this youthful charisma and really took control of the stage. But then when it came time for judging, Simon always had something to say about how they should focus more on their vocals and less on their hair. Yet they were giving the best performances of the night.

Finally, with the last kid, Garrett Haley, who was sporting a "do" much like Paula Abdul's but curlier, Simon made a very controversial comment - at least in my mind. Simon said..."It looks like you've been shut up in your bedroom for about a month. You look verging on haunted you know. You're pale..."

What was up with that? These are teenagers on American Idol performing in front of the country. They are being judged by everyone and frankly, they all looked great. I mean, Garrett Haley was sporting a little mustache that was reminiscent of middle school when all the boys just hit puberty. But was it okay for Simon to acknowledge his look like that? Is this not a singing competition? I didn't like his performance at all but it was better than some of the shit the older guys did.

I find it highly inappropriate to tell a child that he basically looks ugly and gross because of a lighter skin tone and evidence of pubescent facial hair. These are children. The kid is only 17.

Thoughts?

Overheard on the T

so, I was on the T the other day and I over heard two girls talking about this guy they knew. This is how the conversation went:

Girl 1: so did you hear about xxxx? apparently he came out at a party this weekend when he was really drunk! xxxx is GAY!

Girl 2: what? no **** way. I can't believe that.

Girl 1: yah, but i guess he took it back the next day.

Girl 2: wtf? you can't take it back...thats impossible he wouldn't say it if it went true. you can't take something like that back!!!

when i heard this conversation i thought about a conversation we had in class that week about how someone defines themselves. the way in which individuals label themselves in society is a weird thing to think about. 

I mean so what? a guy you thought was straight stated that he was in fact gay one night at a party, and in the morning he revoked his statement? the only way in which i can see that being a problem is within these two scenarios:

1: he is in a heterosexual relationship and his girlfriend is less than pleased to find out her boyfriend may not be sexually attracted to her.

2: all his friends are jerky homo-phobes. 

other than that...i really don't see how its a big deal. obviously its something that he would have to work out for himself, but i was really shocked when Girl 2 was flipping out about him not being able to take it back! i'll bet my life she's said plenty of things that she took back! 

its annoying to me because finding your own identity is hard enough, and it involves constant re-inventing ( i myself went though a avril-esque punk phase with blue hair) so if he wants to take it back then let him take it back. there is too much pressure on people to be defined, maybe the real beauty of being an individual is being undefine-able. 

Homosexuals Are Normal?

Between classes today, I found myself in a rut. I was bored. I was unmotivated. It was not good. When I flipped through the channels to find something fun to watch, I found "Queer Eye." Many may remember this BRAVO staple from when it first debuted to mass hype and attention from the media. It was a cultural revolution. A hit television show was made following five gay men making over clueless straight men from coast to coast. Originally, the show was titled "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." Five stereotypical gay men would ambush one straight guy per episode and makeover every aspect of their life usually for a significant other. Each queer had a different area of expertise (i.e. food and wine, clothing, furniture) and would have time with the straight guy to teach him of his erroneous ways.

Well, the sheen of the show apparently wore off. After averaging 3.4 million viewers at its prime during the first season, the show dropped off the face of the Earth and got cancelled after a pitiful final season where episodes averaged less than 500,000 viewers per week. So what happened to the show that broke barriers and changed the face of television?

The downfall of the show makes me wonder if our culture is becoming less shocked by homosexuals. It seems that the show was catapulted to fame by the idea of five loud homosexuals telling straight men how to please women. I mean, literally, these men burst through the front door SCREAMING GAY. As a gay man, I was even taken aback by the amount of "GIRLFRIEND!" and "OMG LIKE WOW!" gay banter that occurred. Take Carson for example - he takes the straight guy to get new clothes and in the process, makes suggestive gestures towards him and touches him to the point of making the straight guy uncomfortable. It is as if they are TRYING to push barriers by just being so gay. So is America not phased anymore? Have shows like "Will & Grace" and "Queer As Folk" helped to condition America to this gay culture so it is no longer shocking? And if so, is straight America only going to tune in for the shock factor? Will straight Americans never really be interested in just a gay show? If gay men and women can watch "Friends" and "Desperate Housewives" and enjoy them, can't straight men and women enjoy shows that aren't so obviously marketed to be shocking?

Democratic Candidates!

So today in the, Daily Free Press, Boston University's school newspaper I read the article that listed all the presidential candidate's platforms. What was actually really surprising to me was that out of all the Democratic candidates, I liked Mike Gravel's stance on Social Issues compared to those of Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton.

 The Daily Free Press stated that Mike Gravel is "pro-choice and believes in sex education--including contraception information--is important to help reduce inadvertent pregnancies, according to his website. He supports same sex marriages and opposes Leglislation that allows discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or ones gender identity or expression, thus stated on his website" (Daily Free Press, Pg5, Abi-Karam, Catcher, Marino)

 It seems to me that Mike Gravel is one of the most progressive thinkers United States politics has seen in a while... and I like it! Barack Obama however, is still opposed to same sex marriage. Ugh, this feels like a giant step backwards. Maybe I'm expecting change to come faster...but who are we to tell other people who they can and cannot marry? this whole idea is ludicrous to me! I wish we could pick and choose what we like about each candidate and mash them up all together. Well heres to wishful thinking!! 

This election is insanely important for our generation! so get informed and get involved!

www.gravel2008.us

www.barackobama.com

www.hilaryclinton.com

What is True Cultural Acceptance?

It seems that gay men and other sexual minorities have become more accepted in American society today than, say, 50 or 100 years ago. Even more so today than 20 years ago. Legal progress has undeniably been made against discrimination, although full equality is still a long way off. But culturally, have we really made progress towards acceptance?

People often point to gay themes entering the mainstream with examples like NBC's "Will & Grace." Ellen DeGeneres, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and numerous fashion-industry reality shows featuring gay characters are also often held up as proof that the public now accepts the LGBT community because these shows and celebrities still enjoy success. In general today, your show's ratings won't be hurt if you add a gay character. But does this really equate to social acceptance? All of the gay men in these shows are the same stereotypical character: flamboyant and "feminine." They are one-dimensional characters that are made to be very non-threatening. They are just a girl's best friend for shopping.

This is similar to how there are certain areas of society where black men are allowed to succeed that they become stereotyped for. Sports (basketball, etc.) and entertainment (rapping, etc.) are arenas where society is comfortable seeing black men and so they are culturally encouraged to fulfill these stereotypes. In the same way, gay men are allowed to be hair stylists and fashion designers, but it is less acceptable to see them outside of theses roles. True, at one point the NBA didn't allow black players and at one point you would never see an openly gay character on TV, but is it really progress to create stereotypical "safe" areas for these groups and only allow them to appear in these set roles? It is still more difficult for an openly gay or black person to get a job as a CEO or politician than a straight or white person. Society is still uncomfortable seeing them outside of their accepted preset careers. If a gay man doesn't act flamboyant and "like a girl," his being out is more threatening to the hegemony. No matter what political advances for gay equality are made, it is still debatable how much cultural advancement has been made.

First Post!- Sexuality and Family

Tonight I tuned into A&E's Intervention, a show that documents the lives of addicts and their families, ending in an intervention. The subject matters range from eating disorders to alcohol abuse. This particular episode concentrated on a woman from Nebraska who is addicted to crystal meth. When she was young, she was a tremendous athlete, breaking the NCAA record for the indoor women's shot put, and was chosen to participate in the 2000 Olympics. However, her dreams of Olympic glory were shattered when she began using drugs after meeting close friends in the gay community. Her family nearly abandoned Tress, not because of her drug use, but because she is a lesbian. Her family, closely tied with their church, believes that homosexuality is a sin and are afraid that Tressa is going to hell. They do not give Tressa support in order to help her quit because they believe that she merely has lost her connection with God. They are waiting for her to snap out of being gay, despite the fact that she is living with her girlfriend. The abandonment that Tressa feels is merely perpetuating her drug use. At one point she asks her father if she gets off drugs, but still has her girlfriend in her life, would she still be wasting her life? He thinks she would be.
I found this episode to be particularly provocative. I find her family's rejection of Tressa's sexual orientation to be directly linked to her drug use (and subsequent loss of motivation to succeed in sports). To think about this in a social constructionist point of view, Tressa's family has created a world of strict religious influence and has therefore isolated her for perhaps her entire life. They have defined life in terms of male-female romantic relationships and Tressa does not fit into her family's construction of life. Turning sexuality into a moral issue has been turned into a popular debate as of late. In Tressa's case, her family cares about her; they do not want her to go to hell for being a lesbian because that is what they believe. However, perhaps the more immediate concern is Tressa's addiction to a deadly drug.
At the end of the program, Tressa spent several months in rehab. It showed her therapist telling her that it doesn't matter that her parents do not accept her lifestyle because she is the one who ultimately must accept herself in order to be happy and permanently stay off drugs. I think that this could possibly be the only solution to settle the conflict between the GLBT community and religious individuals. There is no way to tell anyone to change their beliefs, but I think that the two communities could come to some sort of consensus; rather than judging others, people must first learn to accept themselves. This, of course, is easier said than done. At the end of the episode, and epilogue concluded that after returning from rehab, Tressa visits and talks with her family regularly, but never about her sexual orientation. While we are encouraged to accept others, sometimes it can be difficult. And while Tressa’s family may never embrace her sexuality, merely tolerating it could at least be considered a step in the right direction.