I could not be more charmed by the movie I saw last night, “Bedrooms and Hallways.” Reasons why you should watch it immediately:
1. It’s on Netflix Instant- reason enough, no?
2. It features all these actors you never thought you’d see exploding queerness. Actors like Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith in the Matrix and Elrond in Lord of the Rings… though if you read any lotr fan fiction, perhaps Hugo’s rainbow tendencies are unsurprising) and James Purefoy (the deliciously handsome King Edward in everyone favorite girlhood crushfilm A Knight’s Tale).
3. It’s set in England so everyone has accents and they say things like “estate agent,” “flat,” and “loo.” Even if you hate the film, you will learn some new lingo to bat around.
4. But the best reason to watch it is that it is the QUEEREST gay film I’ve seen in a long time. Straight ID-ing characters getting into same-sex relationships, gay ID-ing characters getting into opposite-sex relationships, and all of the desire and connections are affirmed as real. And I have a tender spot in my heart for movie portrayals of male/female relationships operating outside the macho man and need-to-be-saved female archetype. It’s a beyond wonderful movie. Enjoy!
[video]
“[W]e’re worried when the likes of Beyoncé prance about in provocative outfits, because some little girls try to copy them. I can’t work out if that’s better, worse, or essentially the same as me pretending I was James Bond machine-gunning henchmen as a child.” — Charlie Brooker (If the Daily Mail is so worried about the sexualisation of children, all they have to do is hit ‘delete’ | The Guardian)
(via sexisnottheenemy)
[video]
Strolling through my town’s 4th of July fair this morning I saw a table for the Merrimac Valley Tea Party. At first I thought this was another bake sale tent or perhaps the newest incarnation of bourgeoisie socializing. After all, the crazies I scoffed at in the South and Midwest couldn’t have a stronghold in my little New England suburb, could they? Then I noticed the “Don’t tread on me flag” and had to swallow my coastal superiority complex.
I have a pathological need to pick fights with people in power. This is likely the sassy backlash of a WASPy childhood where I lacked the language and clout to carve out space for myself. Wherever this fire of contrariness originated, it broiled right up as I realized that the libertarian lunatic fringe was holding court in the middle of the face-paint and fried dough festivities. I decided to go have a chat.
I’ve learned that starting a conversation by going in swinging ensures that they will swing back and discount anything you say. So I decided to play dumb and see where things went. I fiddled with freebie copies of the Constitution until a middle-aged woman with pearls and a Bermuda-vacation-tan greeted me. Thinking I’d open with a low-ball question, I asked, “So what is this about?” Blank stare and smile, “Excuse me?” Worried I’d confused her, I innocently rephrased my question, “I just wandered over here and was wondering what you stand for.”
“Oh, the Tea Party stands for freedom.” Dear me. The $100 on GW Bush Jeopardy buzzword. “Freedom, low taxes. About ‘We the People.’ You don’t want the government all in your life.” She’s fumbling and admits she’s drawing a blank. I wonder if the chapter is so small that she’s only one who’d volunteer to staff the table or if everyone is as confused about why they’re members. Finally, she settles triumphantly on, “We’re basically against everything Obama.” I nod encouragingly, wondering if this would be an appropriate time for me to out myself as a queer crusader or whether I should develop our rapport to make the outing extra juicy. She saves me from this quandary by pulling over an older gentleman and asking him to elaborate on the party points.
The Scrouge introduced as the chapter founder won’t look me in the eye as he mutters about money and taxes. I sense my likelihood of connection is higher with the cheery woman and her buddy, also smiling encouraging at me, so I drop the question I’m sure will repel the grump. “What does the Tea Party think about LGBT rights?” I have to repeat the question three times. First to explain the acronym, then restating the terms, through whether I’m repeating because the average age of the staffer is 80 and they’re hard of hearing or whether because these are unheard of concepts, I’m not sure. Halfway through my third speaking of “bisexual,” Scrouge realizes what I’m asking, harumphs, “We’re not involved in any of that, this is about fiscal issues,” and trundles off.
The best thing about being friendly to people who don’t like you is that they don’t know how to get rid of you without violating their own codes of politeness. This is especially true when the people are stuck behind a table and supposed to be recruiting new drones. Beaming at my new friends and deciding to keep things as simple as possible for them, I hedged, “You’re talking about freedom and ‘we the people’ and protection from government. Gay people have been excluded from lots of freedoms and historically have faced lots of violence from the government, especially from the police, so it seems like this sort of a freedom platform would align nicely with gay rights.”
The two women looked at each other and one tentatively offered that New York and, she thought, Massachusetts were going to start offering gay marriage. Though Massachusetts was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage and that was 7 years ago, I breathed, “Wow” with gratitude and wonder. The first woman asked my name, shook my hand, and held my gaze as she proclaimed, “This is an issue of freedom and the Tea Party could be very important for your freedom. Issues about your future.” She then pressed a leaflet into my hand and passionately encouraged me to attend their next meeting. I took their information, waved a nailpolished-bespeckled hand goodbye and set off.
How surprising. Even a pro-gay Tea Party would be a disaster since the platform is premised on racism and the worst kind of boots-strap classism. But I was startled to see that these people in the party had so little sense of ideological cohesion that I could use the rhetoric to guide one of the staff people to a conclusion diametrically opposed to the social tenor of the party. And it’s always good to remember that conservative politics aren’t just in the South, in the Midwest, in the back country, in the boardroom, etc. In fact, for any of us living in suburbs or going to private schools, they’re probably around us all the time.
Left: Queer femme & a total babe at 18
Right: 5 weeks on testosterone at 22
I have no “before” and “after”. I am always and always. Nothing lost, everything to gain. Femme power forever. When my mother asks me “Do you know that you’re beautiful?”, she means “Do you know that I think you looked good when you were female-presenting and therefore wish you didn’t need to transition?”
I say, “I know, Mom. I’m more beautiful now than ever.”
(via femmeftm)
“The only thing that anyone can diagnose, with any certainty, by looking at a fat person, is their own level of stereotype and prejudice toward fat people.” —
Marilyn Wann, Fat Studies: An Invitation to Revolution
PREACH.
(via heyfatchick)
(Source: tashafierce, via heyfatchick)
“Some days I identify as a fabulous unicorn faerie merman, other days genderqueer is just fine.”
ugh, gender and words and language and identity are so confusing right now!
FEELING THISSSSS
(Source: meowbones, via scaredlittleboy)
i take this with a lot of different meanings.
This is the condom with teeth. It is a condom specifically made to protect women from rape. It is inserted like a tampon, and won’t hurt the girl, only her attacker. When the man thrusts into her, the condom clasps down and can only be removed surgically. It was invented by South African doctor Dr. Sonnet Ehlers, and it was inspired when the Dr. treated a rape victim who said sadly, ‘If only i had teeth down there.’ The condom is being given out in South Africa, and to women in the military.
The problem is that it sucks that the woman has to prepare herself to have this in her whenever she goes somewhere. I also wonder if there are studies out there about how useful this is in terms of (1) reducing rape {because I feel like the existence of this thing does not address the real causes of rape} and (2) helping people feel safer.
I just keep on thinking that even if the perp gets their penis attacked, the survivor STILL was sexually assaulted and went through a very traumatizing experience. Yes, it may be gratifying to many to cause pain to their perpetrator, but I can’t help feeling that if *I* had something like this during the times I was raped I would still be in the same place I am now.
I mean, I know South Africa is way different than the campus of Tufts University or the suburbs of New Jersey. But I just wonder…how useful is it? It sucks when we have to still resort to reactionary devices to handle rape; it makes me nervous…almost like are we giving up on addressing rape culture and preventing it from even happening? Are we sort of just implicitly accepting that it is going to happen and that we will just have to try and make due with living in a world where people are subjected to sexual violence?
Just a few thoughts. Not saying that this device is bad or anything. I am just…very curious about its accessibility and overall impact.
Woah, maybe this punishes attackers for violence, but what happens after the teethed condom clamps down on his junk? Making the victim’s body the means of punishment, causing the attacker agony, will make him direct rage and further violence at her. Maybe this bizarre device makes sense in an abstract “justice” sense, but if we’re more concerned about the wellbeing of the victim it makes no sense at all.
Police officer ejaculates on woman, and is found not guilty of felony charges -
No one disputes that an on-duty Irvine police officer got an erection and ejaculated on a motorist during an early-morning traffic stop in Laguna Beach. The female driver reported it, DNA testing confirmed it and officer David Alex Park finally admitted it.
When the case went to trial, however, defense attorney Al Stokke argued that Park wasn’t responsible for making sticky all over the woman’s sweater. He insisted that she made the married patrolman make the mess—after all, she was on her way home from work as a dancer at Captain Cream Cabaret.
“She got what she wanted,” said Stokke. “She’s an overtly sexual person.”
Click link to read full article
This is enraging…. and people claim rape culture doesn’t exist.
I just don’t understand this verdict. How the hell can that jury think that squirting bodily fluids on another person without their consent is at all OK?
“But she’s a stripper blah blah victim-blaming blah.”
By that logic, it should be legal to throw fecal matter at sanitation workers. Or to throw blood and vomit at doctors and nurses. Being a sex worker doesn’t give everyone else the right to have sexual contact with you.
“She got what she wanted”
Awful. Just awful. Victim-blaming at its finest. I’m pretty sure you would get thrown the FUCK out of a strip club if you tapped a dancer in the shoulder and then jizzed on her. Unacceptable behavior under any circumstances.
“A jury of one woman and 11 men—many white and in their 50s or 60s—agreed with Stokke. On Feb. 2, after a half-day of deliberations, they found Park not guilty of three felony charges that he’d used his badge to win sexual favors during the December 2004 traffic stop.”
SURPRISE SURPRISE.
How the fuck is it legal to have a jury of 1 woman and 11 men? Actually, I shouldn’t even ask.
I remember reading about this a years ago. This woman was coming home from fucking work. How was she getting what she wanted? SHe wasn’t on the clock and I don’t see how fucking SEMEN on her clothes is a part of her job. Overtly is subjective - this is why things like CONSENT exist and are NECESSARY for legal sexual contact.
I just…really wish deceptive, untrue, victim blaming bullshit like this wasn’t allowed in cases of sexual violence.
Outrageous
We like sports and we don't care who knows... -
“We’re real men and we like sports.” Womanhood and femininity are parodied all the time, as women are made out to be superficial, insecure, inauthentic and sneaky in their creation of a false self. Of course, the inverse of this is a masculinity that is “natural,” unadulterated, and true. As a number of my fabulous cis male queerlings attest to, such framing of masculinity is a propagandistic falsehood. Young men are subject to intense gender regulation which is justified by excluding alternative behaviors from the realm of masculinity (e.g. a little boy who wants to do ballet, paint his nails, cry with his mom, etc. isn’t allowed to be a “different kind of boy,” he’s attacked for being “a girl”). The naturalness claim of this macho masculinity demands that no one admit how much work is necessary to embody it. Were people to challenge assumptions that all boys are violent, athletic, or unemotional, the cultural pressure to cultivate these characteristics would be lessened and we would see a greater variety of masculinities.
Images of men attempting to act out the macho standard of masculinity and doing it poorly demonstrate that the standard is external and not an organic part of all men. So imagine my delight at the hilarious new Lonely Island video where two men move through the motions of proclaiming their love for sports, but never seem convinced by their own posturing.
In general, I dislike the professional sports institution because its a waste of tax dollars, genrally promotes a ton of problematic shit, and is totally a misappropriation of cultural money that should go to something productive like schools. Wow, you can knock a ball around, here’s a couple million dollars… gonna leave that joke alone. That all said, I admittedly LOVE going to baseball games, mostly for the cancerous comfort food and nostalgia of me and my dad, but I’m also one of 8 people on this earth who enjoy watching baseball sober. And with all that said, it is pretty fucking cool to have athletes speaking out against homophobia. Badass, in fact.
“The Chicago Cubs on Monday released their “It Gets Better” video, becoming the second professional sports team to participate in the campaign aimed at providing encouragement for LGBT youth struggling with adversity and intolerance.”
We like sportz and we don’t care who knows…
Submitted by quantumspork
I just love the implications of the original tip. “No guy is worth your virginity”.
Really?
No guy?
So we’re all just supposed to be chaste virgins because ALL MEN are scum?
Implication: open your legs to as many girls as you’d like? How does lesbian action fit into these virginity pledges anyway? Oral sex with boys seems to slip past the radar…
(via sloppysluttypartydyke)
reblog if you feel the same :)