Denim Day

I just picked up a flier about this this week at Student Health Services. I couldn't believe it when I read it:

In 1997 a 17-year-old girl in Italy was raped and abandoned in an alley by her 56-year-old driving instructor. After reporting the incident, the perpetrator is prosecuted and sentenced to jail. In 1998 he appeals the court's decision. The case is taken all the way to the Italian Supreme Court where the case is overturned and the perpetrator is released. In a statement by the head judge, he argued: "Because the victim wore very, very tight jeans, she had to help him remove them...and by removing the jeans...it was no longer rape but consensual sex."

Aaaaaah, I can't even respond to this. The flier calls for people to wear jeans on April 23rd (yesterday, oops!) in protest. You can find out more at www.denimdayinla.org. Though the protest could be something more noticeable, the website is really great, calling out "rape excuses" (the "rape myths" from the reading).

Distasteful DC

Today Deborah Jeane Palfrey was convicted of running a prostitution right in Washington D.C. to service our nation's finest politicians. While Palfrey claims that her business was merely an escort service, she was brought to trial for illegally selling sex (and at high prices, at that). When confronted by the persecution about sexual activity between women employed by Pelfrey and their clients, Palfrey stated that it was not her responsiblity what happened on their dates; she was merely the mediator and could not control possible sexual situations.
Among the men accused of using the escort service are Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, Harlan Ullman, a military strategist who created the concept of "shock and awe" that the United States used to open hostilities against Iraq, and Randall L. Tobias, who resigned as a deputy secretary of state after acknowledging to ABC News that he used Palfrey's service for massages.
I find it interesting that the very men who run our country participate in illegal sexual acts. It could merely be that these men are not in agreement with the current legislation which makes prostitution illegal in Washington DC, but it does not mean that it is right to break the law. Or does it? Can our society really put laws on people's sexual behavior? If these politicians wanted to sexually interact with a woman from an escort service, whose right is it to say that he cannot?
On the other hand, maybe I shouldn't be so quick to defend our rights as sexual beings. What about the women employed by Palfrey? Were these women aware of their real duties when they applied and were accepted into the position of "escort"? Shouldn't women have the right to work as an escort and not feel pressure to sexually pleasure men, regardless of how much they paid?
Perhaps this entire debacle would not even be an issue if the escort service did not exist at all. Of course this is an easy and idealistic thing to state, but perhaps these politicians should spend a little more time thinking about ways that women could escape being trapped in a situation where they would have to sell their bodies in order to stay afloat in our society. I'm sure that there are some women out there who enjoy working for escort services, but I imagine that the majority of women in these situations are merely there to make ends meet. So, Mr. Congressman, rather than take advantage of our struggling, working class ladies, Mr Congressman, you could perhaps spend a little time giving them a break or helping them thrive in the same world that you do.

Take Back The Night.

So, as our project approaches its end I wanted to talk about the most difficult topic our class has covered (for me anyway)...rape. As common and prevalent as the threat of rape among women is, i still feel like most women have the mentality that it could never happen to them, yet everyone engages in behaviors that they think will prevent any unwanted male attention. For me rape is something that hits way to close to home. I have had someone very close to me suffer because of something that happened years ago... even though she is a wife and mother now, it is very obvious that some part of her died the day that she was raped. some of the points i heard in class had to do with the threat of rape being equal to the threat of being robbed... my question to that is: does being robbed violate your body? does it ruin you emotionally? does being robbed violate your womanhood?... My answer is no. i'm not trying to be controversial or anything, but i don't think its fare when women decide to act like threat of rape is less than it is, and to further say that it isn't more damaging than being pick-pocketed or mugged. 

....Anyway after that rant. I wanted to use this opportunity to encourage people to take part in Take Back the Night. there is one going on tonight april 15th, at Wentworth in Boston. its an organization that aims to make the night a safe place for women. its a really worthwhile cause and something i'm really devoted too. 

the website is

www.takebackthenight.org

they have tons of events, posters etc.. check it out and get involved. no woman should ever have to go through the emotional and physical trauma of rape. its not right, and it needs to end. 

Sex Tapes

Sex tapes used to be taboo. If a celebrity was found to have one, they would deny deny deny until they couldn't deny any longer. You had to be the victim to leave the situation unharmed.

Take Paris Hilton. That girl denied knowing that she was being filmed at the time. But of course, she ended up going along with the whole thing. In interviews, it remained awkward but she went along with it. You know why? She owned it. After the denial, she just decided to accept it and go with it. And anyone who saw it (not that I did....oh this is awkard!) would testify that that girl knew the whole time that it was filming. She was always posing and making sure to give h*** with her good side showing for the camera.

Now, in current news, it is being reported that a Marilyn Monroe sex tape is making the rounds. What do we think about this? Is the sex tape something that has been around for longer than we believe? Pamela and Tommy Lee weren't the first ones?

Why is it that sexuality is so pushed on us but taboo at the same time? We see half-naked women selling Budweiser and Heineken but when a couple makes a sex tape, we can't talk about it? Everyone makes jokes and the couple may endorse it and make money off of it - but interviews are still awkward because no one feels comfortable putting it out there. Now let's talk candidly, we're all sexual beings. We all engage in some sort of sexual activity at least once a day. We think about how someone looks, we have intimate moments with a significant other, or we simply hear about someone else's drunken slutty weekend. Sorry, that was indirect, joking slut-bashing. I apologize.

The truth of the matter is that we all like to think that sex is something that is private. We don't want to talk about our sex life to the general public. We don't want everyone to know what we think about or what we do. But truthfully, we put it out there all the time. Why can't we just have a sex tape and then move on from it? Marilyn Monroe was probably just having fun. Is this really scandalous? No. It's a sex tape. We all have sex. We see it in the movies. We see it on television. We hear it in the hit songs on the radio. Paris Hilton, Pamela Anderson, Kim Kardashian - they all have one! We all have fun in the bedroom. What's the problem?

We all have opinions on it. The question is why do we make it so taboo but at the same time so relevant? Is it possible that religion plays more of a role in politics than we like to believe? I personally think that the morals religion helped to shape for this country many years ago are still being used today. Church and state are not separate, people. Sure, children shouldn't hear about this so early. So parents, don't let them watch adult television? Children should be watching Barney, not Jay Leno or TRL. Let's all chill out and talk freely. It's really not that bad.

In conclusion, sex tapes are just fun and we should all just keep our judgment to ourselves. If people heard about what you do in bed, they would judge you too. :]


Signing off,
G

Male Birth Control

The FreeP just ran an interesting article about something we've talked about as a hypothetical situation in class several times: birth control for males. After just having the reading the article for class about the media's portrayal of rape myths in the Kobe Bryant trial, I read this with caution. The opening sentence is: "A new male birth control method to reduce semen output offers results comparable to a vasectomy and may dispel the belief that contraception is a woman's responsibility, researchers and experts suggest." I think article itself is not sexist because it presents but does not support the "woman's responsibility" myth.

However, the entire article does focus on the myth. One expert they interviewed said that "a male birth control pill is necessary because it adds to women's options to take the pill and allows men to share the risk of pregnancy." He goes on to say that the drug companies "have felt women would not trust a man to actually be on the pill" and that "men wouldn't take the pill because they don't perceive birth control to be their responsibility." They also interviewed a male BU student who said that "[male] birth control isn't necessary when there are other means to prevent possible child birth. [...] Just using condoms and spermicide eliminates almost any chance of pregnancy, so that seems fine by me." All of these quotes obviously perpetuate the sexist myth, which seems to be the most interesting part of the new birth control method. Unlike other articles about developments in medicine, when it deals with sexuality and gender roles, that is what is discussed the most.

OPRAH!

I'm watching the pregnant trans-gendered man on Oprah right now! its fascinating! he just made a really good point. Oprah asked him why he couldn't just be a lesbian and he responded, sexual identity is completely different than what gender you identify with. I knew that he faced a lot of opposition from certain doctors who refused to treat him, but he also said that a big part of the trans-gendered community doesn't support what he's doing because "the worlds not ready for a pregnant man" .. ahh this is amazing. 

Vagina Plastic Surgery, Disney stars, and Angelina Jolie - oh my!

Margaret Cho just posted an entry on her myspace blog that you can visit here: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=30965431&blogID=373437682.

In it she discusses the collagen injection she had into her G-Spot for new reality show. She claims that she now does not feel like she wants to have sex and is waiting for the effect to wear off in four months. This raises a big question in my head: Is sexuality now something to play with for amusement? Should we encourage one playing with the formation of their genitalia for a funny joke? I personally find it funny when tv personalities make fun of common American practices and take part in them to show their ridiculousness but I would NEVER inject anything into my genitalia. In a society that puts sex on such a pedestal, it's surprising that one would risk their own sexual pleasure and self-esteem for a joke. I know Margaret Cho is all about being obscene and ridiculous, but COME ON?! This is too much.

In other news, Jesse McCartney has a new single. And the weird thing is that it is sort of good. Known for his role on the summer tv show, Summerland, Jesse was a one-hit wonder that had more of a following in the viewers of the Disney Channel than anywhere else. In this recent attempt at an image overhaul, Jesse's single comes with a music video that depicts him in close proximity to a lustful lady talking to her about leaving her man for him. Then, he is depicted singing to her dressed minimally on a bed with the focus being on her body. She's a vixen. I wonder if he just decided to ditch the Disney star status for being a sexy heartthrob to gain more universal popularity. He may be slowly gaining radio spins but with Disney refusing to play the sexy video, will he reach any of the heights that he once did with "Beautiful Soul." His new single "Leavin'" will have to depend on American audiences accepting his new look as legitimate or he'll just flop again. Or would he have been smarter to try and be Hannah Montana? She may still be 15 and he may be 21 but look at her success. That's baller. I may despise her for her annoying YouTube videos but she is so rich. No one can touch that. She is admired by millions and had a completely sold-out U.S. tour! Maybe Jesse should have made a slower transition?

And finally, Angelina Jolie is under fire for recently released pictures of her from when she was 16-years-old. Every blog is calling them sexy and scandalous. Um, what? She is depicted with maybe a devious look on her face but she is fully-clothed and chillin'. She obviously is attempting to look sexy but there is nothing horrid about them. Hannah Montana has taken pictures with probably just as much sexiness. It's amazing how much America condemns any form of visible sexuality by anyone under 18 but then when marketing a star like Britney Spears, they put her in a Christian schoolgirl outfit. She is in a bikini in some shots. So what? If girls shouldn't wear bikinis, don't sell them. But in the same week, when Audrina Patridge has Playboy trial shots released to the Internet, her age being over 18 makes them okay. But that bitch is NAKED! What's the deal, America?

Anyways, that was your pop culture scandal update. Oh me, oh my. I'm out.

Quick Sex?

CNN.com is reporting today that the optimal length of sex averages between 3 and 13 minutes. This study was conducted by a group of sex therapists and included 1,500 couples for 4 weeks. Women were equipped with stop watches to record the time that they had sex. This time, however, does not include foreplay. Any time short than 3 minutes and the couples complained that it was merely too short.
I find this article interesting for one main reason: the image that we all have of sex from the media. Americans seem to accept the idea that the longer the sexual encounter the better. However, this study finds that couples don't generally take a long time to have sex, and that it is preferable to finish in under 15 minutes. Where did the notion of marathon sex originate and when did Americans begin accepting it as the norm? Not only that, but are couples dissatisfied with their own sexual relationships if they last only 8 minutes opposed to the insatiable porn star? Do we think that everyone else is lasting for much longer? I think that this study is important to sexually active individuals because it tells them that they should not base their sex on what everyone else is doing, since most of the time "what everyone else is doing" isn't a particularly accurate account of what really goes on behind our closed doors.

The Construction of Womanhood

The ex-gay ministry was mentioned last week in class and I stumbled upon this testimony today. I'm researching the woman (an "ex-lesbian" who works for both Exodus International and Focus on the Family) who wrote it for a project and I thought the last part of her story was interesting:

"During my years of restoration, I also began to learn about this thing called womanhood. Goodness! Who knew there was so much to learn: plucking eyebrows, hair bleaches, hair waxings, facial mud masks, eye lash curlers, manicures, pedicures, push-up bras, tummy tuckers, rear-end boosters, last year’s colors, and next year’s fashions?"

In learning to be a woman (since of course being a woman and a lesbian at the same time is completely impossible), these were the most important things. It made me think of how the most threatening part of homosexuality for the boys in "Dude, You're a Fag" was the rejection of masculinity, not gay sex. Gay guys could still be popular and not be called a fag if they were the captain of the football team. Constructing a gender role for this woman was an important part of Exodus's construction of her sexual orientation. After this quote she goes on to say how she started learning about boys next. Only once she had the accepted concept of gender could she move on to the next step of sexuality. You can read the rest of her story here. Other stories on the website are called "Safe as a Woman," "Secure in my Feminine Identity," and "Finding Joy as a Woman."

oops!

sorry the video didn't upload heres the link. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFI0kxpME8w

Globalization and Homosexuality.

Last week our class looked at Globalization and its effects on homosexuality around the world. We were then asked to discuss the positive and negative consequences. At first I was having such a hard time trying to see the negative aspects, if there were any, but when I saw the new Amnesty International commercial it all kind of made sense to me. Globalization provides outlets for people who are homosexual around the world ( especially in very traditional countries), the Internet has given everyone access to people who are just like them, allowing them to seek comfort, therapy, help, and companionship. This idea goes far beyond the homosexual community but for arguments sake I'm going only focus on GLBT groups. Flooding the world with western culture, people around the world have witnessed the change in attitude towards homosexuals in the western world, these images have encourages people in eastern world to accept and fight for their sexuality more (while its still slight, its an improvement) While globalization makes the world more accessible and has played a major part in changing and correcting several injustices, and human rights violations. the negative aspects though seem to be much more damaging than anyone ever anticipated. The eastern world is made up of several non-democratic very traditional countries, this new found representation of homosexuality around the world has only fueled the fire and now homosexuals who are out in these eastern countries are not protected by any law, or law enforcement. this is creating a hostile and dangerous situation for people in the eastern world. I'm not saying that people coming out as homosexual in these countries is wrong, nor am i saying that globalization is hurting sexuality or anything like that. its just the clash of cultures is so severe that you don't really understand it until you see how dangerous it can be. being gay in America is extremely different than being gay in Russia or the middle east. Its a desperate situation, and i don't even know where to begin to propose any sort of solution, its just a scary consequence of globalization and the influence of western culture on the rest of the world.

 

Gays on TV

Two shows on television have recently added a little gay to their witty repartee. Personally, I feel like both of them speak a little to how society is viewing homosexuality, as of late.

On Miss Guided, the new ABC comedy airing Thursdays at 8, they made an obvious joke of a "Perez Hilton"-esque blog wreaking havoc on their school. Teachers were becoming obsessed with the Most-Doable Teacher rankings and they were making their sexuality more overt to up their positions. The guidance counselor came to school dressed as a tween. The vice principal saw the "gay" pictures posted so he launched a campaign to find the gossiper. And finally, with the posting of a crotch-showing shot of the guidance counselor, managed to mimic popular culture to an extreme. In the end, the gossip blogger was a homosexual male who looked JUST like Perez Hilton and went by the pseudonym Jessica Lopez. And the vice principal made him post a new entry calling him straight with the help of some "straight" pictures he had to taken - riding on a horse bareback, in leather on a motorcycle, etc. The episode ends with him looking at the new entry praising how straight he looked while his pictures obviously had a gay undertone.

It made me think...does everyone just see pictures of men in leather or other stereotypical fetish-type garments and just think gay? Is it just me? Do gay people end up stereotyping themselves? One of my friends had a visitor this weekend from home and he came out partying with us. EVERYONE was talking about how closeted he was. The next day I was asked what I thought and I found myself being like, "OBVIOUSLY HE IS GAY. He is a flaming flaming closeted gay." And I wondered to myself...did I really just stereotype us like that? Is that wrong? Am I just hindering our community more? Or is it just true that gay men tend to be more effeminate?


Secondly, on Gossip Girl, it was just announced that a straight male character will be OUTed on the new episode premiering on April 21st on the CW. A recent article cited the lack of LGBT characters on primetime television, especially on the CW. "There are a total of seven series regular LGBT characters, or 1.1%, on the five broadcast networks this season, down from 9 last season." That is a direct quote from the article found at http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3icee1422eac0ec8389421fbc853be6b5b.

Is it now becoming PC for LGBT characters to be featured in mass-marketed television shows, hence why the CW is adding their first gay series regular? If so, why are there so few LGBT characters?

"'While we acknowledge there have been improvements made in how we are seen on the broadcast networks, most notably on ABC, our declining representation clearly indicates a failure to inclusively reflect the audience watching television," said GLAAD president Neil Giuliano. "Striving toward diversity isn't merely the responsible road to take for broadcasters, but as many of television's highest-rated programs demonstrate, it's also good for business. One need only to look at the growing viewership on cable networks to see how inclusive programming can attract a wider audience.'

Indeed, LGBT representation on the mainstream cable networks is skyrocketing with 57 characters this year, including 40 regular, up from a total of 35 (regular and recurring) last year."

What do you think about these statements? Why is cable so willing to be cutting-edge and relevant while the main broadcast networks are hesitant? Obviously shows like Desperate Housewives are not dying because of the addition of homosexual series regulars. In fact, the show is on a rebound and averaging more than a million more viewers per episode than last season. So what's the big deal? Are you excited for Gossip Girl's OUTing? Is Miss Guided hindering us or are we happy with any gay coverage in the media? Are these stereotypes true?

"New Sins" Remain Old When Sexuality Is Involved

Adapting its traditional values to changing times is how the institution of the Catholic Church has held such power around the world for so many centuries. The "New Seven Deadly Sins" announced by the Vatican last week are being hailed as progressive and even many liberals can get on board with them, such as the ones that deal with social justice and the environment. Most of them don't have to do with sexuality but the ones that do don't bring the Church into the 21st century in any way. The updates did not change any stance on abortion, birth control, or any issue remotely dealing with sexuality in any way. As a result, millions of faithful world-wide are still being taught the equivalent of schools' "abstinence-only" programs in church -- and as the readings for SO240 have shown us, that actually leads to increased unwanted teenage pregnancies and STDs. It seems like the Church can change with the times to some extent to stay relevant with many issues, but sexuality is one it cannot bring itself to modernize its views on -- no matter how beneficial it would be for the health of its followers.

STDs Prevalent in Teenage Girls

CNN.com reported yesterday that 1 in 4 teenage girls have an STD, according to CDC researcher Dr. Sara Forhan. Eight hundred thirty-eight girls participated in the 2003-04 government health survey which revealed that HPV was the most prevalent STD among teenage girls, especially African-Americans. Approximately 40% of the 14-19 year old girls admitted to being sexually active; however, their definition of sex excludes oral sex, which is likely the culprit for spreading disease to sexually inactive girls. Other diseases tested for included chlamydia, herpes, and trichomoniasis.
I think that this study does more than just enlighten us about the ramped spread of STDs. It also shows the narrow perception of sex that young girls have. They do not include oral sex in their definition of sex, which could potentially expose many of them to STDs before they engage in their own definition of sex. Our sexual education programs in public schools should begin putting oral sex and vaginal sex in the same category, since they have many of the same risks. Girls should be instructed to use condoms during all sexual encounters in order to ensure their safety and promote healthy relationships.

Sally Kern's Harsh Words

Seriously, what is SO threatening about homosexuality? Part of me wonders if this woman lived during the censored times of the early 20th century and then was cryogenically frozen. Now she is spouting out this unsupported bull**** like an idiot...

When did a sexuality apparently threaten our government, community, and morals?

Thoughts?
Who elected this woman?

Ellen Speaks About California Tragedy

Last Friday, Ellen DeGeneres spoke about the eigth grade boy shot and killed by his classmate last week in California for being gay. The fifteen year old boy, Larry, had asked the shooter, Brandon, to be his valentine. Brandon felt that this request warrented Larry to be killed for his sexual orientation; in the following days, Brandon brought a gun into school and shot Larry. On her show, Ellen announced that she did not want to be political, but demanded that we have to change the message about gay men and women. The fact that Brandon thought that being another boy's valentine was so terrible that he had to kill a classmante shows that as a society we are still not sending the right message about homosexuality. Ellen encouraged the audience and everybody watching to vote for a candidate that supports equality for all so that tragedies like this will not happen ever again.
This clip from Ellen's show made me recall and interview with Mike Huckabee on The Tyra Show. Tyra Banks asked Huckabee about his view of homosexuality, to which he responded that he is tolerant of homosexuality, but does not believe that it is what men and women are meant to do. Huckabee claims that men are supposed to marry women, and the being homosexual is a deviation from the norm. Barak Obama, on the other hand, released this statement: "I'm running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all – a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters. It's wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans." Obama and Huckabee's views represent those of many Americans, but hopefully the California shooting will open people's eyes to the continuing inequality in our society. So please, everyone, let your voice be heard and go vote!

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.