What does everyone think about tonight's episode of Bones? I don't want to give anything away. It is LGBT related.I haven't watched the series in years. Did Bones finally come out?
She's married to Booth now.
It's been two days so I think it's ok to talk about the part I wanted. Just in case:
As usual, they dug through the victim's life to find out who had a beef with him. As the dug around they found out that he was a drag queen. At first they thought that this was why someone killed him. I was hoping they wouldn't go down that road. His wife was heart broken, not because he cross dressed but because he didn't trust her with his secret. Turns out that he was killed for other reasons. His cross dressing/drag queen performances were just a part of his life. They added flavor to the character without being the cliche reason why he would have been killed. I have always wanted to see something like that on TV.
Thoughts?
Digital Products Assistant
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
She's married to Booth now.What does everyone think about tonight's episode of Bones? I don't want to give anything away. It is LGBT related.I haven't watched the series in years. Did Bones finally come out?
Really? Dang. That woman's so deep in the closet, she's about the find Narnia.
** spoiler omitted **
Thoughts?
Bones has always been pretty good about being... "respectful" really isn't the right word. More good about not playing to tropes. While any of the CSI brood would just acknowledge that the trans woman or cross dresser was killed for exactly that reason and focus on how they solve the whodunit, Bones at least throws a lot of twists into the motivations.
They had an episode with a trans woman in the second season, and while it wasn't great, it was a significantly better portrayal than I usually expect from crime shows.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? Dang. That woman's so deep in the closet, she's about the find Narnia.She's married to Booth now.What does everyone think about tonight's episode of Bones? I don't want to give anything away. It is LGBT related.I haven't watched the series in years. Did Bones finally come out?
Cant...stop. .laughing....
I gave up on Bones somewhere during Season 4. It got way too formulaic, and I stopped caring about the characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bones has always been pretty good about being... "respectful" really isn't the right word. More good about not playing to tropes. While any of the CSI brood would just acknowledge that the trans woman or cross dresser was killed for exactly that reason and focus on how they solve the whodunit, Bones at least throws a lot of twists into the motivations.
They had an episode with a trans woman in the second season, and while it wasn't great, it was a significantly better portrayal than I usually expect from crime shows.
In... Mentalist, I think, there was an episode about young man being killed in an alley behind a bar where a number of drag queens (presented in sympathetic way) performed.
As far as I can recall there was no actually revealed if the "victim" was homosexual who discovered being drag queen to be his calling, or transgendered in process of discovering own gender- and sexual- identity.
|
The link is to a Kickstarter for a documentary about the phenomenon of "sounding gay". It is a subject that I suspect every gay or bi man (and probably more than a few straight men) has probably encountered at some point. It seems to get little in the way of attention.
I find the subject fascinating. And, of course, it raises the basic question of why so many men (gay, straight, or in-between) sometimes go out of their way to "sound less gay."
As a gay man who has been out to everybody in my life for the last 12+ years, I wouldn't have thought of myself as having much in the way of internalized homophobia at this point, but I will confess that I have at times wondered whether I "sound too gay". What is up with that?
I find the subject fascinating. And, of course, it raises the basic question of why so many men (gay, straight, or in-between) sometimes go out of their way to "sound less gay."
I done on multiple occasions (very very bad) impersonation of absolutely cliche sounding stereotypical gay. With gestures and mannerism (also cliche stereotypical and probably very badly). In my defense I can only say that it made women laugh. I regret it not and may do it in the future.
As a heterosexual black man who is often unfailingly polite with strangers as a result of my job (all of em), I have been told that I present as gay to some. There was a very strong correlation between the people thinking this, alcohol content, time of day/night, and location.
I remember being asked by a school colleague if I am gay. I think that I was asked if I am gay once or twice more.
Ha one of the times I was at the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, to support my uncles and I was hit on a few times (I was flattered aside from my wife that was the only time somebody tried to pick me up) and I was trying to work out why as it had never happened before, then my wife pointed out that I was wearing boots, knee length denim shorts a tight white tshirt and a black vest and a goatee, which is what the Bears were wearing that year. In my defence denim shorts were in - in the 90's.
Growing up in the country there was a lot of pressure to be as manly as possible. If you weren't playing rugby or doing something life threateningly stupid you were soft and effeminate. You were lead to believe that women didn't like wimps, and it was reinforced by the "cool girls" when they decided to break you psychology because you liked to read at lunch time instead of running around like an idiot on the football field playing smash the guy holding the ball. Don't get me wrong I did enjoy smashing people holding the ball but LotR was better.
I wouldn't say that I act entirely "gay", but I've never been very "masculine" either. Most folks have never had a hard time assuming/guessing that I was queer, though most just assume that I'm gay and never entertain the bi option, despite being with a woman for the last 9 years :P
I used to be ashamed of my mannerisms and voice because I was mocked for it by my parents, my coworkers, my schoolmates, etc, but in the last year or two I've really stopped caring what everyone else thinks. I'm not "out" to most folks in real life because it's not really anyone's concern, but I don't try to hide it anymore, either - it got far too exhausting over the years.
There was a video in this week's Slate column, "Ask A Homo:"
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There was a video in this week's Slate column, "Ask A Homo:"
Interesting.
I'm in an LGBTQS chorus with a wide range of folks of ages, backgrounds, etc. and my anecdotal observation is the younger gay men more often speak what I call "fabulous" while the older ones sound, for lack of a better phrase, "neutral." But the older ones would have been realizing their sexuality at a time where it was even harder to be out, so. And age isn't the only indicator. (The first man I ever encountered who spoke "fabulous" was my high school art teacher--a man in his 40s or 50s, in the early 90s, in a hick school where it was surely dangerous to be out.)
Thoughts?
Interesting stuff. I definitely agree one of the main issues is--as many articles have recently stated (there was one on the Mary Sue and I think on GeekMom not long ago)--the tendency to shrug and say, "Oh, well that's just the Internet." What that behavior actually IS is implied, tacit approval of bullying and harrassment. Frankly, anyone I come across who says, "Well, that's just the Internet you have to put up with it or stay away..." or something along those lines, I mark as a person who is just as much a detriment to the community as the person doing the active trolling. When you don't speak out for the guy in the line of fire, you are an accessory to getting him shot. Maybe it's because you don't want to brave the line of fire yourself, and that's perhaps understandable, but even so, it's cowardice and it's still enabling others to be horrible people.
Putting it another way... the Wired article the above article links to mentions people waving off Internet abuse as "harmless locker room behavior." Last I checked, most people victims of locker room pranks end up deeply emotionally scarred by them. The people who call it "harmless" are the perpetrators and the sheep too cowardly to stop it. There is no such thing as harmless bullying. Being mean and then calling it teasing is just lies on top of cruelty.
A at the same time, to encourage people to speak out against harassment and bullying, creating a safe space to do so helps tremendously.
The article's discussion of a tribunal system is interesting. It may be effective--and I think what it DOES do is it makes people feel safe to speak up. The process is an aid to empower those who would speak out against trolling.
The question I ask is--but is the right message getting through? (And is it possible to send that message?)
I remember a discussion here on these very boards where someone complained about the flagging system as a means for, from his point of view, the community to gang up on and silence the people who disagreed with him. Others felt the same way. I am absolutely certain, based on circumstances, that at least 99% of the incidents recalled were people being hateful and being flagged and having their posts deleted because they were being jerks. But they could not see, "Gee, the community really doesn't like the way I word things, maybe I should review how I communicate and try to assert my opinions in a more kind and civil tone of voice." To them, everyone was ganging up on them and silencing them, and all they could think was, "This is unfair, everyone is against me, the problem is THEM not ME."
I know there was a couple cases where someone said, "Look, I'm gonna flag this guy's posts as he's saying awful things, and I encourage everyone else to," and that added to the sense of being ganged up upon.
In short, there is a big issue that the people most guilty of committing persecution have the worst persecution complexes. Doubtless, indeed, they feel powerless somehow in their lives and thus act out, and when they are called out on their bad behavior, they feel even more powerless. This is not to say I feel sorry for people like that--hell, personally, there is a dark part of me that thinks anyone who harasses and bullies deserves to personally experience every imagined punishment they threaten upon other people. Seriously, they can literally "go die in a fire," for all I care--get them out of the gene pool. But the kinder and more analytical part of myself notes they have a massive lack of self-awareness that allows them to realize, "Gee, maybe if I changed my behaviors, people would listen to me." Instead of think, "Nobody listens to me, so I must yell and scream. THEN I'll earn their respect!" The more compassionate part of me says, answer to the pain they're feeling and then they won't inflict pain upon others.
So the solution can't just be booting them out or putting them on trial, as it were. It must also involve communicating to them in a way that helps them build that self awareness, as well as empathy (you are not talking curses into a computer, you are talking to live human beings with feelings just like yours). If that's possible--after all, a lot of these people's issues are things that aren't going to come up on the Internet; for them the Internet is where they vent their hostilities and don't imagine what they're doing is really hurting real people. But somewhere in the punishment and reward system there needs to be something that telegraphs clearly: this is about YOUR behavior; it is not always what you say but HOW you say it. If you feel ganged up on, now you know how you make everyone else feel.
The Internet is really the worst form of communication. It is accessible, but easily misinterpretable and encourages misinterpretation. We seldom "see" a whole person, just whatever part of themselves they represent here. In building real community on the Internet, the issue is getting that real humanity present and that is very hard.
Well and that was a lot of babble. I just want people to be nice to each other, g#& d~@mit!
Rule One of the messageboards: Don't be a jerk.
Heck, that should be Rule One of life!
pride weekend here in the LBC, always bananas
I wouldn't say that I act entirely "gay", but I've never been very "masculine" either. Most folks have never had a hard time assuming/guessing that I was queer, though most just assume that I'm gay and never entertain the bi option, despite being with a woman for the last 9 years :P
I used to be ashamed of my mannerisms and voice because I was mocked for it by my parents, my coworkers, my schoolmates, etc, but in the last year or two I've really stopped caring what everyone else thinks. I'm not "out" to most folks in real life because it's not really anyone's concern, but I don't try to hide it anymore, either - it got far too exhausting over the years.
If you were born a woman, you wouldn't be so under that much pressure to put up a front in terms of your mannerism.
Being born a man is not it all crack up to be, is it?
Patriarchy punishes those who do not play by the rules and those who do does so under a heavy price.
Stuff
In other news, Pride Month and Pride Day is upon us; anyone have any special plans to celebrate?
StuffBrosef.
Just making an observation.
What's with the snide response?
All human societies punish those who do not play by their rules. It is not a unique element of patriarchal, patrilineal, or anything else you want to classify a society as.Patriarchy punishes those who do not play by the rules and those who do does so under a heavy price.
Very true. But I get the impression that these 'rules' really benefit very few people (those on top with money and power) and are really designed to keep them in power and keep the rest of the "riff raff" in the bottom. They keep people deluded to think that they just might make it to the top when you know usually that will never happen.
pride weekend here in the LBC, always bananas
Pride week is not here in NYC until late June.
Planning to go see the parade....and see which politicians are showing up...but I don't think there will be that much this year as there are no elections. Got to see Hillary Clinton one year shortly before she became Secretary of State. Of course, some guy standing near me have to say: "She's so fat..."Everyone's a critic.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
George Takei is going to be Grand Marshal of Seattle's Pride Parade. :D
...We should really start thinking now about how to Trek-up our scooter for the Queer Folks on Scooters and Electric Bikes part of the parade (we follow the D%##s on Bikes).
George Takei is going to be Grand Marshal of Seattle's Pride Parade. :D
...We should really start thinking now about how to Trek-up our scooter for the Queer Folks on Scooters and Electric Bikes part of the parade (we follow the D*##s on Bikes).
Will Captain Horatio from the Starship Battle Queen be there also??? (guess where I got THAT reference from....)
StuffBrosef.Just making an observation.
What's with the snide response?
You didn't click the link.
;)
StuffBrosef.Just making an observation.
What's with the snide response?
You didn't click the link.
;)
Oh yeah I did.
Unless it is a song by Madonna, I have no incentive to listen to it.Which ironically, there is a song by Madonna by the name of Frozen.
I don't currently have any plans but I would love to go dressed up. This is probably the girliest thing I've ever said but, I don't have a thing to wear!
|
|
With Gen Con 2014 coming up, I was hoping to find some LGBT events, and so far coming up a little shy.
So I've found a few:
Queer as a Three Sided Die
Gaming in Color
Mercenary Pride (I hope this one is LGBT friendly at least...)
But I'm having a tough time finding anything else. I kinda struck out last year only to find out that there were events and I just didn't find them.
So... any others to know about?
In other news, Pride Month and Pride Day is upon us; anyone have any special plans to celebrate?
In my part of the world Pride tends to come a bit later, although I hear Toronto is supposed to be big this year. I’m really uncomfortable in crowds generally, though, so I’ve yet to attend Pride in my hometown, and Toronto is out of the question. There is a production of Lillian Hellman’s The Children’s Hour running in Montreal for the next few weeks, though, so I might try to get out to that, because I’m morbid and bookish enough to be intrigued.
On a note related to that last bit, I thought I’d share something I found about everyone’s favourite iconic vampire. It’s not gaming-related, but at least it has monsters in, and it warms my frozen heart to see that there are other people out there interested in the later Gothic revival.
In other news, Pride Month and Pride Day is upon us; anyone have any special plans to celebrate?In my part of the world Pride tends to come a bit later, although I hear Toronto is supposed to be big this year. I’m really uncomfortable in crowds generally, though, so I’ve yet to attend Pride in my hometown, and Toronto is out of the question. There is a production of Lillian Hellman’s The Children’s Hour running in Montreal for the next few weeks, though, so I might try to get out to that, because I’m morbid and bookish enough to be intrigued.
On a note related to that last bit, I thought I’d share something I found about everyone’s favourite iconic vampire. It’s not gaming-related, but at least it has monsters in, and it warms my frozen heart to see that there are other people out there interested in the later Gothic revival.
I'm a big fan of Le Fanu's works, but I'm an even BIGGER fan of Carmilla; I can't recommend that story enough. In general, I'm a sucker for found journal/found footage horror, but this story is much more than that, and many of the ideas put down there were picked up by Bram Stoker in his much more popular vampire tale.
And for those of you who may not like to read, there is an incredible audio version read by Elizabeth Klett available for free over at LibriVox. I feel like Klett really brought a new life to an old favorite for me.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saw this on Slate this morning: A beautiful passage from the Federal circut court opinion overturning the Pennsylvania ban on same-sex marriage:
The issue we resolve today is a divisive one. Some of our citizens are made deeply uncomfortable by the notion of same-sex marriage. However, that same-sex marriage causes discomfort in some does not make its prohibition constitutional. Nor can past tradition trump the bedrock constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. Were that not so, our would still be a racially segregated nation according to the now rightfully discarded doctrine of “separate but equal.” … In the sixty years since Brown [v. Board of Education] was decided, “separate” has thankfully faded into history, and only “equal” remains. Similarly, in future generations the label same-sex marriage will be abandoned, to be replaced simply by marriage.
Saw this on Slate this morning: A beautiful passage from the Federal circut court opinion overturning the Pennsylvania ban on same-sex marriage:
The issue we resolve today is a divisive one. Some of our citizens are made deeply uncomfortable by the notion of same-sex marriage. However, that same-sex marriage causes discomfort in some does not make its prohibition constitutional. Nor can past tradition trump the bedrock constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. Were that not so, our would still be a racially segregated nation according to the now rightfully discarded doctrine of “separate but equal.” … In the sixty years since Brown [v. Board of Education] was decided, “separate” has thankfully faded into history, and only “equal” remains. Similarly, in future generations the label same-sex marriage will be abandoned, to be replaced simply by marriage.Article here.
Just watch, they are going to argue over semantics. Now that they have to accept gay marriage, they are going to say that it shouldn't be called "marriage". As the term marriage was created to apply to a union between a man and a woman, thus a separate term has to be made for gay unions....thus no "marriage" license for you people! You have to get something else.
Ironic considering that marriage rates have hit an all time low...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saw this on Slate this morning: A beautiful passage from the Federal circut court opinion overturning the Pennsylvania ban on same-sex marriage:
The issue we resolve today is a divisive one. Some of our citizens are made deeply uncomfortable by the notion of same-sex marriage. However, that same-sex marriage causes discomfort in some does not make its prohibition constitutional. Nor can past tradition trump the bedrock constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. Were that not so, our would still be a racially segregated nation according to the now rightfully discarded doctrine of “separate but equal.” … In the sixty years since Brown [v. Board of Education] was decided, “separate” has thankfully faded into history, and only “equal” remains. Similarly, in future generations the label same-sex marriage will be abandoned, to be replaced simply by marriage.Article here.Just watch, they are going to argue over semantics. Now that they have to accept gay marriage, they are going to say that it shouldn't be called "marriage". As the term marriage was created to apply to a union between a man and a woman, thus a separate term has to be made for gay unions....thus no "marriage" license for you people! You have to get something else.
Ironic considering that marriage rates have hit an all time low...
They've already been trying that argument. They say that we're trying to redefine marriage. In a way we are. This is the widely accepted definition of marriage: "the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife." It's commonly used throughout the laws in America.
Definitions change over time. No one owns any particular definition. It's entirely within the power of people to change things to keep up with a changing world.
Whenever someone says that The Gays can just get civil unions, I ask them why don't they get civil unions? Why don't they fight for civil unions for everyone? It's because they know that civil unions are only a fraction of what legally being recognized as married brings. They are being disingenuous and they know it.
No, after such a judgement, there isn't much more to add. They have tried calling it "not marriage", but if the matter is settled in most of the nation in this way, it is going to be simple enough. When marriage becomes open to same-sex couples, that is what they are going to get. Others simply have to relate to it. The situation becomes even clearer once you realize that a marriage recognized by one state doesn't end because the married couple move to a state where they could not have had such a marriage. There is clear precedent for this, as I understand it, in that some states allow cousins to marry, while others do not - and still have to recognize such marriages.
What will happen is likely that it will reach the High Court, though.
I think it's awesome that you like my new avatar. I looked for something that matched my name. It looks like it's just rambling on.
No, after such a judgement, there isn't much more to add. They have tried calling it "not marriage", but if the matter is settled in most of the nation in this way, it is going to be simple enough. When marriage becomes open to same-sex couples, that is what they are going to get. Others simply have to relate to it. The situation becomes even clearer once you realize that a marriage recognized by one state doesn't end because the married couple move to a state where they could not have had such a marriage. There is clear precedent for this, as I understand it, in that some states allow cousins to marry, while others do not - and still have to recognize such marriages.
What will happen is likely that it will reach the High Court, though.
Do one state recognize polygamist marriage (as in the Mormon from Utah) from another state? If so, that would be used as a precedent of a state not recognizing a form of marriage and thus can be use to "nullify" gay marriages.
I think many judges, even conservative ones, are realizing the sudden societal shift toward acceptance of (or indifference toward) same-sex marriange. Nobody wants to be remembered as being on the wrong side of history.
The conservative judges are making their decisions based on the interpretation of the laws. Those who are fighting against it can't seem to bring any secular reasons as to why it would be detrimental to society. Without that, the only ruling that they can make is that same sex marriage is constitutional.
Polygamy is relatively easy to find secular arguments against. Marriage is not a declaration of love. It's about property and money (people make this decision based on love in many societies but it doesn't have to be). It's about who owns what. Polygamy makes that too complex to figure out.
My conservative friends who support same sex marriage and equal rights do so because of their conservative values (according to their own words). They don't want the government telling them what they can and can't do unless it's absolutely necessary. They don't want it to be required in churches but they do want those churches who want to offer it to be able to do so.
It's the far right wing religious fanatics who are fighting the hardest against it. Most conservatives I know are all for it. I'm not limiting myself to just locals either. I'm talking about from all walks of life across the nation. There are a few of my friends who are against it but most are for it.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, after such a judgement, there isn't much more to add. They have tried calling it "not marriage", but if the matter is settled in most of the nation in this way, it is going to be simple enough. When marriage becomes open to same-sex couples, that is what they are going to get. Others simply have to relate to it. The situation becomes even clearer once you realize that a marriage recognized by one state doesn't end because the married couple move to a state where they could not have had such a marriage. There is clear precedent for this, as I understand it, in that some states allow cousins to marry, while others do not - and still have to recognize such marriages.
What will happen is likely that it will reach the High Court, though.
Do one state recognize polygamist marriage (as in the Mormon from Utah) from another state? If so, that would be used as a precedent of a state not recognizing a form of marriage and thus can be use to "nullify" gay marriages.
No states recognize polygamist marriage. Even Utah. Banned a long time ago.
Doesn't matter. Even if it did, it would just be a legal challenge and popular opinion on this is changing like the wind. The deadenders will fight, but they're only going to be able to stall it in the courts to hold on to some of their past victories for awhile. Even that not for long.
As I understand it, when Utah was seriously wanting to be 'upgraded' to a state, the main obstacle was polygamy. So the Prophet (head of the Mormon church) prayed for guidance from The Lord, and as luck would have it God was just about to change his advice from polygamy to monogamy anyway. Talk about good timing!
It's the far right wing religious fanatics who are fighting the hardest against it. Most conservatives I know are all for it. I'm not limiting myself to just locals either. I'm talking about from all walks of life across the nation. There are a few of my friends who are against it but most are for it.
"The Right" is as fragmented and fractured as it comes, with at least in the US, the Republican party being this Frankenstein's monster'esque amalgam of social/religious conservatives and on the other side economic conservatives and libertarians that could care less what you do in bed so long as it's consensual.
A considerable chunk of the right wing in my experience is wholly on board with marriage equality, doubly so among younger voters who care about jobs and the economy and not about who you sleep with.
The country is changing with regards to marriage equality, and this is a good thing.
With a 30% opinion for same-sex marriage, it is just a question of time. Everyone knows it. Unless something serious is shown ("Research shows 90% of same-sex marriages suffer from domestic violence" or the like), the only way this number will change is upward. Look at it this way: The right has been fighting this tooth and nail for many years, and it still ended up this way. There is a threshold for acceptance in society, and beyond that, the phenomenon isn't possible to fight anymore. C.f. alcohol use and prohibition, for an example of similar opinion mechanics. Laws need at some point to reflect what the people actually think.