Jump to content

Tiny mentions that don't deserve their own thread (2015 version)


ithaca

Recommended Posts

CosineTheCat

Very small mention of Elsa possibly being Asexual.

June 8th, 2015

In an auditorium at the University of East Anglia, the American scholar Diane Negra, a professor of film studies and screen culture at University College Dublin, looks up from her laptop, surveys the audience of around 40 academics, and says: “I just really hope there’s still something to be said about Frozen.” Sympathetic laughter ripples through the room.

This is Symfrozium, the world’s first academic conference devoted to Disney’s record-breaking 2013 animation. There have been similar events dedicated to film franchises such as Harry Potter or companies such as Marvel, but nobody here can recall one focused on a single movie, and certainly not one that has been previewed by BBC Radio 1 and pre-emptively criticised by the Sun and the Daily Mail. The conference filled up well in advance and attracted enough submissions to fill another day or two. “I’ve been really surprised by the attention,” says Samantha Langsdale, who teaches the study of religions at Soas, University of London. “I have no idea why so many newspapers want to cover this, because academic conferences about popular media happen all the time. So why this?”
I’ve been asking myself the same question. After writing about my daughters’ obsession with Let It Go, I somehow drifted into the role of Frozen expert. When I realised that Frozen was the third option appended to my name by Google’s autocomplete algorithm, which shows suggestions based on other peoples’ searches, I decided enough was enough. But just when I thought I was out they pull me back in. So here I am in Norwich, diligently taking notes on the significance of Anna, Elsa et al. The film just won’t let go.
Symfrozium’s organisers, Sarah Godfrey and Su Holmes, each became interested in Frozen viewing it endlessly with their children. “It’s such an interesting and productive text,” says Godfrey. “We’ve watched it over and over, and there’s still so much to say about it. It’s a real moment in culture. Even people who don’t have children know about Frozen and Let It Go.”
Godfrey is philosophical about the tabloid backlash – ie, why are these ivory-tower pointy heads wasting taxpayer money on analysing a children’s movie? “I think we’re fair game, aren’t we? Speaking as a feminist media studies academic, I’m a sitting duck,” she admits. When one is talking about a text that’s hugely popular, it automatically [makes you ask], why are we looking at it? Su and I said at the outset well, actually, that’s exactly why we should be looking at it. What is it about this film that has captured the imagination of kids and adults and continues to have a cultural presence? Why would you not look at that?”
Paul Wells, a boisterous character who runs the Animation Academy at Loughborough University and looks like a long-lost Mitchell brother, has been weathering these storms of confected outrage since he started writing about animation in the 1990s. “It’s extraordinarily predictable,” he says. “At times of economic disquiet the arts are always seen as hobbyism. The denial of its cultural value is bemusing to me. If it was Chaucer, nobody would bat an eyelid. Why? Because nobody knows about him. The Sun can go: ‘Cor, these academics, what a load of tossers!’ because everyone knows Frozen.”
Obviously, nobody from the Sun has made the journey to Norwich to see what actually takes place. A cynic could certainly have fun playing media studies bingo (“Patriarchy.” “Hegemony.” “Heteronormative.” House!), but the 10 papers are thoughtful and wide-ranging. Scholars track Frozen’s debt to genres such as fairytales and musicals, unpack its gender politics and dig into its reception among different fan communities.
I’m not convinced by the audience member who raises the phallic symbolism of Olaf the snowman’s carrot nose
Some are more persuasive than others. I’m less convinced by the audience member who raises the phallic symbolism of Olaf the snowman’s nose (sometimes a carrot is just a carrot), and by Negra’s final keynote, which takes in antidepressants, I Dream of Jeannie, Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop, princess culture and “neoliberal millennial capitalism”, especially as she doesn’t seem to rate the movie very highly. “There are limits to the film’s understanding of post-feminist affective decorum,” she says. No doubt there are.
Although some of the papers make irreconcilably different arguments, the atmosphere at Symfrozium is scrupulously polite. Disagreements with questioners are translated into academic euphemisms such as: “It’s not a huge feature of the analysis I’m undertaking”, or “My interest is not in coming to that conclusion,” which I think means no. They are all admirably conscientious. Whenever I ask someone about an area they haven’t studied, they say it would require more research, instead of winging it and improvising a theory the way I would.
‘There are limits to the film’s understanding of post-feminist affective decorum,’ says one academic. Photograph: Disney
As for whether Frozen merits and withstands in-depth analysis, the answer seems to be an emphatic yes. It might be aimed at children, but it was made by very clever adults. It is meticulously crafted, gently subversive by Disney standards and dense with symbolism, codes and echoes. It is far from unique in that respect – Brave, Home and Finding Nemo are all mentioned approvingly – but Frozen’s Elsa, in particular, has become a lightning rod for analysis. “Elsa’s a blank slate,” says Lauren Maier, who presents a paper called Queer Elsa. “She can be mapped on to a number of different struggles.”
If you think that’s a bit of a stretch, then it’s not the academics who are doing the stretching. Maier talks about how different fans have read Elsa as queer, asexual or schizophrenic. Su Holmes explores Elsa’s popularity with the “pro-ana” (pro-anorexia) community, some of whom are convinced that Disney is even “undercover pro-ana”. Fan responses have boomed on the internet and given rise to myriad readings. In fact, academia now lags behind fans when it comes to subjecting popular culture to intense analysis. The online debate about, say, Mad Men could sustain a conference for weeks.
Wells has found that his knowledge of Frozen is a boon when it comes to online dating.
“Fan studies talks about how carefully and critically audiences discuss texts,” Holmes says. “The internet has made fan responses so much more mainstream and accessible.” In the past, she says, you would need to do focus groups to yield similar information. “I think the way in which it’s been really popular with traditionally marginalised communities is specific to Elsa’s characterisation,” she adds. “It can resonate with people who have been ostracised or stigmatised.”
I talk to Paul Wells after the conference. He says it was a good day, but he has some reservations. One axiom of media studies is that the author doesn’t matter. “A text only has meaning when it comes into contact with the audience,” Godfrey says. But Wells works with animators and has interviewed Frozen’s co-director Jennifer Lee. They’re not irrelevant to him. “A lot of time, the interpretations don’t take into account that people make them,” he says. “These thing don’t just drop out of the air. Of course, once you pass a text over to an audience they’re going to take it as they want, but there’s a whole raft of quite clever complex, interesting people who make the stuff. So can we join those things together?”
Wells is also disappointed that the only speaker who couldn’t make it today was the single one who had planned to talk about how children respond to Frozen. The film’s mainstream audience hardly gets a look-in. “The key thing missing here today is the politics of pleasure,” says Wells, who has found that his knowledge of Frozen is a boon when it comes to online dating. “The thousands of people who are buying the DVD and the singalong CD, what’s happening there? These are empowering things for girls and young women. I’ve witnessed it, and it’s fantastic.”

In her concluding remarks, Godfrey says: “I wish that all the naysayers had come. I think it validates our original idea that there’s a lot to say here. It’s not just a kids’ film.” Godfrey has seen Frozen over 50 times and still thinks there is more to be said. She specifically mentions the new phenomenon of participatory culture, where fans engage with the film through YouTube clips and mashups. Langsdale, however, is ready for a break. “I’ve watched it to the point where I’d prefer not to see it again for quite a while,” she says.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a small Danish paper regarding "The Fight About The Female Body" the female sexuality is menthioned as a problem no matter if women are hypersexual or asexuel (Original citation:"De har været alt fra hyperseksuelle til aseksuelle").

http://www.information.dk/535368
.

DANISH

I dag fejrer vi 100-året for en af de store danske kvindepolitiske sejre. Ja, vel en af de store samfundspolitiske sejre, sådan helt generelt. Valgretten. Det var ikke en ret, vi kvinder fik, men en ret vi tog. Og med god grund. Fra at være juridisk og socialt gemt væk i ægteskabets og (ægte)mandens skygge entrerede kvinderne scenen. I hvert fald på papiret. Senere buldrede kvindebevægelsen frem og lagde fundamentet for så meget af det, der i dag næsten tages for givet i forhold til kvindeliv og kvinders position og ret i et samfund, som i århundreder degraderede os til støvfyldte hjørner og fysiske og mentale skammekroge. Der er meget af fejre og en del at markere.

I dag handler kampen om mandebarsel og ligeløn. Om kvoter og kvindefag. De håndgribelige ting. De målbare ting. Dér hvor resultaterne eller manglen på samme er til at tage og føle på. Det er også vigtigt, javist. Der er lang vej igen, men hvor er vi alligevel nået langt, siger vi og klapper os selv og hinanden på skuldrene. Klap, der gennemsyres af et usynligt suk. For i kulissen er der noget, som skurrer. Kroppen står i vejen.
Kvinden har alle ret til
Den uhåndgribelige og alligevel allestedsnærværende krop. Vores hylster, forstår vi. Vores egen, får vi at vide. Eller hvad? For kampen om kvindekroppen, og ikke mindst kvinders ret til at have deres kroppe i fred, er en af de største frihedskampe for kvinder anno 2015. Samtidig er det en af de allersværeste.
For kvindekroppen er frit lejde. Kvindekroppen er alles, men sjældent kvindens egen. I forhold til kvindekroppen har vi sgu ikke særlig meget at fejre. Kampen om den er vi end ikke tæt på at vinde. Slet ikke.
Kroppen som kampplads
Kvindekroppen er en offentlig kampplads, om vi vil det eller ej. Det stod klart, da den indisk-canadiske kunstner Rupi Kaur uploadede et billede af sig selv på Instagram. Hun havde blødt igennem, og en plet bredte sig på hendes bukser og på lagnet.
Instagram censurerede med det samme. Menstruation er ulækkert. Noget vi helst ikke skal mindes om. Kvindekroppen er bryster, der ikke må amme i det offentlige rum. Det er åbenbart også ulækkert. Der er ikke meget sex i reproduktive funktioner, åbenbart. Paradokset er til at få øje på.
Kvindekroppen er også plastikkirurgbiksen Nygarts reklamer på busserne, der lokker med nye bryster. For kvindekroppen er altid klar til en opstramning, en omformning, til en tur ved kasse et, hvor fuckability-certifikater deles ud. Ve den, der ikke får et.
Kvindekroppen er skyld med skyld på, når damebladende spytter slankekure og sundhedstips og »tab 5 kg på 4 uger« ud. »Skal du ikke gøre noget ved den lille delle?« råber de kollektivt fra hylderne. Det er jo snart sommer.
Kvindekroppen er mænd, der skriver debatindlæg, om hvor skøn og blød og smuk og saliggørende den ’naturlige’ kvindekrop er. Hvil nu lidt mere i dig selv, kvinde. Lad nu være med at ligge under for forskruede idealer, kvinde. Kvindekroppen er også tv-programmer, der fortæller os, at kvindekroppen altså har brug for det mandlige blik for at få sat ord på af mænd.
Farlig og skrøbelig
Det er sådan set ikke noget nyt, det der med kvindekroppen som offentlig ejendom. Kampen om den har raset i århundreder. Kvinders kroppe har altid været genstand for undersøgende og skrutiniserende blikke. De har været alt fra hyperseksuelle til aseksuelle. De har været farlige, medgørlige, besværlige, svage, hysteriske og skrøbelige.
Underlagt tvangssterilisation, indgreb, diagnoser og sygeliggørelse. Og vigtigst af alt: Kvindekroppen er altid blevet set som anderledes end mandekroppen. Som en krop, der ses på og tales om på en anden måde end mandens. Og ikke mindst som en krop, der altid må tales om. Det kan vi ikke ryste af os her i 2015, selv om mange påstår det modsatte. Og lige her er det måske passende med den disclaimer, som man åbenbart altid skal liste ind et sted, når kvinder vover at skrive om kroppen. For hvad med mandekroppen? råbes der. Gerne højt.
Mandekroppen står jo også for skud. Der er ironman og sixpacks og hipsterskæg og undertøjsreklamer og noget med store pikke. Ja. Det er der. Mænd er i stigende grad underlagt samme rigide kropspolitik som kvinder. Og det er noget lort.
Men der er bare et par væsentlige forskelle. For det første historiciteten: Mænds kroppe har ikke været udgrænset i århundreder. Mænds kroppe er ikke blevet andetgjort. Mænds seksualitet er ikke blevet skammet. Det trækker spor. Dernæst har mandekroppen – på trods af idealer og præstationsræs – stadig et langt mere acceptabelt varieret udtryk.
Farkroppen er det nye sort. Nu er det okay for mænd at have lidt mave og pondus. At slappe lidt af med det kropsræs. De er jo lækre alligevel. Lidt kynisk kunne man sige, at hvis mænd var underlagt tilnærmelsesvis de samme rigide kropsidealer som kvinder i cirka fem minutter, så kom der et modsvar. Det er på sin plads at være kynisk, for generelt kan mandekroppen være i fred på en måde kvindekroppen ikke kan. Og aldrig har kunnet.
Kropslig valuta
Så hvor er vi med den kvindekrop, her 100 år efter vi tog valgretten? Hvor gemmer kroppen sig midt i alle de andre kvindepolitiske sejre? Den befinder sig i et dystert skyggespil, hvor sociale, juridiske og arbejdsmæssige landvindinger for kvinder betales for i form af endnu flere og større restriktioner på kvindekroppen og dens udseende, form, funktioner, størrelse og væren i verden.
I takt med at den sociale kontrol, som kvinder har været underlagt, lige så stille afvikles, snævres rammerne for kvindekroppen ind og erstatter forne tiders begrænsninger på kvinders liv med en effektiv kropskontrol. Kvinder må stadig helst ikke fylde for meget. Heller ikke med deres kroppe.
Nu er det kroppen, det handler om. Og den skal altid være klar. Det er kroppen, der er en kvindes væsentligste valuta, får vi at vide. Og vi labber det i os. Os kvinder. Vi æder præmissen og kører den videre på egen banehalvdel. Vi vurderer og kigger og sender elevatorblikke til andre kvinder. Vi dømmer inde og ude.
Det gør vi jo, selv om vi pænt lader som om, vi ikke gør. For vi har internaliseret ideen om kroppen som det væsentligste, som genstand for konstant vurdering. Vi har internaliseret det mandlige blik. Og det kræver sin kvinde at sige sig fri for det spil. At slippe kropskontrollen og blæse på konventionerne. Så hvad fanden stiller vi op? Hvad gør vi, for at vi ikke står her igen – på 200-året for kvinders valgret – og stadig er fanget i egen krop?
Det er for nemt at sige, at vi bare skal sætte kroppen fri. Det er for nemt at give den enkelte kvinde ansvaret som bannerfører for sin egen revolution, når hun tager på stranden på trods af appelsinhud og tordenlår. Vi snakker om det, det er, hvad vi gør. Vi prikker og pirker og blotlægger den systematiske nedvurdering, der sker af kvinder pga. deres kroppe. Vi insisterer på at bløde, amme, bolle og nyde.

Og når der er en kvinde, der fortæller, at hendes krop begrænser hendes frihed til at være i verden, så hør efter. Uden at brøle op om offerkort og den frie vilje. Det kunne faktisk være, at der var noget om snakken.

Very Rough English translation!

Today we celebrate the 100th anniversary of one of the great Danish woman political victories. Yes, well one of the major socio-political victories, such general. Suffrage. It was not a right, we women got, but a right we took. And with good reason. From being legal and social tucked away in marriage and (real) man's shadow entered the women stage. At least on the paper. Later roared the women's movement and laid the foundation for much of what is today almost taken for granted in relation to women's lives and women's position and rights in a society that for centuries demoted us to dusty corners and physical and mental ashamed hooks. There is a lot of celebration and part mark.

Today the contest is about man maternity leave and equal pay. About quotas and female. The tangible things. The measurable thing. There, where the results or the lack thereof is to be felt. It is also important, ay. There is a long way to go, but where we nevertheless come a long way, we say and applaud ourselves and each other on the shoulders. Pat, who is permeated by an invisible sigh. For behind the scenes there is something that grates. The body stands in the way.
The woman has every right to
The intangible yet omnipresent body. Our case, we understand. Our own, we are told. Or what? In the battle for the female body, and especially the right of women to have their bodies in peace, is one of the greatest freedom struggles of women in the year 2015. It is also one of the most difficult.
For female body is safe passage. The female body is everybody, but rarely her own. Compared to the female body has not fucking much to celebrate. The battle for it we are not even close to winning. Not at all.
The body as battleground
The female body is a public battleground, whether we like it or not. It was clear, as the Indian-Canadian artist Rupi Kaur uploaded a picture of himself on Instagram. She had soaked through, and a stain spread on her pants and on the sheet.
Instagram censored at once. Menstruation is disgusting. Something we would rather not be reminded. The female body is breasts that must not breastfeed in public. Apparently it is also disgusting. There is not much sex in reproductive functions, apparently. The paradox is to see.
The female body is also plastic surgeon shop is run Nygarts advertisements on buses that lures with new breasts. For female body is always ready for a tightening, reshaping, to a trip by a box where fuckability Certificates are dealt. Woe to the one who does not get one.
The female body is guilt with guilt when women's magazine end spits dieting and health tips and 'loss of 5 kg in 4 weeks' out. "Will not you do something about the little delle?" They shout collectively from the shelves. It's soon summer.
The female body is men who write contributions to the debate about how wonderfully soft and beautiful and salvation the 'natural' female body is. Rest now little more of yourself, woman. Please do not succumbing to the twisted ideals woman. The female body is also television programs that tell us that the female body thus needs the male gaze to put words to the men.
Dangerous and fragile
Basically it's nothing new, it is with the female body as public property. The battle for it has been raging for centuries. Women's bodies have always been the subject of investigative and skrutiniserende eyes. They have been far from hyper-sexual to asexual. They have been dangerous, malleable, cumbersome, weak, hysterical and fragile.
Subject to forced sterilization, intervention, diagnosis and medicalisation. And most importantly: The female body has always been seen as different from the male body. As a body that is seen and spoken about in a different way than men. And not least as a body that will always be talked about. We can not shake us here in 2015, although many claim otherwise. And here it is perhaps appropriate with the disclaimer that you obviously always list into a place when women dare to write about the body. For what man body? shout there. Like high.
Male body are they also shot. There's Ironman and sixpacks and hipsterskæg and underwear commercials and something with big dicks. Yes. It's there. Men are increasingly subject to the same rigid body politics as women. And it sucks.
But there are just a few important differences. Firstly historicity: Men's bodies has not been udgrænset for centuries. Men's bodies have not been otherwise made. Men's sexuality was not ashamed. It pulls track. Next, the male body - despite the ideals and præstationsræs - still a much more acceptable varied expression.
Farkroppen is the new variety. Now it's okay for men to have a little belly and clout. To relax a bit with the kropsræs. They are the delicious anyway. A little cynical, one could say that if men were subject to approximately the same rigid body ideals as women for about five minutes, then came a response. It is appropriate to be cynical, because generally male body in peace in a way the female body can not. And never has been.
Bodily currency
So where are we with the woman's body, here 100 years after we took the franchise? Where does the body in the midst of all the other female political victories? It is located in a gloomy shadow play, where social, legal and professional achievements of women paid for in the form of even more and greater restrictions on the female body and its appearance, form, function, size, and being in the world.
As the social control that women have been subject, quietly settled, narrows the framework of the female body in and replace degraded-time constraints on women's lives with effective body control. Women must still rather not overfill. Nor with their bodies.
Now it's your body, it's all about. And it must always be ready. It is the body that is a woman's most important currency, we are told. And we paws in us. Us women. We eat premise and runs it on the box. We assess and take a look and send elevator eyes for other women. We judge inside and out.
We are doing well, although we nicely pretend we do not. For we have internalized the idea of ​​the body as the principal, as the object of constant evaluation. We have internalized the male gaze. And it takes a strong woman to remain free for the game. To get rid body control and blow at the conventions. So what the hell do we do? What do we do, that we do not stand here again - on the 200th anniversary of women's suffrage - and still trapped in your own body?
It is too easy to say that we should just put the body free. It's too easy to give each woman the responsibility as the standard bearer for his own revolution, when she takes on the beach in spite of cellulite and tordenlår. We talk about it, that's what we do. We dots and prod and exposes the systematic denigration happens by women due. Their bodies. We insist on soft, nursing, bun and enjoy.

And when there's a woman who says her body limits her freedom to be in the world, so listen up. Without roar up the victim card and free will. It could actually be that there was some truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
CosineTheCat
a quick mention to asexual's in old movies

May 15th, 2015

If you don't feel like reading the whole article, the mention is in the 4th section.

7QT: Not Breathing, Not Marrying, and Opening Beers With Your Teeth
May 15, 2015 by Leah Libresco 8 Comments
seven-quick-takes-friday-2-300x213
— 1 —
So, remember how I mentioned that the last question at my book talk in DC was about transhumanism? Well, here’s a particularly amusing body augmentation:
If you’re a rugby player, you’re going to take a lot of hits — and you might even lose a tooth or two. Rather than replace those lost incisors with regular old implants, athletes might consider something more useful — a steel tooth that doubles as a bottle opener.
— 2 —
Speaking of impressive new bodily powers, I liked this Nautilus piece on the breath capacity of free divers:
In recent years, the feats of free divers have forced Lindholm and other scientists who study physiology to explain not only what humans are capable of underwater, but how much control we have over the speed of normal metabolic functions. Many of these feats, including some of the adventures that lay ahead for Prinsloo during her 2011 record attempt, were detailed in the 2014 book, Deep, by James Nestor, who spent several years traveling to far-flung regions of the globe to learn about the sport and understand why anyone would want to do it. Free divers, scientists say, may push evolutionary buttons honed in a simpler epoch. A time, perhaps, before obstetricians, when it was paramount to slow down to survive a perilous passage through a birth canal that restricted blood flow. It was a time when natural selection, for whatever reason, favored traits that allowed us to downshift our biological systems into a slow gear we are only beginning to rediscover. It can be a dangerous process, physiologists say, but available to us all.
— 3 —
I loved this essay on data visualization and redesign, and was struck by the author’s point about what makes this form of critique different from those of other arts:
The technique of “critique by redesign” in some ways works uniquely well in data visualization. A movie critic can’t remake a movie. An art critic can’t ask the subject of a portrait to sit for a second time. A book critic may be able to rewrite a sentence, but not a whole book. But with data visualization, if there’s access to the underlying data set, and the data is not too complicated, it’s feasible to create at least a rough redesign.
In semi-related news, I should have something up on GitHub that you can poke at yourself on Monday.
— 4 —
I’ve seen a number of critiques of Spinster by Kate Bolick (a book that, as my frustrated friends keep pointing out, includes no actual spinsters). Via my friend Catherine, I found some quotes on spinsterdom that one blogger liked better, and I was most struck by this one:
The spinster aunt is a great literary figure, but a great person to have in your life, I think.
I think so, too. Especially if you’re different.
Actually, that brings up an idea I had. I’m like a big film nut. For years I’ve been thinking of writing a book called Old Dames. Before World War II, in 80% of films there were major grandmother and maiden aunt characters. The films were not centered around the person, they were asexual, obviously. It would have taken hours to get the corset off. But they were the wisest, quite often. They were the ones who would give the heroine advice, or they were the ones who would remain calm in a crisis.
What happened to that character? Shouldn’t feminism have made that character more interesting rather than making her disappear? Now it’s Jane Fonda, who can still compete for her son with his wife. That’s what happened. All of that wisdom and step back from society so that you can value it disappeared from film.
- Interview with Bruce Benderson, author of Against Marriage
— 5 —
Catherine is also the cause of me finding this Argentine cast cover of “I’m Alive” from Next to Normal, and I’m quite grateful.
— 6 —
Heading north now, I heard about the mysterious tunnel found in Toronto, and the explanation of where the 10 meter tunnel came from is better than I could have hoped.
— 7 —
But the most surprising thing I learned this week is definitely that introducing the measles vaccine to a community doesn’t just drop the rate of measles infections but of every other infectious diseases! Here’s why:
Like many viruses, measles is known to suppress the immune system for a few weeks after an infection. But previous studies in monkeys have suggested that measles takes this suppression to a whole new level: It erases immune protection to other diseases, Mina says.
So what does that mean? Well, say you get the chicken pox when you’re 4 years old. Your immune system figures out how to fight it. So you don’t get it again. But if you get measles when you’re 5 years old, it could wipe out the memory of how to beat back the chicken pox. It’s like the immune system has amnesia, Mina says.
I already saw some discussion of whether this means you could give someone measles on purpose to try to address an autoimmune disease. Reminds me of this xkcd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
CosineTheCat

Defining Pride: LGBTQ need to know terms

June 5th, 2015

Sarah Rotella and Adrianna DiLonardo are often asked why their popular YouTube comedy channel is called the Gay Women’s Channel. Both of its creators identify as lesbian — “I also identify as a catlady,” Rotella, 28, adds.

“We like to use the term gay as a hat that includes everyone in the spectrum,” says DiLonardo, 28. “It might not be politically correct. Gay is usually associated with gay men.”

With Pride festivities in full swing, how to refer to the community that is being celebrated depends on whom you ask. Monikers span the overly simplistic term “gay” to the mouthful acronym “LGBTTIQQ2SA” (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, intersex, queer, questioning, two-spirit, asexual/ally).

“If you’re in the straight world, it would be the all-encompassing word ‘gay,’” says Helen Kennedy, executive director of LGBTQ advocacy group EGALE. But you don’t have to look very far to find someone who bristles at being corralled into that catchall term. When pressed by Diane Sawyer prior to her transition, for example, Caitlyn Jenner described herself as asexual.

“I understand the ease of using just one word to sum it up, but there are lots of issues around who you are fighting for when you are saying ‘gay’ rights,” Sidney Drmay, co-ordinator of the queer and trans group RyePride at Ryerson University, says. “Are we thinking about black trans women or are we just thinking about white gay dudes?”

Drmay, 20, identifies as queer and non-binary, using the pronouns “they, them and their” in place of “she/he, her/him, and her/his.” “I don’t like the idea of girl/boy,” they says. “I prefer ‘them’ because I like being able to separate myself from the binary of gender. There are a lot of genders. Trying to insist that there are only two is ridiculous.”

As the Outreach Committee Chair for Ottawa-based transgender group Gender Mosaic, Amanda Ryan has found it nearly impossible to come to a consensus on the trans experience. “If you put 1,000 trans people into a room and ask them to come up with a definition of trans you would come up with 1,000 different definitions,” says Ryan.

Far simpler for the 63-year-old is navigating the pronouns “he” and “she.”

“If I am presenting female, I do prefer the female pronouns,” she says. “And when I am presenting male it’s he. When I am addressed as female by the public it acknowledges that I am seen (as female) by them. It does make a difference.”

Jeremy Dutcher, 24, might swap his “he” pronouns for more gender-neutral pronouns when working in his capacity as the Aboriginal Projects Co-ordinator at EGALE. Dutcher identifies as two-spirit, an indigenous concept for someone with two souls — one male, one female.

Originally celebrated for their spiritual significance within indigenous tribes, today the term is applied broadly to indigenous people who identify as LGBTQ.

While ‘2S,’ for two-spirit, is included in the larger acronym, Dutcher prefers the acronym LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer). But when EGALE was doing work surrounding youth homelessness, Dutcher advocated for the acronym LGBTQ2S to acknowledge the disproportionately high number of two-spirit youth living on the street.

Yet using the full acronym — LGBTTIQQ2SA — can prompt a teachable moment. Drmay often uses it in their work with RyePride. “It’s also a really great learning opportunity because people might be like, I don’t recognize that letter,” they say. “What is that letter for?”

And while LGBTTIQQ2SA doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, the conversation alone has the power to raise awareness about gender and sexual identity. “Language is powerful,” Dutcher says. “LGBT folks have been pushing those boundaries around, ‘what is inclusion?.’ The fact that we really make space for people to identify how they want to identify I think is awesome.”

LGBTQ need-to-know terms during Pride Week

Metro asked Ryan Porter, a freelance writer and former editor of the now defunct Toronto-based Fab magazine, to define some common LGBT slang to help you navigate the otters and puppies and bears (oh my!) during your local Pride festivities.

Bear: [bair] A hirsute gay man of notable heft, often found in plaid, denim or Montana’s

Breeder: [bree-der] A heterosexual celebrated for their baby-making skills

Butch: [boo-ch] A lesbian of masculine demeanour or advanced home-reno skill

Chaser: [chey-ser] One attracted to bears who is not themselves a bear, but will happily eat all of their porridge and pass out (we’re looking at you, Goldilocks)

Cisgender: [sis-jen-der] A person whose gender corresponds to the sex organs they were born with (but we love them, anyway)

Cruise: [krooz] To prowl for intimate relations in a manner that may be considered filthy, scandalous and abhorrent by well-bred individuals (Prince Harry excluded)

Cub: [kuhb] The iPad Mini to the bear’s iPad — younger, smaller and more affordable

Daddy: [dad-ee] An older man in a relationship who provides mentorship and all-around parental-style bossiness to the younger man, who may be called the “boy”

Drag Mother: [drag muhth-er] The drag queen who mentors a young protégé in the illusionary arts

F-to-M/M-to-F: [ef-too-em/em-too-ef] If you were to describe a trans person’s journey from one gender to another using a maximum of five letters, these would be those five

Femme: [fem] A queer person dripping in stereotypically feminine characteristics, dahling

Kiki: [kee-kee] A small congregation of gay people assembling for the purpose of chit-chat, juicy disclosures and general shenanigans

Lipstick lesbian: [lip-stik lez-bee-uh n] A lady who loves her Maybelline almost as much as she loves boobs

Muscle Mary: [muhs-uh l mair-ee] A hulking gay man who looks terrifying but actually has the complete works of Britney Spears memorized

Otter: [ot-er] A hairy gay man too slender to be considered a bear and the generally agreed upon limit of really pushing this animal thing

Pass: [pas] to be recognized as the gender you are presenting because is that really so much to ask for?

Pocket Gay: [pok-it gey] A gay man of diminutive stature who is nonetheless desirable the way King Kong really thought it would work out with Naomi Watts

Power Bottom: [pou-er bot-uh m] A receiving sexual partner who should really see someone about their control issues

Poz: [paws] A person who is living (or — just maybe — thriving) with HIV

Puppy Play: [puhp-ee pley] When two people role-play as a puppy dog and its master, except for some reason, they are both wearing, like, a lot of leather

Queening Out: [kwee-ning out] an outlandish display of royally diva-esque behaviour by a gentleman that may inspire Wayne’s World-style bowing down

Read: [reed] A sassy dressing down using choice witty zingers, as in, “she read that queen like it was another excellent edition of the Metro”

Str8: [strāt] An alternate spelling of straight, generally used by gay men in personal ads who would love to spell out the “-aight” but are just far too horny

Shade: [sheyd] A side-eyed style of cutting remark developed by New York drag queens possessed by the ghost of Joan Crawford

Tea: [tee] Gossip too hot to spill without at least one pinky finger held aloft

trans*: [trāns*] A catchall term referencing transmen, transwomen, transgender, transsexual, transvestite and all other trans superstars

Twink: [twingk] A young, slim, hairless gay man who may or may not have purchased his accessories at Ardene

Versatile: [vur-suh-tl] One whose sexual roles are as eclectic and diverse as the performances of Meryl Streep

Link to post
Share on other sites
CosineTheCat

So how happy are Imperial students with their sex lives?

June 5th, 2015

So how happy are Imperial students with their sex lives?

Cecily Johnson
It’s like a giant game of Where’s Wanker?
Credit: Imperial College London
Overall, 62% of us are ‘happy’ or ‘very happy’ with our sex lives at Imperial. Only 21% reported that they were ‘unhappy’ or ‘very unhappy’ (sorry folks), while 15% didn’t feel one way or the other.
The remaining 2% did not wish to say how they felt – so it’s anyone’s guess why they’re filling out a student sex survey.
Breaking the figures down by the sexuality of respondents revealed some interesting trends in our levels of sexual satisfaction.
72% of those identifying as asexual said they were ‘happy’ or ‘very happy’ with their sex lives, with only 14% ‘unhappy’ or ‘very unhappy’.
Bisexuals were the second happiest, with 71% reportedly ‘happy’ or ‘very happy’ and only 21% ‘unhappy’ or ‘very unhappy’.
Next most satisfied were the heterosexuals, 64% of whom were on the happy end of the spectrum, while 21% again were ‘unhappy’ or ‘very unhappy’.
Meanwhile, only 54% of Imperial’s homosexuals were ‘happy’ or ‘very happy’ with their sex lives, and this time 23% not happy – perhaps due to the relatively low number of gay and lesbian students at Imperial (only 8% of us according to this year’s survey).
Looking at gender, 73% of Imperial women were ‘happy’ or ‘very happy’ with their sex life at the moment, compared to just 58% of the men.
Similarly the ‘unhappy’ and ‘very unhappy’ students accounted for 17% of the girls and 24% of guys. So nearly 1 in 4 blokes aren’t being satisfied at Imperial – sorry lads.
Comparing the happiness figures by department with the total number of respondents from that department, it looks like Medicine are overrepresented in the ‘very unhappy’ category with a whopping 23% of them identifying as such when just 15% of total respondents were Medics.
Life Sciences were also less than satisfied, making up 23% of the ‘unhappy’ category yet only 17% of total respondents.
Meanwhile Physics were underrepresented here, with only 10% ‘very unhappy’, and the rest slightly more likely than average to be in the happy categories. Physicists made up 17% of total survey respondents. You go, Physicists.
Maths were doing well too, as just 6% of total respondents with 9% of all those students self-reporting as ‘very happy’ with their sex lives.
But is Imperial affecting your chances of sexual satisfaction? Or vice versa, is your sex life impacting on your studies? Well, a significant proportion of you – 44% – don’t really think coming to Imperial has affected your sex life at all.
30% of students felt that Imperial has had a positive effect on their sex life, whilst 24% of you felt that there was an overall negative effect on your sexual satisfaction. Not enough time spent in Metric, or too much perhaps?
Speaking of Metric, do Imperial students feel like they have enough time to meet people whilst keeping up with their studies? 69% of you said yes, with 24% responding no and 7% opting not to answer this one.
On the other hand, it seems like most of you aren’t blaming Imperial entirely for any dissatisfaction – 58% don’t think their sex life (or lack thereof) has impacted on their level of student satisfaction.
23% of students felt positively about Imperial’s influence on their satisfaction, whilst only 16% thought that their sex life at Imperial had a negative impact.
Finally we wondered whether anything else is affecting your sex lives here, so we asked “do cultural and/or religious reasons affect your sex life?”. A huge 83% of you responded ‘no’, and 8% ‘no, but my family would be mad if they found out’.

However 3% of you don’t believe in any sort of sexual activity before marriage, while 1% only want to engage in certain types of sexual activity before marriage and 4% only want to have sexual activity in a long-term relationship.

Link to post
Share on other sites
CosineTheCat
The importance of LGBT month

June 9th, 2015

The Daily Athenaeum

Many people know that June is designated as LGBT Pride Month, a time for people everywhere to celebrate who they are and reflect on the advances made in the struggle for equality. However, not everyone is aware that June is the month for LGBT pride in remembrance of the Stonewall Rebellion of 1969, a major turning point for LGBTQ rights in the United States. The rebellion occurred as a result of a police raid at the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in New York City. Raids on LGBT establishments were extremely common at the time and drag queens or those wearing clothing not considered appropriate for their gender were often arrested.

On June 28, 1969, things ended differently. The raid drew a crowd of people, and the friction between the crowd and police sparked an all-out riot. Police were forced to stop arresting the Stonewall Inn’s patrons as the crowd of people—some gay, some straight—began throwing bricks, bottles and anything else available at officers. The resulting violence caused a massive shift in the gay community. People who had once been afraid and silent began feeling empowered by their newfound visibility. Members and supporters of the LGBT community began to openly become activists for the cause.

Since the Stonewall Riots, the United States has been gradually making progress toward equality for LGBTQ citizens. Today, gay couples in most states can marry the person they love, with other states steadily following suit. There is more LGBTQ visibility now than ever and people who come out are more likely to be met with acceptance and support. However, there is still a long way to go. Gay men still cannot donate blood. Transgender individuals still need better legal recognition and access to medical resources that may be necessary for their transition. Transgender as well as gender non-conforming people still need safe access to public restrooms. Bisexual, pansexual and asexual people are still fighting to be visible and understood. The progress that has been made is amazing, but the fight is far from over.

This editorial board strongly encourages the LGBTQ community and its allies to enjoy the events that Pride Month has to offer, but do take care not to forget how we came to be able to celebrate LGBT Pride. The festivities that so many people look forward to every year were hard won, so remember the people who fought for this to happen. A community that remembers its history is a community that will continue marching forward into a brighter future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this has been posted but while on Facebook I stumbled upon this on a group called "Men's App" (I am not a member of it myself though)

What is an asexual person? It is estimated that 1% of persons are incapable of feeling attracted either to men or women.
An asexual person is not antisexual (against sexual seeing it as bad or dirty) nor celibate (not having sexual relations by choice or because their religion forbids it) not lacking in sexual impulses. It is simply a lack of attraction, or spontaneous need to have sexual encounters with another person.

Most of those defined as asexual state that they have been since they were children. They say that they want to have sex with someone for reasons other than sexual attraction, for example for curiosity, to live sensations, etc. On the other hand, a lack of sexual attraction does not imply a lack of aesthetic attraction, which means, an asexual person can say if someone is handsome or pretty.
Nuria Jorba, psychologist, sexologist, and specialist in sexual coaching makes a parallelism with feed. "Just as sometimes you eat to disconnect or because of boredom but not really because you are hungry or because you feel that pleasure component that food gives you. The same thing happens here; there are asexual persons that can masturbate, but simply to satisfy anxiety. There are even those people that have partners that are sexual and they do not mind having sex to please them. They do not reject it, but they do not have the need nor the sexual attraction that it is supposed you should have in couple relationships.”

“The greatest problem is the lack of visibility of this type of sexual orientation. Imagine how a teenager might feel if he does not need to sexually experiment with anybody and that, also, “he believes that he has to fit into one of the known sexual orientations” reflects Lucía, author of the book 'Diary of an asexual”. “I tortured myself for years trying to look for somebody who aroused my desire: it did not matter if it was a man or a woman. After years and many failed experiences, I decided to accept myself as I am. A little bit afterwards, I discovered on internet something called asexuality. I identified with it and, on this same day, my conflicts stopped”, She confesses.

Within this sexual orientation, as many define it, there exist a multitude of classifications and variants. From those who have no sexual desire but do feel affective or romantic attraction, and consider it is possible to live in a couple, with love and affection, but without the need to have sex. To those that do not feel sexual or romantic desire.

As you see, asexuality exists, and some persons identify with it.

Have a great weekend!

Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC Newsbeat has uploaded a video on Youtube "What LGBTQQIAAP mean"



It briefly mentions asexuality as one of the As....but I am not too sure about it myself. I think it is quiet a poor explaination myself
Link to post
Share on other sites
That asexual guy

Opinion piece in Gay Star News on the rainbow profile pics that includes asexuals as part of the rainbow.

I wear the rainbow for those of us who don’t believe in marriage, are single, polyamorous, in open relationships… Pang Khee Teik, a prominent gay activist in Malaysia where gay sex is illegal, remembers members of the LGBTI community who live in places where same-sex marriage is not yet a reality, where they have to hide or are married but to the opposite sex
Pang Khee Teik
Photo courtesy of Pang Khee Teik
pang-rainbow850-1200x700_c.jpg

I wear this rainbow for all the citizens of the rainbow.

I wear this rainbow for my gay and lesbian friends who believe in marriage and who can now do say ‘I do’ to the one we love.

I wear this rainbow for those of us who have married but to the opposite sex and hoping not to be found out, who thought marriage would cure us, hide us, those who were found out and shamed, those waiting for the right moment to explain, who decided to leave and never return, who lovingly released each other from vows, who can’t because of the kids, who did, whose kids love them still.

I wear this rainbow for those of us who don’t believe in marriage, who say I do without a paper, who are serial monogamists, who are single, slut, virgin, celibate, masturbator, bisexual, asexual, pansexual, widowed, divorced, polyamourous, in open relationships, who are friends with benefits, friendzoned, unfriended, it’s complicated, it’s over but I don’t know how to end it, happy ending seekers, happy loners, the lovers, the dreamers and me.

I wear this rainbow for those of us who are coloured, migrant, indigenous, asylum seeking, homeless, sex working, begging, aging, living on minimum wage, living on welfare, living with HIV, forgotten and invisible, not sexy enough to be put on posters, make our own posters anyway.

I wear this rainbow for those of us who are transgender, transsexual, post-op, pre-op, partial-op, non-op, won’t operate for religious reasons, cannot afford surgeries, put life savings into surgeries, couldn’t wait to transition, waited till 65, who are drag queens, cross-dressers, fetishists, androgynous, genderqueer, who are intersex and knows which gender he or she is, intersex and hope we get a chance to decide who we want to be, intersex and happy to be just intersex, who cannot hide our rainbow even when they come at us with rainbow-breaking weapons.

I wear this rainbow for those of us who are bullied at school, kicked out from homes, left to fend for ourselves, sold into trade we were too young to understand, blackmailed by colleagues, by flings, by friends, by ex-lovers, who are harassed by police, by immigration officers, by bosses, and have no one to turn to, who are fired from work, dishonourably discharged, forced to resign, forced to flee from everything, who go west, go east, go north, go south, who sees other people’s rainbow and wonder where is ours, who sees the rainbows and say, one day it will be ours.

I wear this rainbow for those of us in reparative therapy, in mental treatments for our sexual orientation and gender identity, in mental treatment for our mental treatments, in repentance, in penance, in meditation, in prayers, praying away the gay, praying away the doubts, in limbo, in hell, in heaven now because we couldn’t take it anymore.

I wear this rainbow for those of us in prison, in court, on the witness stand, on parole, in hard labour, in gulags, in concentration camps, in exile, on death row, thrown at with rocks, thrown over towers, thrown overboard, hung, shot, crucified, raped, poisoned, castrated, had objects forced up our orifices, cigarettes, pointed sticks, bayonets, who were instructed to commit suicide, who died from honour killing at the hands of family, who were beheaded, beaten beyond recognition, left to die, nobody knows who we are.

I wear this rainbow for those of us who hide, who pretend, who pass, who bind, who wants to just be like everyone else, who are in closets, who believe we should be respectfully private, who believe we should not be too loud, who are tired of being private, who can’t help being loud, who tell others our lovers are just best friends, but everyone knows we are more than friends anyway, who have to leave our best friends when our family finds out, who are out to close friends only, out to friends but not family, out to family but not colleagues, out to everyone but none of your fucking business, back in the closet when travelling among strangers.

I wear this rainbow for those of us who have gone before, who had a chance to escape but faced the risk, who were convicted, who were chemically castrated, outcast from work, outcast from politics, lost reputations, whose books were burned, who were made outlaws, who survived, who did not, whose books are now bestsellers, whose plays are on our stages again, whose stories are our histories, the sunlight shining through their lonely tears giving us our rainbows today.

I wear this rainbow for those of us questioning, fighting, giving up, still protesting, sitting in, heckling presidents, filing judicial reviews, losing, fighting again, winning, changing laws, watching laws change back, studying, critiquing, writing, making music, making movies, making speeches, making allies, baking cakes, organising, rallying, going to the streets, going for rallies, fighting for marriage, fighting for more than marriage, fighting for basic rights, fighting for equality for all, clicking likes, writing status updates, changing profile pictures to rainbow.

I wear this rainbow for those of us who are afraid to change our profile pictures to rainbow, who feel pressured to do it because everyone else is doing it, refuse to, disagree with those who do, unfriend those who disagree, who put on the rainbow not sure what it means, who do it because it is pretty, who put on the rainbow as a way to come out, who put on the rainbow as an ally, who put on the rainbow and say we are an ally when we actually want to come out, but it will do for now.

I wear this rainbow for those of us who love, who are afraid to love, who are broken by love, who love secretly, who love proudly, who love rainbows, who love those who love rainbows, who love without rainbows, whose love shines a rainbow where we are, where rainbows fear to tread, where only the rainbow knows who we are. We are part of the rainbow. We are the rainbow.

Pang Khee Teik is the co-founder of Seksualiti Merdeka.

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/i-wear-the-rainbow-for-those-of-us-who-dont-believe-in-marriage-are-single-polyamorous-in-open-relationships/

Link to post
Share on other sites
That asexual guy

For us singles. Opinion piece from India on the US Supreme Court marriage equality ruling and what it means to be single in a paired-up world. Includes people who identify as asexual.

What does it mean to be single?

The US Supreme Court judgment of June 26 which recognized same sex marriage, thinks singleness is an abject state, condemning the unmarried "to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilisation's oldest institutions." Marriage alone can save the single from sadness and indignity.
Those silent couples in restaurants, with the air tight and heavy around them, as if straining to remember what togetherness is like, might find the idea that marriage ends loneliness ironic, while agreeing it protects you from some difficulties of being alone. If anything, they may say it's the smartphone, which always lights up at their touch, that has ended their loneliness, allowing them to be solitary in companionable, separate cell phone silence.
Certain magazines think single means a life free of responsibility and obligations, a serialised saga of art-directed sex, shopping and cocktails. Since the magazines tend to be divided by gender, theirs a gender divide lurking in their pages. No single woman over 30 could possibly have chosen to be so, and they provide unctuous advice on how to end the curse. Single men, though, are seen as choosing freedom, evading the marriage trap with valour and flair like James Bond.
Some people are unwillingly single - they haven't found anyone with whom they can be married. Of these, some are unhappy, craving and hurting; while some are philosophical, and take life as it comes.
Some people are single because they were once coupled up. Now divorced or widowed, they feel they have sampled one state of life and are interested now in sampling another.
Some people are single in behaviour. They seem untethered to another soul or joint life someplace. They will never mention a partner and discovering they are married will be a matter of consternation.
A variation of this is people who say they are single, though involved in numerous relationships, committed or otherwise. Perhaps theirs is a journey of delicate, nuanced self-definition or of exercising control through perpetually open options - only their heart truly knows this.
Some people are single by nature. They exist instead in a full-time, turbulent relationship with a personal quest or seeking - perhaps artistic, perhaps spiritual - where intimate partners figure intermittently and intimate relationships also exist in myriad intense hues, rainbow or otherwise, sexual or not. Some people aren't legally married, but they aren't single, seeing themselves as attached to one or more someones.
Though the Indian obsession with all things matrimonial is famous, it's also true that while growing up, many among us had single uncles or aunties - part of our family by blood or that moonh-bola relationship of the heart common in India. They were an unquestionable part of family occasions and daily life. In India, singleness has often been a viable emotional choice - if not always an easy social one - precisely because of these extra-family relationships.
Some single people identify as heterosexual, others gay, bisexual, asexual or simply queer. Unlike what common cliches or the US judgment imply, singleness is not a fixed, unitary state, but exists, like gender and sexuality, across a spectrum.
By that understanding, singleness is often a natural state of existence within loving, expansive ideas of family and community. Only a fixed idea of coupledom seeks a fixed idea of singleness. This rigid coupledom in which two people become a single unit somehow dislodges both the idea of the individual and the community. It could start to make you think that two might be the new lonely number if we don't watch out.

http://www.bangaloremirror.com/columns/others/Finding-Indian-Love-No-single-meaning/articleshow/47913409.cms

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of sounding egotistical or narcissistic my photo is on buzzfeed top 18 funny, fabululous and interesting photos from London Pride

www.buzzfeed.com/jamiejones/fabulous-and-inspirational-signs-from-london-pride-2015#.bfKlADzDB

and the comment "Thank you for #17! It’s great to see asexual representation too! :D" is awesome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...