![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Home (Queer Soup)
Jan. 15th, 2006 02:25 amI went to the staged reading of this last summer, so I was interested to see how the full play version ended up.
( Read more... )
( Read more... )"Women my age are more likely to say 'I adore' or 'I value' my women friends,' not girl crush," she said.
I feel like that's not necessarily because of residual worries about homo-whateverness but rather because it's bloody well more accurate -- plus it feels less like teenager language.
Using "crush" for anything non-sexual worries me. Insert lengthy discussion of sexualization-on-LJ here. (I'm all about intentionality, consistency, and honesty. You can *hug* and *cuddle* me, and you can lust after my squishy brain, and depending on who you are *smooches* might be interpreted appropriately nonsexually, but if you're gonna *grope* you better mean it. There's also the fact that i have enough difficulty reading signals in meatspace; stripped of so many additional clues in textual format i'm really gonna be grasping for honesty.)
Edit: Since it was an article from today's edition, i thought even the non-registered could read it. Am posting the full article under cut here:
I feel like that's not necessarily because of residual worries about homo-whateverness but rather because it's bloody well more accurate -- plus it feels less like teenager language.
Using "crush" for anything non-sexual worries me. Insert lengthy discussion of sexualization-on-LJ here. (I'm all about intentionality, consistency, and honesty. You can *hug* and *cuddle* me, and you can lust after my squishy brain, and depending on who you are *smooches* might be interpreted appropriately nonsexually, but if you're gonna *grope* you better mean it. There's also the fact that i have enough difficulty reading signals in meatspace; stripped of so many additional clues in textual format i'm really gonna be grasping for honesty.)
Edit: Since it was an article from today's edition, i thought even the non-registered could read it. Am posting the full article under cut here:
The New York Times
August 11, 2005
She's So Cool, So Smart, So Beautiful: Must Be a Girl Crush
By STEPHANIE ROSENBLOOM
big dirty queer
Jul. 8th, 2005 12:35 am
[I went to the MIT Museum today and yeah, sometimes i really heart MIT.]
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
eard_stapa posted the full text of "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited" (Benedict Carey, NYTimes, 5 July 2005) and much interesting discussion ensued [locked, but linked for my own reference]. It is problematic like whoa to define sexual orientation by arousal reaction to porn.Ann Althouse’s brief commentary reminded me that i had missed one of the sentences in the article when i read it:
"Although about a third of the men in each group showed no significant arousal watching the movies, their lack of response did not change the overall findings, Mr. Rieger said."
Shouldn’t that piece of data indicate that perhaps your findings are flawed, though? Le sigh.
eard_stapa later posted a poll, which idea i am blatantly stealing from her.[Poll #528104]
My mom sent me a link to this survey.
Excerpt from the invitation e-mail:
My name is Dan Dengel and as part of my dissertation
research as a doctoral candidate with the Counseling
Psychology Department at Temple University I would
like to invite you to participate in a survey. This
is an Internet survey regarding your thoughts,
feelings, and behaviors with regards to bisexuality
and bisexual individuals.
Eligibility for participation in this study includes
those individuals who are 18 years of age and older,
do not identify as transgendered, and have never been
hospitalized for psychiatric reasons.
The measures should take approximately 5-10 minutes to
complete. You will be asked to complete demographic
information, and a survey on bisexuality.
catching up on ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
metafandom, the rest of it
Jul. 8th, 2005 12:32 amkaiz uses the analogy of a newsfeed to talk about how we use our flists.( and now the fannish stuff )Additional tidbit from
viciouswishes :)The vibrator was invented in 1869 by a doctor seeking to cure 'female disorders,' including hysteria. Hysteria was believed to be caused by the uterus freely roaming around the body causing inexplicable emotional outbursts. Doctors would bring their patients to orgasm and note the calm and relaxed nature the women exhibited afterward.
(no subject)
Jun. 15th, 2004 10:22 amThis Sunday was the anniversary of United’s InJoy campaign. Pastor Bill’s sermon was on vision for the future. (United’s big on the proselytizing thing now. Pastor Bill said that some people say “The two things I don’t talk about are politics and religion,” but that this isn’t religion this is a relationship with Jesus blah blah blah. My reaction was that of course you’re talking about religion; lots of people feel they have a relationship with Jesus but you would claim they are doing it all wrong.)
We also had communion. (We didn’t last Sunday due to its being Children’s Sunday.) Communion isn’t something that’s particularly meaningful to me because while in theory i think it’s a powerful ritual, in practice it feels like something everyone does by rote. (I do appreciate the litany at First Churches, about how this is for those for whom the ritual is familiar and those for whom it is strange, etc. etc. and if you don’t want to take communion, please pass it between your neighbors so that you can still participate in the community.) I took communion at the Anglican services i went to in Oxford largely just to see what it was like, and if communion were ever introduced with spoken restrictions i didn’t feel i fit i wouldn’t take it. But mostly i just take it.
This Sunday, though, i just couldn’t do it. It wouldn’t feel right. This is not my community. It hasn’t been for years, of course. I have difficulty letting go, since everything has redeeming qualities, and especially with my grandmother still going i don’t foresee my mother and i cutting off all ties anytime soon, but it really isn’t my community and any pretense that it is seems less and less honest as time goes by.
who says i like right angles? these are not mywalls laws. these are not my rules.
John P. was one of the ushers and i kinda wanted him to be serving my side communion, so he could see that i didn’t take it, so he would ask me about it. It’s not that i particularly wanted to argue or to hear about how really they are on the true path. I just... everyone assumes that if you’re there then you belong there and you’re happy there, and i’m sick of being assumed to be something i’m not, and okay there is a little bit of wanting to argue, to at least say, “You think i am a good and valuable person, but i really think you’re wrong, and certainly this is wrong for me.” Isn’t that what i do all the time - say “you think i’m one of you, but i’m not - doesn’t that give you pause about what additional Others might be like?” But yeah, definitely a big part of it is that i’m sick of feeling like i’m living a lie (the assumption of the people of United that i’m on board with all that United is doing now, all that United is now).
My mother and i are thinking the Congregational Church for next Sunday, Father’s Day.
Conversation with my mother about my going through all my boxes of crap.
“A box a day and you’d be done in a month. And you could feel so proud.”
“Pride goeth before destruction.”
“Okay, you can be destroyed, but I’d have more floorspace, and less crap.”
George Carlin aims to offend everyone, huh? And there’s only so much angry i can take, in any context. I’m sometimes amused while/despite problematizing what he’s saying, though. And of course sometimes i agree.
He said if someone has a loved one who is comatose and that loved one is a homosexual, you can comfort them saying: “He used to be a fruit, now he’s a vegetable. At least he’s still in the produce section.”
After that he talked about how people get in trouble for using “bad words,” “bad language,” and how words in and of themselves are neutral; it’s all about the context. He said it’s not the word “nigger” you should be worried about but rather the racist asshole using it. He said we’re scared of these “bad words” because they point to unpleasant truth -- “the truth that there’s a bigot in every living room on every street corner in the country.”
Railing against euphemistic language he said he’s waiting for a rape victim to be called “an unwilling sperm recipient.”
Watched “The Best of Both Worlds” Parts 1&2, the supposed best cliffhanger ever and its supposedly shoddy conclusion (TNG eps 3.26 and 4.01). I’m not sure i’d say it’s the best cliffhanger ever, though i admit i have little to compare it with, but i for one was quite pleased with how the writers managed the conclusion.
Went to Perks withhedy on Monday. Thursday night we were figuring out what we wanted to do, and she said it was difficult since she was dealing with SheWhoSpendsNoMoney (i.e., me). I said the idea that one needs to spend money in order to hang out has always struck me as odd. After Perks we went to the library. I’m horrible at recommending books to people because there’s so little i actually like. I came home with a stack of books i’d been meaning to read, though.
We also had communion. (We didn’t last Sunday due to its being Children’s Sunday.) Communion isn’t something that’s particularly meaningful to me because while in theory i think it’s a powerful ritual, in practice it feels like something everyone does by rote. (I do appreciate the litany at First Churches, about how this is for those for whom the ritual is familiar and those for whom it is strange, etc. etc. and if you don’t want to take communion, please pass it between your neighbors so that you can still participate in the community.) I took communion at the Anglican services i went to in Oxford largely just to see what it was like, and if communion were ever introduced with spoken restrictions i didn’t feel i fit i wouldn’t take it. But mostly i just take it.
This Sunday, though, i just couldn’t do it. It wouldn’t feel right. This is not my community. It hasn’t been for years, of course. I have difficulty letting go, since everything has redeeming qualities, and especially with my grandmother still going i don’t foresee my mother and i cutting off all ties anytime soon, but it really isn’t my community and any pretense that it is seems less and less honest as time goes by.
who says i like right angles? these are not my
John P. was one of the ushers and i kinda wanted him to be serving my side communion, so he could see that i didn’t take it, so he would ask me about it. It’s not that i particularly wanted to argue or to hear about how really they are on the true path. I just... everyone assumes that if you’re there then you belong there and you’re happy there, and i’m sick of being assumed to be something i’m not, and okay there is a little bit of wanting to argue, to at least say, “You think i am a good and valuable person, but i really think you’re wrong, and certainly this is wrong for me.” Isn’t that what i do all the time - say “you think i’m one of you, but i’m not - doesn’t that give you pause about what additional Others might be like?” But yeah, definitely a big part of it is that i’m sick of feeling like i’m living a lie (the assumption of the people of United that i’m on board with all that United is doing now, all that United is now).
Why is the possibility of "passing" so insistently viewed as a great privilege ... and not understood as a terrible degradation and denial?Marilyn wants her tins back. Granted, she has a right to some residual bitterness since they fired her daughter for bogus reasons. She’s also not a fan of the anti-gay sentiment, which my mother was pleasantly surprised by, and of course she has lots of spotty history with the people who now run what used to be our church. But my mom was kinda thinking, “You’re griping about how you want your tins back? Can’t we grow up and let go?” In contrast, she thought my refusal to take communion was a sad painful powerful statement. It’s funny; i wasn’t even really thinking of it like that at the time, i just knew that it wasn’t right for me to take communion in that place at that moment. I literally couldn’t stomach it.
-Evelyn Torton Beck, Nice Jewish Girls
My mother and i are thinking the Congregational Church for next Sunday, Father’s Day.
Conversation with my mother about my going through all my boxes of crap.
“A box a day and you’d be done in a month. And you could feel so proud.”
“Pride goeth before destruction.”
“Okay, you can be destroyed, but I’d have more floorspace, and less crap.”
George Carlin aims to offend everyone, huh? And there’s only so much angry i can take, in any context. I’m sometimes amused while/despite problematizing what he’s saying, though. And of course sometimes i agree.
He said if someone has a loved one who is comatose and that loved one is a homosexual, you can comfort them saying: “He used to be a fruit, now he’s a vegetable. At least he’s still in the produce section.”
After that he talked about how people get in trouble for using “bad words,” “bad language,” and how words in and of themselves are neutral; it’s all about the context. He said it’s not the word “nigger” you should be worried about but rather the racist asshole using it. He said we’re scared of these “bad words” because they point to unpleasant truth -- “the truth that there’s a bigot in every living room on every street corner in the country.”
Railing against euphemistic language he said he’s waiting for a rape victim to be called “an unwilling sperm recipient.”
Watched “The Best of Both Worlds” Parts 1&2, the supposed best cliffhanger ever and its supposedly shoddy conclusion (TNG eps 3.26 and 4.01). I’m not sure i’d say it’s the best cliffhanger ever, though i admit i have little to compare it with, but i for one was quite pleased with how the writers managed the conclusion.
Went to Perks with
hedy on Monday. Thursday night we were figuring out what we wanted to do, and she said it was difficult since she was dealing with SheWhoSpendsNoMoney (i.e., me). I said the idea that one needs to spend money in order to hang out has always struck me as odd. After Perks we went to the library. I’m horrible at recommending books to people because there’s so little i actually like. I came home with a stack of books i’d been meaning to read, though.Am i turning responsible or something?
Jul. 28th, 2003 09:23 pmSo, my Black Britain paper was finished Sunday night, partly because Sulgrave Manor was this afternoon. Kara, who did not partake of the Manor trip but who has the same class schedule i do (11am class tomorrow, followed directly by the Black Britain class) started her paper around 7pm tonight. Though some people do really well under pressure (i am so not one of those people) and it's not necessarily a good thing per se that i need to start working on an essay days in advance for it to be any good (though knowing how i operate at Smith, beginning essays days in advance is a really good habit for me to get into).
Sulgrave Manor was okay. Has a Colonial Williamsburg thing going on. One of George Washington's ancestors built it. Ironically (given who George Washington turned out to be) he fled to America because during the English Civil War he was on the Royalist side (which lost). So there's this whole George Washington exhibit section, which is odd because he never actually lived there. In one of the exhibits we pressed a button and a History Channel piece came on and one of the guys said, "This is how we learn in America" as we all laughed and sat down.
Saw a big brown Welcome to Northampton: Rose of the Shires on the way there, which i didn't get a picture of as it came up too fast. Boo. Lots of pictures from this trip are gonna be in my head alone.
Oh, forgot to mention that i saw Bend it Like Beckham Friday night. Was good, though not as good as it was hyped up to be. A movie called BEND it Like Beckham should contain more queerness, but i squeed sufficiently. Jess's character development was believeable( here begins the spoilery part of the reaction )
Have been writing heaps of bad smut, but a conversation with Sharon prompted this [an Angel/Sandman crossover drabble], which is not smut, and may or may not be any good.
Interesting post (and comments) on the stigma of male bisexuality. Knowing so few males i'm in no position to comment. One of the commenters brought up the stigma of female masturbators, which i definitely thinks a lengthy treatment by someone at some point because i've found that there's definitely a stigma there, that most women either won't admit to doing it or don't do it at all (i find the latter hard to believe, but them i always have to remind myself that i live in some sort of parallel universe as far as most everything is concerned).
Writing fic recently i was thinking about much i'm influenced by what i read, how things like self-injury or destructive sex become themes because of who/what i surround myself with. I was also thinking about how i've been reading LJ discusions about the logistics/realism of (sexually explicit) slash and how i've also soaked that up like a sponge and how that's added to the realism/complexity of my fic, how it becomes more about relationships and not just about any two [insert gender or genders of your choice here] fucking. (I'm thinking particularly of this post and ensuing comment discussion.)
Yes, this is my journal wherein i am obviously becoming okay with posting things that are not fully thought out like essays and which only loosely fit together.
Sulgrave Manor was okay. Has a Colonial Williamsburg thing going on. One of George Washington's ancestors built it. Ironically (given who George Washington turned out to be) he fled to America because during the English Civil War he was on the Royalist side (which lost). So there's this whole George Washington exhibit section, which is odd because he never actually lived there. In one of the exhibits we pressed a button and a History Channel piece came on and one of the guys said, "This is how we learn in America" as we all laughed and sat down.
Saw a big brown Welcome to Northampton: Rose of the Shires on the way there, which i didn't get a picture of as it came up too fast. Boo. Lots of pictures from this trip are gonna be in my head alone.
Oh, forgot to mention that i saw Bend it Like Beckham Friday night. Was good, though not as good as it was hyped up to be. A movie called BEND it Like Beckham should contain more queerness, but i squeed sufficiently. Jess's character development was believeable
( here begins the spoilery part of the reaction )Have been writing heaps of bad smut, but a conversation with Sharon prompted this [an Angel/Sandman crossover drabble], which is not smut, and may or may not be any good.
Interesting post (and comments) on the stigma of male bisexuality. Knowing so few males i'm in no position to comment. One of the commenters brought up the stigma of female masturbators, which i definitely thinks a lengthy treatment by someone at some point because i've found that there's definitely a stigma there, that most women either won't admit to doing it or don't do it at all (i find the latter hard to believe, but them i always have to remind myself that i live in some sort of parallel universe as far as most everything is concerned).
Writing fic recently i was thinking about much i'm influenced by what i read, how things like self-injury or destructive sex become themes because of who/what i surround myself with. I was also thinking about how i've been reading LJ discusions about the logistics/realism of (sexually explicit) slash and how i've also soaked that up like a sponge and how that's added to the realism/complexity of my fic, how it becomes more about relationships and not just about any two [insert gender or genders of your choice here] fucking. (I'm thinking particularly of this post and ensuing comment discussion.)
Yes, this is my journal wherein i am obviously becoming okay with posting things that are not fully thought out like essays and which only loosely fit together.
"i am a whole and complex person, and part of that person is queer as the day is long. because of that, as long as i can't say who i really am, you can't really know me."
Word, sister.
A friend of mine recently came out to me as bi (and i felt really special, because i was only i think the 2nd person she had come out to), and she said she wasn't looking forward to coming out to a lot of her friends because have made clear that being gay or lesbian is fine, but that bisexuality made them uncomfortable. I'm so used to either being in queer-friendly places or in combatting heteronormativity that i forget about biphobia (which exists on both sides). I think it (bisexuality) upsets people's neat categories and that disturbs them (much in the same way that trans stuff upsets people, messing with the gender binary and all). We both have faith that her friends will come around, and her parents will definitely be accepting (which is always a blessing -- love and hugs to my parentals, btw, as i haven't said that recently), it's just frustrating.
One of things Mandy and i talked about that long night was sex and how one defines it. She said that for her, she has to make a verbal commitment beforehand, saying "I am defining this action, with this person, as sex," and that actions other than those usually defined (even within the queer community) as "sex" can be included in that, that the focus is more on the partner and the decision. I think that's an interesting and potentially useful way of defining it, but it doesn't work for me. I'm not sure what does work for me, though. I think that gay sex has really upset the traditional definitions. I mean, i'm comfortable with the idea of penetration-as-sex (except in non-consensual situations, where Mandy's definition takes on appeal for me, where one can say that someone forced sexual activity on you and you have been violated and you have been raped but you compartmentalize it outside of the consensual sexual activities you have participated in) but what about oral-vaginal sex. If you go down on a woman, have you had sex? has she? Gay sex also upsets the idea of whether it really matters. Virginity has traditionally been an issue of bride-as-damaged-goods, and retains even in liberal societies the idea of wanting to maintain purity etc. When you bring gay sex into it, you have to question just what all that means. The major issue used to be one of property, of husbands wanting to be sure that all the fruit of their wife's loins was theirs by blood. Without that factor, what is the issue? Is sex an intimate shared experience you want to save for your life partner? I can absolutely understand and respect that and in fact feel similarly myself. Mandy has got me thinking about that, though, because one can certainly have physical intimacy outside of "sex." Is kissing something you want to save for your life partner? We can perhaps put kissing and "sex" on opposite sides of the life-partner-line, but it gets blurry in between.
[edit: I knew there were related things from that conversation i was forgetting. Thankfully i had jotted them down since i knew i wanted to LJ about them at some point.]
One of the things she said was that it's not important how far you've gone with how many people but whether the physical interactions you've had have been significant.
WORD.
I've also been thinking for a while about the fact that i have fulfilling friendships, which i think is more important than physical intimacy with one single person (though physical affection is important to me).
Okay, sleepy girl should go to bed now.
[/edit]
There was an ad (i think for Bombay Dreams though i really wasn't at all sure) i saw a lot last time i was in London whose focus was the quote "Love like you've never been hurt before." I've seen this in the context of the full quote before and never thought much of it (The "Dance like no one's watching." bit really appealed to me much more.) but seeing it on its own it started to really trouble me. I get what it means, but it's troubling because it's important to learn from relationships, particularly the ones in which you've been hurt. I mean, you shouldn't let a heartbreak prevent you from ever allowing someone else into your heart, but it's also important to not repeat mistakes like getting into relationships with people who are abusive or emotionally unavailable or whatever.
Word, sister.
A friend of mine recently came out to me as bi (and i felt really special, because i was only i think the 2nd person she had come out to), and she said she wasn't looking forward to coming out to a lot of her friends because have made clear that being gay or lesbian is fine, but that bisexuality made them uncomfortable. I'm so used to either being in queer-friendly places or in combatting heteronormativity that i forget about biphobia (which exists on both sides). I think it (bisexuality) upsets people's neat categories and that disturbs them (much in the same way that trans stuff upsets people, messing with the gender binary and all). We both have faith that her friends will come around, and her parents will definitely be accepting (which is always a blessing -- love and hugs to my parentals, btw, as i haven't said that recently), it's just frustrating.
One of things Mandy and i talked about that long night was sex and how one defines it. She said that for her, she has to make a verbal commitment beforehand, saying "I am defining this action, with this person, as sex," and that actions other than those usually defined (even within the queer community) as "sex" can be included in that, that the focus is more on the partner and the decision. I think that's an interesting and potentially useful way of defining it, but it doesn't work for me. I'm not sure what does work for me, though. I think that gay sex has really upset the traditional definitions. I mean, i'm comfortable with the idea of penetration-as-sex (except in non-consensual situations, where Mandy's definition takes on appeal for me, where one can say that someone forced sexual activity on you and you have been violated and you have been raped but you compartmentalize it outside of the consensual sexual activities you have participated in) but what about oral-vaginal sex. If you go down on a woman, have you had sex? has she? Gay sex also upsets the idea of whether it really matters. Virginity has traditionally been an issue of bride-as-damaged-goods, and retains even in liberal societies the idea of wanting to maintain purity etc. When you bring gay sex into it, you have to question just what all that means. The major issue used to be one of property, of husbands wanting to be sure that all the fruit of their wife's loins was theirs by blood. Without that factor, what is the issue? Is sex an intimate shared experience you want to save for your life partner? I can absolutely understand and respect that and in fact feel similarly myself. Mandy has got me thinking about that, though, because one can certainly have physical intimacy outside of "sex." Is kissing something you want to save for your life partner? We can perhaps put kissing and "sex" on opposite sides of the life-partner-line, but it gets blurry in between.
[edit: I knew there were related things from that conversation i was forgetting. Thankfully i had jotted them down since i knew i wanted to LJ about them at some point.]
One of the things she said was that it's not important how far you've gone with how many people but whether the physical interactions you've had have been significant.
WORD.
I've also been thinking for a while about the fact that i have fulfilling friendships, which i think is more important than physical intimacy with one single person (though physical affection is important to me).
Okay, sleepy girl should go to bed now.
[/edit]
There was an ad (i think for Bombay Dreams though i really wasn't at all sure) i saw a lot last time i was in London whose focus was the quote "Love like you've never been hurt before." I've seen this in the context of the full quote before and never thought much of it (The "Dance like no one's watching." bit really appealed to me much more.) but seeing it on its own it started to really trouble me. I get what it means, but it's troubling because it's important to learn from relationships, particularly the ones in which you've been hurt. I mean, you shouldn't let a heartbreak prevent you from ever allowing someone else into your heart, but it's also important to not repeat mistakes like getting into relationships with people who are abusive or emotionally unavailable or whatever.
Sometimes i wonder if i think too much.
May. 25th, 2003 05:37 pmThe problem with songs is that the politics behind them almost have to be simplified to make sure the song has punch.
-Mary
I read Jeanette Winterson’s Sexing the Cherry and Written on the Body because Joe recommended them. Winterson does interesting things with fluidity of time and identity and possibility, interesting uses of sex and history, and i didn’t hate the four books of hers that my town library has and which i read a year or two ago, but i found her overrated. Written on the Body has lots of thoughts on love (and loyalty/commitment and body) that i was tempted to copy down, but i’ve grown weary of the ideas that long-term commitments are necessarily dull and life as a string of love affairs and it being all about sex and the only love that can last forever is when the parties are necessarily separated; it strikes me as adolescent. I want to read the paper Joe wrote for school on Winterson and love in those two books. The end of Sexing the Cherry introduces this eco-warrior, and maybe i’m just burned out on the Left, but it felt gratuitous, tacked on, and too black-and-white. [As a sidenote, an earlier character discusses grafting, which i see as a precursor to “genetic engineering,” and that would be an interesting discussion to have in a nonfiction forum. Continuing on this tangent, this is an interesting article.]
I just finished reading Bi Any Other Name: Bisexual People Speak Out. I thought about giving it to a friend, but it frustrates me that so many of the stories in it are women’s stories and he is, well, not. I understand that lesbianism was a major part of second-wave feminism so there are a lot of narratives of women who came to a bisexual identity through lesbianism/feminism and the problems they had/have, and i’m not complaining about the fact that i’m a generation removed from these women so my world is little reflected in their stories, but there are 47 women’s stories and 19 men’s stories (and 2 gender-ambiguous persons). The fact that both editors of this book are women i’m sure contributed to that.
However, in that book, there’s a question in an interview (Marcy Steiner’s interview with Arlene Krantz): Do you think bisexuality is part of a ceratin personality — are there other things about you that kind of fit in? Like being ambivalent, not in a negative sense, but being open to different possibilities? I don’t think bisexuals are necessarily any more open-minded than anyone else, but i thought it was interesting that for all my interest in consistency and connectedness, seeing how different parts of myself relate to and inform other parts of myself, i hadn’t thought to connect my identifying as queer with my insistence on complexity and multiple viewpoints and all. (Sidenote: Judith Butler says that gender is something we do, not something we are, and that explains why i so often think of myself as nongendered, or rather just don’t think of myself as a gendered individual -- and why [among other reasons] the genderlog, that first Intro WST assignment, was so difficult for me -- because i don’t perform gender much, and we live in a time when what i do isn’t seen as genderqueering but merely as participating in an expansion of what it means to be woman.)
I like this book better (though for the same reasons as the previous book it feels like it’s mostly FTMs and their female partners), but one of the introductory essays reminds me why i dislike postmodernism (though this book says a lot of interesting things that make a lot of sense to me, and if i ever get a handle on this postmodernism thing there’s gonna be a post about it): the idea that there is no single Truth, that there are only the truths of lived experience. This works sometimes, but a lot of times i find it very troubling, and i'm too tired to go into it at length, but like i said, one of these days there'll be a post about post-modernism.
What i remember most about Les Feinberg’s Trans Liberation is her “Universal free health care is a good goal, just look at Cuba.”( no, really )
Neil Gaiman:
-Mary
I read Jeanette Winterson’s Sexing the Cherry and Written on the Body because Joe recommended them. Winterson does interesting things with fluidity of time and identity and possibility, interesting uses of sex and history, and i didn’t hate the four books of hers that my town library has and which i read a year or two ago, but i found her overrated. Written on the Body has lots of thoughts on love (and loyalty/commitment and body) that i was tempted to copy down, but i’ve grown weary of the ideas that long-term commitments are necessarily dull and life as a string of love affairs and it being all about sex and the only love that can last forever is when the parties are necessarily separated; it strikes me as adolescent. I want to read the paper Joe wrote for school on Winterson and love in those two books. The end of Sexing the Cherry introduces this eco-warrior, and maybe i’m just burned out on the Left, but it felt gratuitous, tacked on, and too black-and-white. [As a sidenote, an earlier character discusses grafting, which i see as a precursor to “genetic engineering,” and that would be an interesting discussion to have in a nonfiction forum. Continuing on this tangent, this is an interesting article.]
I just finished reading Bi Any Other Name: Bisexual People Speak Out. I thought about giving it to a friend, but it frustrates me that so many of the stories in it are women’s stories and he is, well, not. I understand that lesbianism was a major part of second-wave feminism so there are a lot of narratives of women who came to a bisexual identity through lesbianism/feminism and the problems they had/have, and i’m not complaining about the fact that i’m a generation removed from these women so my world is little reflected in their stories, but there are 47 women’s stories and 19 men’s stories (and 2 gender-ambiguous persons). The fact that both editors of this book are women i’m sure contributed to that.
However, in that book, there’s a question in an interview (Marcy Steiner’s interview with Arlene Krantz): Do you think bisexuality is part of a ceratin personality — are there other things about you that kind of fit in? Like being ambivalent, not in a negative sense, but being open to different possibilities? I don’t think bisexuals are necessarily any more open-minded than anyone else, but i thought it was interesting that for all my interest in consistency and connectedness, seeing how different parts of myself relate to and inform other parts of myself, i hadn’t thought to connect my identifying as queer with my insistence on complexity and multiple viewpoints and all. (Sidenote: Judith Butler says that gender is something we do, not something we are, and that explains why i so often think of myself as nongendered, or rather just don’t think of myself as a gendered individual -- and why [among other reasons] the genderlog, that first Intro WST assignment, was so difficult for me -- because i don’t perform gender much, and we live in a time when what i do isn’t seen as genderqueering but merely as participating in an expansion of what it means to be woman.)
I like this book better (though for the same reasons as the previous book it feels like it’s mostly FTMs and their female partners), but one of the introductory essays reminds me why i dislike postmodernism (though this book says a lot of interesting things that make a lot of sense to me, and if i ever get a handle on this postmodernism thing there’s gonna be a post about it): the idea that there is no single Truth, that there are only the truths of lived experience. This works sometimes, but a lot of times i find it very troubling, and i'm too tired to go into it at length, but like i said, one of these days there'll be a post about post-modernism.
What i remember most about Les Feinberg’s Trans Liberation is her “Universal free health care is a good goal, just look at Cuba.”
( no, really )Neil Gaiman:
Meanwhile, I read this article on the train to Lille today and was fascinated by the idea of US intelligence operatives being "forced to listen to the Barney 'I love You' song," something that probably ought to be specifically outlawed by the Geneva Convention. Later in the article, though, we learn that "it's a myth that being tortured is effective. The best way to win someone over is to treat them kindly," which makes me wonder if the forced playing of the Barney "I Love You" song is having deep, insidious and unconsidered effects on US intelligence agents.So, i saw this post:
The bad idea that never dies: Seems like every Democratic primary season someone comes back to this one: mandatory community service. The characterization of the problem(s) to which this policy is supposed to be the solution shift around from time to time-- indeed, they've been shifting ever since William James first came up with this shockingly illiberal idea. (Any idea that is born in an explicit attempt to marry militarism to socialism really ought to be regarded with some skepticism.) Sometimes it's rhetorically joined to civic republicanism, with which it really does share some affinities (and so much the worse for civic republicanism), sometimes to Tocquevillean civil society volunteerism, with which it doesn't. Sometimes the emphasis is on all the problems that could be solved with an army of conscripted teenagers; more often it's on the improvements such conscription will make to the character of the teenagers. Ever since I was a teenager myself, listening to endless primary campaign speeches in New Hampshire in the 80s, this notion has outraged me. On lots of topics my teenage outrage has turned into more moderated and nuanced positions; not this one, which still seems to me a basic signalling device as to whether someone thinks individuals belong to the state or vice-versa.I think it's because i'm still in college, so i'm used to community service being required for most every application, but when i first read it i thought he meant that the Powers-That-Be keep trying to make a community service requirement for presidential candidates.
The culprits this year, for those who don't follow the link, are Kerry and Edwards.
Worked on Wednesday. I came in with Anna Hargreaves, this older woman whom i don't know but who knows me because i work at the library and seems quite fond of me and talks to me every time she sees me. Then Joe Gallant (who, for those who don't know, is a bit off) came in and was talking to me. He was wearing sunglasses and said that yes there was a bit of sun out and i probably wish i had a pair of prescription sunglasses or just a large pair i could put over my regular glasses but i probably have a boyfriend (he has said all this to me before, and i still wince inside at the hetero assumptions) who could buy me a pair so i could look even more gorgeous than i already am. (What is up with older guys thinking i'm hot shit?) Then Lillian Eagles, whom i know because we both volunteered at the Norwood Food Pantry, checked some books out and asked about my grandma (who had broken both her shoulders about 8weeks ago and is now in rehab). Then Valerie Dwyer (family friend) came in to get some books for Dee and we talked a bit. Then Ana Puzey, whom i know from church, was in with her kids and took out lots of stuff and we chatted. After she left Kelly said i was like the mayor of the library; everyone knows me. "Comes with being a townie," i said sheepishly. She said everyone comes in and says things like, "Oh, it must be summer; Elizabeth's back at the library."
I worked 1-9 and then went to see Diane at Puddingstone, leaving around 11:20.
My dad had A Few Good Men out for the night, cued up to the "You can't handle the truth" part so i could see that. I decided to watch the whole thing. Yeah, nevermind that i had to be at work at 9 in the morning. It was surprisingly good. I actually cried at the end. What is up?
Went to visit my grandma for nearly 2 or 3 hours today. We talked about various things, including Olive's funeral. Lots of people were upset because Marilyn Cote listed herself as Olive's "longtime friend" in the obituary, even though she had only known Olive for about 10 years and lots of people had known Olive for 30, 60 years. My grandma told this to Linnea, a former minister of ours who couldn't make it to the service, and Linnea laughed because "longtime friend" is often the phrase used by lesbian or gay couples. I hadn't realized that (and i'm sure Marilyn hadn't either) and had to laugh.
After work i hung out for about an hour and a half. One of the things i did was to read today's Norwood Bulletin (one of the local papers, which comes out every Thursday). Page 4 and i got so angry.
Letters to the Editor
Gay display a disgrace
To the Editor:
It is a shame and a disgrace that the Norwood Board of Selectmen have allowed a 'Gay Pride' display to be placed on the Town Common. Only Gary Lee made any inquiry as to the display and his inquiry was weak at best. God calls homosexuals (sodomites) an abomination! It is an evil and wicked perversion! The Roman Catholic church is facing a major disaster specifically because she has allowed this perversion to exist within her ranks. In the name of 'diversity' our children are corrupted, family morals belittled and honest God fearing people attacked. Where are the churches in Norwood that will speak out against this perversion? Will no one in Norwood stand up against this perversion?
Edward J. Campisano
Alden Street
Dedham
(The letter writer was born and raised in Norwood, went to school in Norwood, enlisted in the Marines and Navy in Norwood, goes to church in Norwood, and works in Norwood.)
There are just so many things wrong with that letter.
I walked all around the Town Common and saw nothing, so i assume it's something which will be going up in the future. Given that this is Norwood, i am both impressed that this is happening (the display) and sure that it will be something fairly inoffensive. I want to contact the Board of Selectmen to find out what the display is going to be.
Okay, here is where i type up my attempt so far at a response Letter to the Editor.
Whether Christianity disapproves of homosexuality or not should have no bearing on whether a Gay Pride display is allowed on town property. We had a lot of discussion regarding the separation of church and town during the long debate about allowing the creches to remain on town property.
I will argue with anyone from parishioner to pope that the Bible does not in fact condemn homosexuality, but that is not the issue here.
To bring in the Catholic Church scandal is foolish. Do we condemn heterosexuality because some men molest little girls? No. We condemn child molestation. The people this display affirms are not child molesters. They are good and upstanding citizens just like yourself who just happen to find emotional and sexual fulfilment with partners of the same sex.
[My queer self of course winces at the end of that because of course gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people run the gamut from Republican to anarchist, from polyamorous to celibate, etc. I'm also a bit disturbed at the idea of "Gay Pride," which excludes not only transgendered persons but even bisexuals. I need to look into this more. I also need to polish this letter because it sucks. I have to drag myself out of bed fairly early again tomorrow, though, and although i was mostly okay today i did have a headache for much of the day, so as Aly says, "niters."]
I worked 1-9 and then went to see Diane at Puddingstone, leaving around 11:20.
My dad had A Few Good Men out for the night, cued up to the "You can't handle the truth" part so i could see that. I decided to watch the whole thing. Yeah, nevermind that i had to be at work at 9 in the morning. It was surprisingly good. I actually cried at the end. What is up?
Went to visit my grandma for nearly 2 or 3 hours today. We talked about various things, including Olive's funeral. Lots of people were upset because Marilyn Cote listed herself as Olive's "longtime friend" in the obituary, even though she had only known Olive for about 10 years and lots of people had known Olive for 30, 60 years. My grandma told this to Linnea, a former minister of ours who couldn't make it to the service, and Linnea laughed because "longtime friend" is often the phrase used by lesbian or gay couples. I hadn't realized that (and i'm sure Marilyn hadn't either) and had to laugh.
After work i hung out for about an hour and a half. One of the things i did was to read today's Norwood Bulletin (one of the local papers, which comes out every Thursday). Page 4 and i got so angry.
Letters to the Editor
Gay display a disgrace
To the Editor:
It is a shame and a disgrace that the Norwood Board of Selectmen have allowed a 'Gay Pride' display to be placed on the Town Common. Only Gary Lee made any inquiry as to the display and his inquiry was weak at best. God calls homosexuals (sodomites) an abomination! It is an evil and wicked perversion! The Roman Catholic church is facing a major disaster specifically because she has allowed this perversion to exist within her ranks. In the name of 'diversity' our children are corrupted, family morals belittled and honest God fearing people attacked. Where are the churches in Norwood that will speak out against this perversion? Will no one in Norwood stand up against this perversion?
Alden Street
Dedham
(The letter writer was born and raised in Norwood, went to school in Norwood, enlisted in the Marines and Navy in Norwood, goes to church in Norwood, and works in Norwood.)
There are just so many things wrong with that letter.
I walked all around the Town Common and saw nothing, so i assume it's something which will be going up in the future. Given that this is Norwood, i am both impressed that this is happening (the display) and sure that it will be something fairly inoffensive. I want to contact the Board of Selectmen to find out what the display is going to be.
Okay, here is where i type up my attempt so far at a response Letter to the Editor.
Whether Christianity disapproves of homosexuality or not should have no bearing on whether a Gay Pride display is allowed on town property. We had a lot of discussion regarding the separation of church and town during the long debate about allowing the creches to remain on town property.
I will argue with anyone from parishioner to pope that the Bible does not in fact condemn homosexuality, but that is not the issue here.
To bring in the Catholic Church scandal is foolish. Do we condemn heterosexuality because some men molest little girls? No. We condemn child molestation. The people this display affirms are not child molesters. They are good and upstanding citizens just like yourself who just happen to find emotional and sexual fulfilment with partners of the same sex.
[My queer self of course winces at the end of that because of course gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people run the gamut from Republican to anarchist, from polyamorous to celibate, etc. I'm also a bit disturbed at the idea of "Gay Pride," which excludes not only transgendered persons but even bisexuals. I need to look into this more. I also need to polish this letter because it sucks. I have to drag myself out of bed fairly early again tomorrow, though, and although i was mostly okay today i did have a headache for much of the day, so as Aly says, "niters."]
more on expectations, and connections
Apr. 7th, 2002 04:04 pm1) In 4 to 5 typewritten, double spaced pages in font no smaller than this, write a paper that examines what the concept "queer" is understood to be by at least three of our speakers. Some of the questions you might examine are: How has each employed a specifically queer criticism to enlighten their topic? What element(s) of their lecture/topic have been advanced by a specifically queer critique? What does a queer critique allow the speaker/author to do that would not have been possible by other methods or approaches?
Finally, what is the goal of a queer critique as you understand it? In other words, how do you understand "queer"? Which of the speakers you have heard comes closest to articulating your vision of what a queer critique should be?
Um, this is only Introduction to Queer Studies. Because of this class, i’m developing a summer reading list so i can learn more about queer theory and why it doesn’t work for me, but for now i don’t really know what it is. (And of course part of the problem is that part of the essence of “queer” is defying categorization.) (This is also interesting.)
Layna’s friends Becky and Kim are visiting this weekend. I hung out with them for a while yesterday. Becky was talking about life after Smith and mentioned something I have already noticed since I go home frequently. At Smith, she was considered very much center, but in the mainstream, without having actually changed her politics at all, she’s seen as very left. She audited the 2-credit version of Queer Studies, and felt like she totally didn’t belong there, like if she ever actually said what she really though about anything, she’d be lynched. (“But we are just like everybody else.”) I totally understood, and i’m in the 4-credit version, which includes a discussion section, so it’s worse. Generally i don’t say anything because everyone in the class knows so much more than i do and i’m totally out of my league, but also because i’m so not “queer.” I embraced Lauren Martin’s definition of it, because it really fit my sexual identity, but the more i learn about the politics, the less they fit for me.
A friend of a friend wrote a great post on how things are referred to as being just a phase as if that were a bad thing, as if that makes them less valid. Just because something may change later doesn’t make it any less valid for now.
James is Catholic. Unbeknownst to him, forty years from now, he will marry a Jewish woman and convert. Therefore, he's not truly Catholic.
That’s one reason why i embraced Lauren Martin’s definition of “queer,” because it allows for fluidity and change. None of the categories work for me right now, anyway. Let’s see, mostly asexual, recent crushes have been on males, totally into slash fanfic... yeah, “queer” works quite well.
A friend of mine is totally fulfilling the stereotype of gay men having “like 800 boyfriends a year” (his words). This bothers me, but at the same time there’s something to be said for Nicole’s method of just enjoying dating instead of getting all intense and forever-y. Partly i’m just amused that in New Hampshire he can find a bajillion boyfriends and here at Smith i haven’t found any women i want to date. I said i’m all high standard-y, like i don’t wanna date someone i couldn’t see myself marrying down the road, and he made a joke about most lesbian relationships being based on renting a U-Haul. It took me a few minutes to get it because i’m at Smith where Nicole jokes that “monogamy” (and “heterosexual”) doesn’t exist. I think that’s what bothered me most about the conversation. Different attitudes toward dating, fine, but this blatant buying into stereotypes, especially from someone who’s otherwise very cool and activist and race/sex/class aware.
Buffy: I mean, look at me obsessing about being with someone. It's like... I don't need a guy right now. I need me. I need to get comfortable being alone with Buffy.
Xander: Well, I'll say this, she's a pretty cool person to be alone with.
-from “I Was Made to Love You” (BtVS 5.15)
Not really related, my dad e-mailed this to me with the subject line “Silly, but entertaining.” And it is quite entertaining. I particularly like the bits on Baked Alaska and on food that “passes.”
Sheesh, this could have been titled “the queer post” or something. I hadn’t actually meant for everything to connect quite so much. I’ll have to rant about something else next time.
Finally, what is the goal of a queer critique as you understand it? In other words, how do you understand "queer"? Which of the speakers you have heard comes closest to articulating your vision of what a queer critique should be?
Um, this is only Introduction to Queer Studies. Because of this class, i’m developing a summer reading list so i can learn more about queer theory and why it doesn’t work for me, but for now i don’t really know what it is. (And of course part of the problem is that part of the essence of “queer” is defying categorization.) (This is also interesting.)
Layna’s friends Becky and Kim are visiting this weekend. I hung out with them for a while yesterday. Becky was talking about life after Smith and mentioned something I have already noticed since I go home frequently. At Smith, she was considered very much center, but in the mainstream, without having actually changed her politics at all, she’s seen as very left. She audited the 2-credit version of Queer Studies, and felt like she totally didn’t belong there, like if she ever actually said what she really though about anything, she’d be lynched. (“But we are just like everybody else.”) I totally understood, and i’m in the 4-credit version, which includes a discussion section, so it’s worse. Generally i don’t say anything because everyone in the class knows so much more than i do and i’m totally out of my league, but also because i’m so not “queer.” I embraced Lauren Martin’s definition of it, because it really fit my sexual identity, but the more i learn about the politics, the less they fit for me.
A friend of a friend wrote a great post on how things are referred to as being just a phase as if that were a bad thing, as if that makes them less valid. Just because something may change later doesn’t make it any less valid for now.
James is Catholic. Unbeknownst to him, forty years from now, he will marry a Jewish woman and convert. Therefore, he's not truly Catholic.
That’s one reason why i embraced Lauren Martin’s definition of “queer,” because it allows for fluidity and change. None of the categories work for me right now, anyway. Let’s see, mostly asexual, recent crushes have been on males, totally into slash fanfic... yeah, “queer” works quite well.
A friend of mine is totally fulfilling the stereotype of gay men having “like 800 boyfriends a year” (his words). This bothers me, but at the same time there’s something to be said for Nicole’s method of just enjoying dating instead of getting all intense and forever-y. Partly i’m just amused that in New Hampshire he can find a bajillion boyfriends and here at Smith i haven’t found any women i want to date. I said i’m all high standard-y, like i don’t wanna date someone i couldn’t see myself marrying down the road, and he made a joke about most lesbian relationships being based on renting a U-Haul. It took me a few minutes to get it because i’m at Smith where Nicole jokes that “monogamy” (and “heterosexual”) doesn’t exist. I think that’s what bothered me most about the conversation. Different attitudes toward dating, fine, but this blatant buying into stereotypes, especially from someone who’s otherwise very cool and activist and race/sex/class aware.
Buffy: I mean, look at me obsessing about being with someone. It's like... I don't need a guy right now. I need me. I need to get comfortable being alone with Buffy.
Xander: Well, I'll say this, she's a pretty cool person to be alone with.
-from “I Was Made to Love You” (BtVS 5.15)
Not really related, my dad e-mailed this to me with the subject line “Silly, but entertaining.” And it is quite entertaining. I particularly like the bits on Baked Alaska and on food that “passes.”
Sheesh, this could have been titled “the queer post” or something. I hadn’t actually meant for everything to connect quite so much. I’ll have to rant about something else next time.
o happy day
Apr. 4th, 2002 11:10 pmThe lovely Allison got me a livejournal on Monday, so now i’m finally posting. (Results of online quiz binges will still be here.)
My parents sent me an Easter basket - yay for wonderful parental units! And my mom’s so cool; she always sends me neat clippings. This time a Boston Magazine article on creative writing at MIT, which was very interesting, and an article in O about the difficulties of intimacy by Amy Bloom (whom my mom knows i love). And an advertising clipping -- “Not all the good ones are gay or taken. Some are both.” and then in smaller lettering: “You are as committed as any two people could be. Now that you’ve found each other, celebrate your partnership with a dazzling symbol from Shreve’s Commitment Ring Collection. Whether it be a commitment ceremony or other significant occasion, Shreve’s has a style perfect for your exchange of rings.” Yes, i know it’s what one should expect (advertisers want to have everyone buy their stuff) but it still makes me happy to see non-heterosexual relationships recognized as being totally on par with heterosexual relationships.
After reading the stuff my mom sent, i had 2 simultaneous thoughts. One, the two people i’m in most regular contact with from high school are non-heterosexual guys, and two, Yumi’s article in external text 6. It’s called “queer kids and kinship” and in it she talks about how most of the people she was friends with in high school have since come out. Of course the three people i consider my really good friends from college (Yes, this includes you, Sharon, even though you don’t go to my college.) are heterosexual, but i just thought it was interesting.
“For the past few years I have just considered myself queer. To me, queer merely means I don’t fit into the dominant heterosexual paradigm. It means I can be attracted to girls, boys, both, or no one. It’s a large, fluid category that goes beyond hetero/homo/bi/asexual.”
-from “The Mixed-Race Queer Girl Manifesto” by Lauren Martin in Quantify #1
In my English Language class we’re currently discussing the actual production of books, and our handouts on printing included something irrelevant just because my professor loves it -- the passage from the so-called “Wicked Bible” (printed in 1631 by Robert Barker). Exodus 20:14 (the 7th of the 10 Commandments) reads “Though shalt commit adultery.” I had just finished reading Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett yesterday. In it, “Aziraphale (An angel, and part-time rare book dealer)” has “a complete set of the Infamous Bibles, individually named from errors in typesetting.” When i first read it i thought it was made up, though i wondered if perhaps there was some truth to it since i got the feeling that these writers were very factually accurate. I recognized the Wicked Bible as being one of the ones mentioned. I told this to Doug and highly recommended the book, so he’s going to borrow my copy. Huzzah for the sharing of the good.
I did a little online research tonight and actually found two essentially identically websites (1 & 2) which explain the hundreds of references contained in the book -- many more references than i had known there were (though i got a few, and being not British my ignorance of most is quite excusable). Turns out actually all the “Infamous Bibles” (except the “Charing Cross Bible” and the “Buggre Alle This Bible”) are real. This makes me very happy.
And of course, a belated room draw post. I didn’t have a roommate picked, so i was feeling very “just give me a room, preferably on the 2nd floor, and a roommate i can mesh okay with; i don’t care.” But then i picked the second lowest (read: second-best) number in my class. So i have a single next year. Wow. It’ll be a bit weird since it’s one of the smaller singles and i’m currently in one of the larger doubles, but i don’t really care. I don’t need a whole lot of space.
And it seems like lots of other people are having good days, too, so yay for that.
My parents sent me an Easter basket - yay for wonderful parental units! And my mom’s so cool; she always sends me neat clippings. This time a Boston Magazine article on creative writing at MIT, which was very interesting, and an article in O about the difficulties of intimacy by Amy Bloom (whom my mom knows i love). And an advertising clipping -- “Not all the good ones are gay or taken. Some are both.” and then in smaller lettering: “You are as committed as any two people could be. Now that you’ve found each other, celebrate your partnership with a dazzling symbol from Shreve’s Commitment Ring Collection. Whether it be a commitment ceremony or other significant occasion, Shreve’s has a style perfect for your exchange of rings.” Yes, i know it’s what one should expect (advertisers want to have everyone buy their stuff) but it still makes me happy to see non-heterosexual relationships recognized as being totally on par with heterosexual relationships.
After reading the stuff my mom sent, i had 2 simultaneous thoughts. One, the two people i’m in most regular contact with from high school are non-heterosexual guys, and two, Yumi’s article in external text 6. It’s called “queer kids and kinship” and in it she talks about how most of the people she was friends with in high school have since come out. Of course the three people i consider my really good friends from college (Yes, this includes you, Sharon, even though you don’t go to my college.) are heterosexual, but i just thought it was interesting.
“For the past few years I have just considered myself queer. To me, queer merely means I don’t fit into the dominant heterosexual paradigm. It means I can be attracted to girls, boys, both, or no one. It’s a large, fluid category that goes beyond hetero/homo/bi/asexual.”
-from “The Mixed-Race Queer Girl Manifesto” by Lauren Martin in Quantify #1
In my English Language class we’re currently discussing the actual production of books, and our handouts on printing included something irrelevant just because my professor loves it -- the passage from the so-called “Wicked Bible” (printed in 1631 by Robert Barker). Exodus 20:14 (the 7th of the 10 Commandments) reads “Though shalt commit adultery.” I had just finished reading Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett yesterday. In it, “Aziraphale (An angel, and part-time rare book dealer)” has “a complete set of the Infamous Bibles, individually named from errors in typesetting.” When i first read it i thought it was made up, though i wondered if perhaps there was some truth to it since i got the feeling that these writers were very factually accurate. I recognized the Wicked Bible as being one of the ones mentioned. I told this to Doug and highly recommended the book, so he’s going to borrow my copy. Huzzah for the sharing of the good.
I did a little online research tonight and actually found two essentially identically websites (1 & 2) which explain the hundreds of references contained in the book -- many more references than i had known there were (though i got a few, and being not British my ignorance of most is quite excusable). Turns out actually all the “Infamous Bibles” (except the “Charing Cross Bible” and the “Buggre Alle This Bible”) are real. This makes me very happy.
And of course, a belated room draw post. I didn’t have a roommate picked, so i was feeling very “just give me a room, preferably on the 2nd floor, and a roommate i can mesh okay with; i don’t care.” But then i picked the second lowest (read: second-best) number in my class. So i have a single next year. Wow. It’ll be a bit weird since it’s one of the smaller singles and i’m currently in one of the larger doubles, but i don’t really care. I don’t need a whole lot of space.
And it seems like lots of other people are having good days, too, so yay for that.