Hoarders and the Crisis in Capitalism

I really enjoy what some call "trash" tv. Some people upon hearing this look at me quite strangely. They wonder how someone with my education - I have a Ph.D. - could enjoy such pedantic, ridiculousness. I usually look back at them strangely, confused about how they could not enjoy trash tv. I imagine a part of such strange looks is the on-going struggles between "high" and "low" art where having a "higher" education than most of the world opens me up to understanding and appreciating "high" art and in doing so, leaving the vestiges of "low" art behind for the masses. Fortunately, I do not buy into the mystification that surrounds "high" art and therefore feel no need to posture like I get something most people cannot.

Now, don't get me wrong. I do enjoy what is called "high" art. I can watch foreign and independent films like any other and appreciate their differences from the "hollywood" cinema of today. I can even talk about them rather intelligently, much to the disdain of some of my friends who find such films mind-blowingly boring...which is usually the point. However, my heart lies with trashy tv and other forms of low art. There are perhaps two main reasons for this.

The first, I was raised in rural Iowa where there was not a lot of access to "high art". The closest thing we got to an independent or foreign film was Chocolat with Juliette Binoche, Dame Judi Dench, and Johnny Depp. Instead, I grew up on shows like Roseanne where I actually saw my own existence played out, except my parents were divorced and half of the family - my father's - are not working class. I more than often didn't get along with that side of the family and they more often than not pitied me for being from a "broken home". Broken as it may have been, it taught me the joys of trash. Perhaps, I realize later in life, it is trash that the masses have to embrace to illuminate alternatives to the capitalist American dream?

The second reason I enjoy trash is because of my most important idols is the Pope of Trash. I know, I know, I was raised Catholic and we are not meant to idolize, but I can't help it. At least I am idolizing someone with a nickname that include "pope"? Any way, John Waters is my idol for being the Pope of Trash, of showing me how to survive on the margins of respectibility or would it be the center of unrespectability? Either way, the Pope of Trash and his cinema have perverted my sensibilities to appreciate the innane, the perverse, the trashtatic revelry of queerness. Now, I might be able to sometime later be able to more carefully disintricate John Water's "trash" with contemporary corporate trash, but for now...I want to focus on one particular show that is often literally about trash, trash that has been hoarded, but in being hoarded illuminates the corporate trash that needs to be taken out.

Hoarders is that show that you really don't necessarily want to watch, but that you cannot turn off. I think for some such a show is watched to make one feel better about one's life. See honey, that is a real hoarder, I am not that bad. If anything, I am simply a fake hoarder. For others, such a show might be watched to reinforce stereotypes about various populations that are shown - often people from rural America. See honey rural American is filled with lazy people who do not know how to live a civilized life. And for others, not much thought is probably put into why such a show is watched, other than to pass the time. Some people's struggles are other people's entertainment.

I want to think about Hoarders in terms of how it exposes corporate hoarding. And this is what I think Hoarders is doing. Hoarders emerges at a time of incredible disparity between the rich and the poor - its first episode aired in August 2009 in the midst of the economic crisis. As a "documentary series" it focuses almost exclusively on the poor or middle class. Hoarding - or amassing a ton of "shit" - is pathologized as something that needs to be cured. Interventions are planned and the psychological problems of those hoarders are laid bare for all the viewing world to see. The vulnerabilities of an already vulnerable population are further exposed. Yet, such a move to focus attention on the plight of the poor grappling with daily survival takes away attention on the larger dare I say systemic issue of hoarding that has gotten the global economy in a tizzy.

You see, I think hoarding is ok if you are hoarding wealth. Well, I don't actually think hoarding wealth is ethical because of the ways it inhibits the possibility of inter-class relations. But, I do think we allow hoarding wealth because that is just a "part" of the capitalist system that goes unchecked. We might look to MTV Cribs for socially sanctioned hoarding, but even the celebrity culture of wealth usually pales in comparison to the wealthiest of the wealthy. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, hedge fund managers, Wall Street moguls, and corporate CEOs have spent years hoarding their wealth so much that the disparity between the rich and the poor is forever widening. See "Plutocracy Reborn" for a number of charts that nicely lays out the economic argument historically. And with the political scene in Washington such disparity seems more likely to be protected than challenged and (scary word) redistributed.

It seems to me then that when thinking about Hoarders we should focus less on what we see on the show, but on what the show is not showing us. There has been an explicit choice to focus on the hoarding of the common person and their "mental illness". And many an anti-psychiatric theorist from Eric Fromm to Michel Foucault have shown the use of mental illness diagnoses as a method to discipline the masses. And this seems to allow for those whose hoarding is not simply an "individual" problem as shown in the series BUT whose hoarding has had dramatic consequences for society to continue to hoard with no humiliation involved. We do not humiliate the wealthy who have for all intensive purposes wrecked the global economy. We do not create a show about their excessive lives filled with cars, houses, trips, clothes, and more. Well, I take that back, we do create shows about such things - think the Real Housewives series on Bravo and Logo's The A-List, but such shows focus on the frivolity of women or gay men. They reinforce the stereotypes of such populations allowing some to express anger at such extreme examples of wealth when many are struggling to pay bills. Yet, the Real Housewives of any city and the gay men of New York are not the problems although they are implicated. Those behind the scenes, those where such wealth has been hoarded to fund such projects are part of the elite that have hoarded and whose hoarding is inevitably a big piece of the problem. And the show Hoarding inevitably exposes this in its unconscious.

On Homophobic Jokes and Weiners

I was mildly disturbed recently when Tracy Morgan went on a comedic rant targeting the gays. The coverage of this rant, of course, did not call it a comedic rant but rather a “homophobic” one. And in doing so, a shit-storm emerged with many comedians and celebrities coming out to denounce his “offensive” jokes. Only a few came out in defense of Tracy and in doing so often became targets themselves of the backlash against homophobia. Roland Martin of CNN was the first I saw challenged for defending Tracy and once that happened I stopped paying attention.

I do not want to denounce Morgan’s “rant” nor necessarily defend it. Jokes are quite tricky – they sometimes work and sometimes fall flat on their face. I imagine Tracy would say these jokes fell and fell hard, despite him saying he is an equal opportunity jokester – no one or thing is off-limits. I appreciate such a sentiment mainly because I am a lover of inappropriate humor and trashy comments. What is interesting to me is the contradictions that emerge around jokes deemed particularly offensive versus rather hysterical. Morgan’s jokes did not seem to be anything out of the ordinary as far as jokes go about issues related to homosexuality. Joking about bullying – saying gays should stop being such pussies worried about “bullying” OR how he would kill his son if he were gay (the ultimate form of bullying) – is not statement meant to be taken literally. It’s a statement that is meant to be taken comedically to expose insecurities, contradictions, or to bring such an issue into the spotlight. The reality, if such a thing exists, is that many parents have an issue when a child “comes out” which is actually pretty funny once you think about it…NOT when someone is experiencing it. That is rather difficult and never enjoyable.

Bullying is a joke but the joke is not on those who bully or are bullied. There is nothing funny about individuals being violated, particularly it would seem when those being violated are not quite considered fully human but rather “children” in need of protection. The joke is rather on the inability and complexity of responses to bullying. Responding to bullying and bullies using the same logic does not actually disrupt bullying or challenge it. It simply maintains bullying but through the figure of the adult authority. Bullying becomes justified if those who are seen as or think themselves as being the moral compass are the ones doing it. This is itself shown in the responses to Morgan’s rant. Morgan becomes bullied by those who are “better” or “less hateful” than he is considered to be. This all in the hope that such bullying will stop Morgan’s hateful speech. Bullying by those in power becomes an issue of policing – policing the speech and the jokes that can be said and laughed at OR that become viewed as homophobic (or sexist, racist, xenophobic). There is no attempt to pay attention to what might be going on in uttering such jokes. Rather, there is an attempt to limit the ways such utterances can be understood.

This attempt to limit is perhaps one of the bases of bullying. Bullying seeks to limit some other from being recognized, from being a speaking subject, from being fully human. And bullying is a practice that goes back to the beginning. If we go with the Christian story of origin, God bullied Adam and Eve into not eating the apple (limiting their world view) and Eve fought back, eating the apple (breaking the limit) and bullying Adam into following her move (limiting his choice). It is perhaps these inaugural scenes of bullying and the responses to bullying that might allow one to argue that the human is constituted through this scene of bullying. And the issue central to this scene is knowledge. Who controls or has access to knowledge. God in all “God’s” glory decided that as creator he/she/ze would have access to knowledge setting up a system of inequality. God has knowledge, Human does not. Eve realized though that she was equal to God – a subject who could create and speak – and ate that which was forbidden to deconstruct this system of inequality. In order to maintain this equality she bullied Adam into joining her not allowing herself to have that which is forbidden and Adam remaining in the dar. And ever since this moment of wrestling for equality, the issue of equality related to knowledge has provoked millennia of fights.

Bullying then is comedic because it is one way we might see the human constituted as a subject. While we might wish we became a subject in a less “violent” way, we in fact become a subject through this wrestling, this bullying for something – God bullied for power, Eve bullied for equality. It would seem then that what Morgan’s joke exposes from my reading is that gays are in fact not pussies for confronting bullying, rather they are pussies who in struggling for equality (a contested term for sure) disrupt and make the social order much more complex that many can handle…unless allowed to handle it through the joke.

Speaking of jokes, there have been a lot of wiener jokes and puns in the news. I suppose I should say Weiner jokes since they are about a proper noun – namely Anthony Weiner – but they are also about Weiner’s wiener making spelling rather complicated because one really needs to know which wiener or Weiner one is writing about. The jokes are, it would seem, simultaneously about Weiner the person and his wiener making me realize that we cannot easily separate the person, usually represented by his mind from his body represented by his grey underwear clad wiener. I find this whole wiener-gate rather absurd which is great because the world is really just one absurdity after another. This is not to say that nothing matters, but that everything matters arbitrarily and thinking it absurd allows, at least me, to see things for what they are worth.

Yes, I am probably more astute than most and the world would be a better place if it followed my lead – a joke of course. But, if I was Wiener and sent a wiener picture, which I probably have in recent weeks to model myself off of yet another politician, I wouldn’t deny it. I would like Kanye West did own it and move on. Well, I wouldn’t totally move on, I would scour the blogs to see what people are saying about my picture – its artistic quality, etc. – and leave anonymous comments to sway people’s opinion in any particular direction. I believe in manipulation.

But, that’s beside the point. What Wiener-gate made me think about was not so much the new era of sexy-texting and the strange power dynamics (aren’t all power dynamics strange) that we are currently trying to theorize. No, what I have been thinking about is why such men are called pigs. Time magazine’s May 30^th issue was entitled “Sex, Lies Arrogance: What Makes Powerful Men Act Like Pigs?” First things first, I don’t think it is nice to make pigs out to seem dirty. They cannot help that farmers and corporations put them into pens that 1) are not air conditioned and 2) do not allow them to primp themselves. I think pigs are pretty tasty and wieners too so I take offense to pigs being positioned as dirty.

Now, in popular parlance, all men are pigs not just one’s in power…although I imagine particular feminists would say all men have power (the joys of patriarchy) while I imagine other feminists would complicate such a notion since “men” as a category is, well, much too complex to reduce to swine. My interest here though is why are men considered pigs and women often considered cows? What is the gendered nature of this farm-animal comparison? Are men considered pigs because hot dogs are often made out of pork and hot dogs resemble an appendage that for many is a defining characteristic of “man” – namely the wiener? Are men pigs because one way of talking about sex is “porking”? Men use their wiener (made of pork) to “pork” some other? If so, why are women considered cows? Is heterosexual porking a strange zoological experiment seeking to produce a new type of species? Is homosexuality then more natural than heterosexuality because it actually occurs between members of the same species? I am not sure…

However, why is being a cow less demeaning than being a pig in some regards? I mean if you call a woman a cow, you will be slapped as you probably should be – unless it is a joke than it is perfectly fine unless you hurt her feelings which is probably also funny. Any how, if men who are powerful are pigs for sending sexy pictures will we one day call women who send sexy pictures cows? If Nancy Pelosi, Sarah Palin, or Hilary Clinton sent a naked picture would we call any of them a cow for doing so? Would Time have an issue called “Sex, Lies Arrogance: What Makes Powerful Women Cows” or since there is nothing sexy about cows would we call them sluts and move away from our farm-yard analogies? Would we say that these women had a “beef” with all the attention man-parts were getting and sought to udderly disrupt such images with some lady-parts? I am not sure but I hope in the near future female politicians will free themselves and start sexy-texting so we have some equality in sex scandals so that we can actually deal with the double standards that exist around representations of men and women…

Speaking of representations. Recently I read a piece that talked about gay men and a new cookbook coming out that relies on the image that gay men are skinny (we are).

Teaching Sex: A Lesson at Northwestern University

Controversy has emerged at Northwestern University after Prof. Michael Baily during an after-class lecture invited 4 members of the Chicago BDSM community to discuss “kink” which included an impromptu live sex-act demonstration. Initially, Northwestern supported the demonstration, but amid the growing outrage (from parents, alum, and Evanston community members) the university has decided to open an investigation to, as Northwestern President Schapiro stated “investigate fully the specifics of this incident, and also clarify what constitutes appropriate pedagogy, both in this instance and in the future.” (Chicago Sun Times).

Initially the university’s support for Baily’s after-class demonstration was defended using academic freedom and the importance to be able to teach controversial topics. Alan K Cubbage, vice president for University Relations noted “Northwestern University faculty members engage in teaching and research on a wide variety of topics, some of them controversial and at the leading edge of their respective disciplines. The University supports the efforts of its faculty to further the advancement of knowledge” (Sun-Times). Baily’s syllabus for the course itself notes that the course is "skewed toward controversial and unusual aspects of sexuality." But, with potential bad press and loss of monies, the tune has changed - including numerous other critics - with the President of Northwestern saying he is “‘troubled and disappointed’ by the live sex toy demonstration in a campus auditorium last week, and that it was not in keeping with Northwestern's mission.”

Lance Gravelee, who teaches a human sexuality course at the University of Florida believes that Baily went to far stating “this case is so far on the other side of the line that it doesn’t strike me as difficult to figure that out” and that as a professor he “can’t imagine doing something like this in a classroom”. Gravelee has discussed the issue of female orgasm (one of the topics during the after-class demonstration) noting “you can do that and stop well short of bringing it into the classroom" and as such "they would have a hard time convincing me that this was an appropriate way to challenge misconceptions." Misconceptions it seem can be addressed by simply discussing them, but to illustrate the existence of and experience of a female orgasm is out of the question. Human sexuality, as an academic pursuit is, it would seem, purely a mind game, about acquiring knowledge and overcoming misconceptions without any attention to the physical or material complexity and experience of the body.

It is the body that is the problem in this case. To illustrate, with a real-life woman, particular sexual practices that bring about pleasure and orgasm is seen as one Evanston parent wrote a sign of “low-class depravity” - never mind that the female participant fully consented to and expressed her own enjoyment of exhibitionism. But the body is not always the problem in higher education - there are all kind of embodied demonstrations that take place on a university campus, from rock climbing to scuba diving. Rarely are there any controversies surrounding such demonstrations and actions. And it would be absurd, I think, to say it is perfectly fine to teach rock climbing or scuba diving by talking about how to do them without, at the minimum seeing demonstrations about proper techniques.

Sexual technique is, of course, a much more loaded conversation. Deirdre McCloskey, a UIC professor who has criticized Bailey in the past, said “he aims for shock over substance” (Chicago Sun Times). Such a view, while understandable, fails to grapple with why a demonstration of proper and alternative sexual techniques is not considered “substantive.” Is the female orgasm not an important and substantive topic that should be more engaged and thought about, especially in an age where women’s rights are being challenged on the floors of Congress? A Northwestern parent, Lynn Simmons thinks not, writing the demonstration “does not fall under the umbrella of education. It's demeaning to women. I just thought it was completely, completely out of line." (ABC Local). Now, I respect differing opinions, but I am not sure how a demonstration that was fully consensual and illustrating, through its very performance, a particular sexual fetish is demeaning to women? I find it actually, in this context, quite liberating and educational to see that women can 1) orgasm and 2) have control over how their body is pleasured by their partner(s) in non-normative ways.

This is not to say that women do not experience a disproportionate amount of sexual violence, but to note that it is important to recognize moments when female sexuality (and I would argue male sexuality via her partner’s pleasure in the demonstration) is shown as a positive and important aspect to a fulfilling life. As Jim Marcus, one of the presenters noted, "Everyone in the room consented to be there. Everyone on stage consented to do what they were doing. No one got hurt. Everything was done in safe, sane and consensual way," with such a demonstration providing an education (ABC News).

It is, no doubt, though shocking, to hear about a sex demonstration at a university. While everyone knows students have sex on campus, god forbid a university campus (consisting almost entirely of those who have reached the age of consent) actually teach a plethora of ways to get your rocks off. So, McCloskey is correct in stating this is “shocking” because we prefer sex to be the unspoken and are shocked when it is not. As CBS News reports:

Bill Yarber, a researcher at Indiana University's Kinsey Institute and author of the widely used textbook "Human Sexuality: Diversity in Contemporary America," said he's never heard of a naked woman being brought to orgasm in front of a class of students. "There's certain boundaries of things, I think, that are acceptable and that would certainly be pushing that," (CBS News)

And Bailey’s decision to allow this demonstration does in fact push the boundaries, but is that not the purpose of the academy - to push the boundaries of thought and pedagogy? Is this demonstration a rather explicit example of an erotic pedagogy?

In a time where sex education is abysmal, rates of HIV are on the rise in particular populations, notably youth, and the population lacks the access and ability to discuss the complexity of sex and sexuality it would seem the university is, at least, one place a part of the population might receive some “real” training in sexual technique. And it is for this reason, I found the statements from students to be quite illuminating and quite different than those of the “adults” aforementioned. Students who attended recognized the educational value of the demonstration. As Natalie Houchins said "We all learned some things. We learned about kinky sex culture, reasons they do it. We learned how these instruments work." And Sarah Lowe said she “was not disturbed by it,” but was “glad that it took place in an auditorium, rather than a smaller classroom, which would have been too close and awkward.” (Both from Sun-Times) Lowe further said

I was basically interested to see how it works. There wasn't anybody who was angry or expressed disgust. They asked questions about the lives of the presenters. It was very informational, I feel, about the sexual diversity that exists.

Not all students stayed for the demonstration. "For me, I'm glad I didn't see it. It was a little too explicit for me, and if I were in the class, if I would have stayed for the demonstration, I probably would have left. I know a couple of my friends did get up and leave," said Diana Lorenzini (ABC News). No where in this student’s view was the demonstration inappropriate or uneducational, rather it was not up her alley - to explicit.

Perhaps the students, who are themselves adults, in this after-class demonstration have something to teach those older adults about the value of an education. Perhaps their open-mindedness and general curiosity demands that the shock and awe around sexuality is outdated and in need of makeover. Or, that while such a demonstration might be too explicit for some, is still an important educational opportunity to be afforded those who are interested. Perhaps sex demonstrations, just like rock-climbing and scuba diving, deserve a place in the classroom to help students see the diversity of sexual possibilities and how to perform such possibilities in a safe and consensual manner. And, like those less “shocking” activities, perhaps such demonstrations for the time being, remain an “add-on” to the curriculum which is better than nothing.

We often hear stories emerging out of college campuses that involve sexual assault and violation. We can look at cases at Notre Dame, Drake University, Dickinson College and most likely any and all universities. Often such cases, while provoking outrage, fail to adequately address the issue of sexual assault. As Shirra Tarrant on Ms Magazine Blog writes there is significant silence around sexual assault on campuses and “sexual assault breeds in the Petri dish of silence.” Silence, in general, contributes to misconceptions, fears, shame, and potential harm around issues of sexuality. Not only should sexual assault be discussed and addressed, but so to should alternative, safe, and consensual sexual practices that allow all parties involved to experience pleasure and further learn how to live pleasureable, joyous lives.

References:

Kara Spak (3 March 2011). Northwestern University defends after-class live sex demonstration. Chicago Sun Times. Accessed at: http://www.suntimes.com/4099633-417/northwestern-university-defends-after-class-live-sex-demonstration.html

Barry Leibowitz (3 March 2011). Northwestern Sex Toy Demo: Univ. Kids get explicit lesson in human sexuality. CBS News accessed at: (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20038506-504083.html)

Stacey Baca & Eric Horng (3 March 2011). Participants call NU sex demo ‘educational’ ABC News accessed at: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7991736

Shirra Tarrant (8 Dec. 2010). Silence and Sexual Assaults on College Campuses. Ms Magazine Blog. Accessed at: http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/12/08/silence-and-sexual-assault-on-college-campuses/

Fag Discourse: That's So Gay, No Homo, and Childish Insults

I think kids are quite hysterical. They say the darndest things. But, in education kids are disciplined to not say certain things while being encouraged to say other things. The comical kindergarten technique of addressing an upset kid by asking them to “use their words” illuminates the power and precarity of language. The teacher wants the kid to “use his/her/hir words” but what words that kid can use are already, most likely, limited and if not limited will garner some form of discipline very quickly. By this I mean, if a teacher told a kindergartner to “use your words” and that kid told the teacher to “fuck off,” the teacher would while being highly amused and laughing on the inside find it necessary, due to professional standards, to inform the kid that such a phrase is inappropriate and discipline the student accordingly. We do not want little kids running around cursing because that would show poorly on them, their family, and the community in which they were raised. One could reference Paul Rudd's Role Models where we see a little black boy (shocking I know) who seemingly only knows how to cuss (and garners significant laughs from the audience since we rarely see the kid as black minstrel).

But, my concern is not with cussing kids. Rather, my concern, or perhaps interest is when kids - students - use phrases often labeled as “homophobic” such as “that's gay,” “no homo,” or “fag.” These phrases are common parlance on the playground, hallways, and classrooms. Homework is referred to as “being gay,” compliments to other same-sex classmates are ended by saying “no homo,” and refusing to do something seen as cool is met with “don't be a fag.” Pre-service teachers are often told that it is necessary to address such phrases when they hear them uttered, but GLSEN's research shows that unfortunately such phrases are rarely addressed by teachers. According to the 2009 report "62.4% of students who were harasseed or assaulted in school did not report the incident to school staff, believing little to no action would be taken or the situation would become worse if reported" while "33.8% of the students who did report an incident said that school staff did nothing in response." This finding is not unique to this study, but has been consistently found in various studies on school climate. And this finding speaks directly to teacher preparation. What type of preparation do pre-service teachers receive in their programs and what are the complexities of such preparation?

There seems to be a particular fear about addressing phrases and harassment hinged on sexuality. Some teachers - new and old - comment about being unsure what to say or how to address such phrases. Other teachers - new and old - note how they just address the comment head on, informing the student who said it that such a phrase cannot be used and will not be tolerated. Often though, the intervention ends here with the student not being informed as to why they are not supposed to use that phrase. And still other teachers - new and old - address the utterance and discuss why such an utterance is inappropriate. Within education, I would argue, it is this third option that is seen as the “gold-standard” practice. It addresses the language and teaches the user of such language of the problems using such language.

However, I find such interventions quite problematic - perhaps because I find most forms of pre-packaged advice problematic. I find it problematic because it does not take into account the context - who is saying it, how they are saying it, who they are saying it to, and why? I can't but wonder if a gay student speaking to another gay student and using, for instance, “fag” in an endearing way is ever told not to use that phrase. I imagine that this will become more prevalent in schools as Gay-Straight Alliances become more visible in high schools and middle schools. If schools provide a space for gay students in the form of GSAs, how does that space disrupt the traditional hetero-normative ways of addressing homophobic language? At an earlier time it seemed to be adequate to simply make certain words off limits. But as the times change and "gays" receive more legitimacy within the political realm, do schools have to alter what language counts as appropriate?

What do I mean by this? If a gay student utters "faggot" and is told not to use that word, what does the gay kid learn? Does the gay kid learn that they just cannot win? That schools are simply too straight for their gay ways of recuperating words? Do they learn that as they find words to use within their group of friends that allow them to "recuperate" injurious speech and create a space to survive that in fact, their survival space is not the "right" kind or not "appropriate"? Are they straightened out and re-oriented towards the more acceptable approach to language? I am not sure, but I think it is an important issue to deal with.

We might also think about the use of the phrase "no homo" as not only does it allow us to engage issues of sexuality, but also race as this is a phrase that is racialized - most often heard within the African American community. Many people find this phrase problematic. I think this phrase is interesting because it illuminates the inability within masculinity to compliment another "man" without being accused of same-sex attraction. It illustrates the limitations of masculinity. But, it also produces a space for compliments to take place. Rather than remaining silence and not telling another boy that his shoes are fabulous, "no homo" allows a different form of intimacy to emerge - an intimacy that is distinct from an intimacy that is associated with "homosexuality." So, while this phrase, on one hand, can be read as being homophobic. It might also be read as challenging the homo-hetero divide allowing for some "same-sex love" that is not "gay." And I think we should produce more forms of intimacy - ways of relating to others that are understood outside of sexual attraction...but this is quite difficult and is not a move to ignore the violence that "no homo" and other "homophobic" insults can inflict when uttered in particular contexts or dynamics.

Moving in a different direction, recently I heard the use of “fag” in a way that seemed new to me. The use of “fag” was in reference to being jealous. The person being called a fag was the person whom the person uttering "fag" was jealous of - “A football game already…ugh fag…you're so lucky”. In this comment, the fag is not the abject subject it seems, but rather the subject that is supposed to be admired for being able to “go to a football game already”. The fag is the lucky one. Of course, this is quite obvious. Fags are rather lucky. And I am quite interested in this lucky fag. Fag is most often used in a derisive manner, but this moment seems to completely challenge the derision and instead deride the alternative position - the position the utterer is in - namely the "straight" position or the "not-fag" position.

Now, I am not sure if the person using this phrase thought about the use in this way. But, that is really of no concern because you are reading my blog post about this and hopefully now might think about how words are quite complex and must be explored within the context they are uttered...and perhaps this illuminates why grammar and sentence structure is so important. Recognizing how words operate within a sentence impacts the possibilities instilled in that sentence. When "fag" becomes the "subject" of a sentence instead of the object of that sentence's derision, I think that is significant, but I will let you decide as you are more capable than I...

Disappoining Glee

I am a fan of Glee. I am not sure if I am a “gleek,” but I do, every Tuesday, get excited for 7pm (CST) to roll around so I can enjoy me some Glee. But, this week I found myself disappointed even though all the commentary around me, notably Facebook, was heralding this episode as one of the best ever. I think it was a good episode. I think it addressed some interesting and very pertinent issues, but it really did so in very traditional ways providing no space to imagine life in a different way. I want to begin thinking about my disappointment with the scene that provoked it the most, moving to the second scene that disappointed me and then perhaps bring these scenes in relation with the episode as a whole and other scenes similar to this in recent television.

We saw in this episode perhaps the most violent harassment/bullying against Kurt in the show at this point. And in one harrowing scene, Kurt confronts his bully, following him into the locker room, yelling. At one moment we are sure that Kurt is about to get pummeled, but instead we see him forcefully kissed. The bully is a bully that likes boys, but cannot seem to admit it. We see, as we often see, the repressed homosexual who instead of engaging his feelings, acts out against those who do engage such attractions. This is done to distance himself from that which he seems to be – seen later when Kurt’s new gay friend helps Kurt confront this bully. After this kiss, we see Kurt stunned at what just happened and I was stunned that Kurt’s first one-screen kiss was non-consensual, forced through a moment of bullying.

One might say that we expect the first kiss to be romantic, but most often they are not…allowing this scene to be “real.” I understand that logic, but in the time/space of this show, this is the only time we have seen a gay male kiss. We have of course seen Santana and Brittney kiss numerous times, but such kissing operates, I think, on a different plane than a scene of gay male intimacy. As Martha Nussbaum points out in From Disgust to Humanity, it is more often than not the scene of gay male intimacy that provokes the most disgust AND numerous commentators on “lesbian” porn have noted that such porn – lesbian porn – is produced for “straight” men. The lesbian scene of intimacy is a rather strong fantasy for “straight” men and does not produce the level of disgust that two men kissing does.

And this is where I want to think about this scene and my disappointment. In this episode titled, I believe, “First Kiss” we see the two “queerest” characters experience their first kiss. Kurt experiences his first kiss from his bully – the repressed homosexual. And Coach Beist experiences her first kiss from her former bully – Mr. Shue. “We” could not see a romantic first kiss with these two “queer” characters for similar reasons – our disgust at scenes of intimacy that are not “normative”.

We could not see Kurt have his first kiss be the ideal, romanticized first kiss because that would not have made him sufficiently the victim. It would have made the gay scene of intimacy as romantic and legitimate as the scenes of straight intimacy we saw between all the “straight” couples. And this is just unacceptable it seems. Instead, we can only imagine the gay male as victim as we most often see Kurt OR as we saw him in the first season as the “predator” trying to turn his straight crushes gay. Now, Kurt’s presence on TV is significant. He is a significant representation to see on TV as GLBT students are present and visible in high schools more and more in contemporary society. And do face a constant barrage of harassment and bullying, often left unaddressed by teachers and administrators. This was seen poignantly when Kurt confronted Mr. Shue.

However, I wanted to see a space made for us to imagine a world where the gay kid is not solely understood as a victim. Sociologist Laura Essig noted in a recent article about LGBT youth suicide that:

“The fact that way more than five queer teens had an amazing month, had their first love, their first encounter with the richness of queer culture—from drag to politics—is not a story we want to hear as a culture. The fact that hundreds or even thousands of queer kids stood up to a bully, injected queer consciousness into a classroom or a family dinner, and generally lived technicolor lives over the rainbow rather than locked down in some black and white Kansas is lost in the news cycle. We prefer our queers as victims. They're easier to support and much less scary that way.”

So, while we do see Kurt stand up to his bully, which were fantastic scenes, we still cannot see Kurt experience the pleasure of a first kiss. We are still uncomfortable with the scene of gay male intimacy, in part, I think because of feelings of disgust that pervade our understandings of intimacy and sexuality. Of course, this intimacy will occur eventually on the show – hopefully as Kurt finds other gay teens in the area. BUT, I think it is significant that before we can get to where other forms of intimacy are in the show, we must first degrade, violate, gay male intimacy. We seemingly cannot imagine a world without the queer as victim…And I think this is extended in the use of the figure of the repressed “homosexual” who in many ways is a victim himself. He is a victim of a world that has a severe lack of imagination – that cannot imagine multiplicitous forms of intimacy. He may not be a “homosexual” or he may not want to identify as a “homosexual” not because he is homophobic, per se, but because he wants something else. He wants to create a world where he can be intimate on his own terms – not the terms presented to him through Kurt or his straight counterparts.

My disappointment was furthered when Beist admits she is a “40 year old virgin.” This rather mannish woman is seen as disgusting enough to work better than a “cold shower.” And upon learning this – that her players are using compromising images of her to “cool” down while having steamy make out session with their opposite sex partners – she quits her job. Luckily for her, the saving grace and dreamy Mr. Shue steps in to give her that first kiss and the audience feels all warm and fuzzy…after all who wouldn’t want to get kissed by Mr. Shue? Yet, who is Mr. Shue to step in and give this woman her first kiss? Is he the knight in shining armor who gives hope to all the wretched female creatures, saving them from themselves? But more importantly, who wants their first kiss to be one out of sympathy at best, pity at worst? Is Mr. Shue’s kiss really any different than the repressed bully? Is his sympathetic kiss to “build” Beist up and get her to stay really any less violent? After all, it was not consensual either…and while the two of them joked about it afterwards, I think it is important to step back from the “warm and fuzzy feeling” to think about this moment.

I think it is significant that the first kisses of Kurt and Beist were qualitatively different that the first kiss of Artie and the scenes of heterosexual intimacy seen between the “straight couples” of the show. But, this is not unique to Glee. I am not a tv critic, but these moments also brought me back to my disappointment in ABC Family’s now cancelled show Huge. In one episode we see the only gay character become the butt of a joke. And the joke – operating through a dare – was for another seemingly straight boy to kiss Alistair, the gay camper. And in doing this, Alistair experiences his first kiss with the audience seeing again the impossibility of the gay character having a first kiss that is not a violation. We cannot seem to imagine a first kiss between two men that is consensual, romantic, and intimate. Rather, it seems that to protect “ourselves,” we must first imagine that this intimacy emerges out of a victim status.

I recognize that bullying and harassment are real experiences of many youth – gay or straight. My disappointment is that the “gay” youth seemingly can only operate as victims. They are never successful, always haunted by bullying and violence against their body. And, to a certain extent this violence is an important constitutive element of being a “gay” subject. But, I think investigating and thinking about ways to read this violence is important. I think Glee does a fine job at illuminating the struggles of all the characters. No one is completely innocent, everyone struggles and the Glee kids are challenged to encounter their otherness – perhaps simplistically at times. But, I am disappointed that Glee could not be more radical in showing the possibilities for their queer characters…

It Gets Better?

With the current spate of LGBT youth committing suicide, we have seen campaigns emerge that seek to, it seems, “save lives.” The first to emerge was Dan Savage’s “It Gets Better” youtube channel and from that has come notably the “Make it Better” campaign. One campaign reminds us that it gets better (or at least we are meant to hope that life gets better which I am not sure is a productive hope) WHILE the other provides us insights on ways to make it better, in the here and now. One is primarily adults showing the child that “it gets better” while the other is youth showing that it is or might already be “good” and ways to make it so.

I imagine both campaigns are having an impact in the world - even if it is only by making us cry at the stories being told or the inspiration being offered. Some comments I have seen contend such campaigns “save lives” and I suppose I can hope that maybe they will. I am, of course, not opposed to saving lives unless they are lives that do not seek to be saved. I am however interested in these campaigns. We have known for years, decades, and even centuries one could argue that “queer” existence has been plagued with suicide and violence. And it would seem that such historical evidence itself might show us that it may not get better. But, we also know that there have been significant changes with “gay rights” during the 20th and early 21st centuries. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM III in 1973 after years of gay activists fighting for such depathologization. Anti-sodomy laws have been struck down. Pride parades are marched in yearly. Gay characters are visible in TV and Film.And so on...

So...on one hand we see that “it gets better” while on the other hand seeing that “it doesn’t get better.” That “better” is itself a precarious concept where what is better for some, might not be “better” for others. We are always grappling with finding ways to “make it better” while also recognizing such a grappling never really ends because someone will always find what’s “better” to in fact not be so, to be problematic, damaging, violent, etc.

In watching various videos from the "It Gets Better" channel, I’ve noticed in many of them that we have adults re-telling their own experiences with bullying and how they overcame such bullying - allowing them to now be fabulous persons (e.g. Adam Lambert, Kate Bornstein, Dan Savage). I think such re-tellings are inspiring and in some cases made me tear up a little bit - I do actually have emotions. However, I think such videos are less about telling “kids” it gets better (although that is still a component) and more about having a cathartic release to an unknown audience. I think these video testimonials are about the person working through their own traumatic experiences whereby the camera becomes the unknown analyst allowing the person to talk, tell their story, and perhaps learn about themselves in the process - perhaps even convincing themselves that it has in fact, "got" better.

This is perhaps most evident in Joel Burn’s testimonial - a heart-wrenching story that he had never before told until this moment. In the video we see him recount the current epidemic of suicides, giving names and faces to those lives lost. It is difficult to hear and see these youth who did not, in fact, know it gets better. But then, Joel, like others who have done videos, moves into his own traumatic past, recounting harassment and violence against his own youthful body. It is here that he breaks down and also where I believe we catch a glimpse of the purpose of this video campaign. The purpose of this video campaign is not to save lives of youth, although that is a secondary hope, but to save the lives of those adults who, in the moment of telling have on the surface “great” lives, but who struggle themselves with their traumatic past. These videos have become a space and time for those who did not have voice before, who could not “speak” up then, to finally speak up now against their bullies - those fantasmatic bullies that haunt them, us, in our dreams, in our stories we tell about being victims as queers.

We, of course, do not hear stories from individuals who grew up “queer” but did not experience this type of harassment, in part because if it has always been "good," then there is no need to say "It gets better." But, beyond this we don’t want to here such stories. Such stories disrupt the solidarity we can feel around victimization and provoke feelings of jealousy or envy because such lives “don’t know what it was like.” In such a move, of course, the victims become the bully, unwilling to allow the “queer” with a non-traumatic experience with their sexual orientation or gender performance to tell their story because that story does not count. And in not allowing it, it becomes a story that is itself not seen as possible. We cannot imagine a "queer" experience without the violence, the bullying, the harassment...

As Laurie Essig in a recent article in The Chronicle notes:

“The fact that way more than five queer teens had an amazing month, had their first love, their first encounter with the richness of queer culture—from drag to politics—is not a story we want to hear as a culture. The fact that hundreds or even thousands of queer kids stood up to a bully, injected queer consciousness into a classroom or a family dinner, and generally lived technicolor lives over the rainbow rather than locked down in some black and white Kansas is lost in the news cycle. We prefer our queers as victims. They're easier to support and much less scary that way.”

So, we can tell stories about our own victimization as youth in order to make an emotional appeal and show that it gets better. We are drawn to, fascinated by the victim narrative because it affects us in some way that a happy narrative does not. For instance, when someone tells of a happy occurrence the conversation usually stays at a very basic level of statements. “That’s great.” or “I’m so happy for you.” whereas when we hear a story of victimization the conversation moves to concern and wanting to be a part of the persons recovery in the form of questions...”What can I do to help?” or “How did that happen?” We are willing to assist those who are struggling but when it comes to people who are leading “happy lives” or had an “amazing month,” we do not care to hear, to discuss. We care to distance ourselves because, perhaps it is less scary that way.

Do we not actually want it to "get better" because if it did, we might have to learn how to be happy? How to relate to the other that we do not know, do not like, do not understand? Do we not want it to get better because it can't get better as we ourselves struggle to make sense of our own traumatic past, hoping to make it through the day? Might we start there, on the self, and how the self might get through the day not to find a better future, somewhere out there...but to survive and relate to the strangers, the family, the friends that we, at times are strangers to ourselves?

A Critique of Lady Gaga and her Politics on DADT

Lady Gaga has morphed, as a "pop" performer, into a "pop" politician these days as seen in her recent speech about Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT). And I appreciate her attempt to merge the "political" imagination with the "popular" imagination these past couple weeks beginning notably with her famed "meat dress" and her guests at the VMAs.

Yet, while I appreciate her as an artist (which some will contest), a performer (which some will contest), and as a political commentator (which some, including I, will contest)...I want to take on her engagement with DADT. I, of course, will be critiqued for my critique because it is rather unpopular. To not argue for the repeal of DADT as a "gay" individual is unintelligible because it puts "me" in the camp of the "homophobe". There are in this debate, much like the marriage debate, only two sides creating a dynamic reminiscent of Bush's argument that "you are either with us or against us." I am neither with nor against though. I seek a different path illuminating that Lady Gaga is a better liberal than I am. As such, I want to re-frame the debate to perhaps open up space closed off by Gaga and her opponents (e.g. McCain).

Gaga notes in her speech, a rather thoughtful speech, that there should be a new law that actually "kicks" out the homophobic soldiers. The homophobia of individual soldiers is the problem here. The problem is not that homosexual soldiers threaten the morale of troops, but that homophobia and homophobic soldiers threaten the morale because it is their "fear" of the "homosexual" that are the issue. The issue is not the homosexual soldier - they are there to do their job - but the homophobic soldier who cannot do his/her job because of a (irrational) fear they have of homosexuality.

This makes sense and is quite compelling. Yet, it maintains the logic of shame. Gaga's "new law" maintains that shame should occur and this shame is always inevitably related to (homo)sexuality and the individual. There is no engagement with the homophobia except to remove it, to shame it. The difficult task of engaging homophobia and inevitably the issues surrounding "homosexuality" are still left untouched - namely the military. With Gaga's hypothetical law then, the logic of shaming is maintained only with the "now" the good people being restored to the place of honor.

The new law, instead of marginalizing the gay soldiers, marginalizes the homophobic soldiers (who could also be gay as homophobia is not absent from the "gay" community). The homophobe becomes the "queer" outsider while the homosexual becomes the acceptable insider whereby the homosexual soldier can feel like the "good gay" finally with the homophobe finally taking his/her place of shame. I, of course, am not arguing in support of homophobia. DADT is discriminatory, but the methods by which such discrimination is engaged are strange. What I am arguing though is that Gaga's solution is inevitably no different, no more ethical than the old law she seeks to contest.

This is not my biggest concern. My biggest concern is the irony of Gaga's position. A few months back when Gaga was being protested by the Westboro Baptist Church she told her monsters that "Although I respect and do not judge anyone for their personal views on any politics or religion, this group in particular to me is violent and dangerous. I wanted to make my fans aware of my views on how to approach, or rather not approach, these kinds of hate activists." Gaga did not seek violent reactions, but sought inaction against the protesters - allowing them to "be" outside - while inside love won out and the monsters sang. I admired Gaga's nonviolent stance and her ability to provide political commentary that did not use violence against violence.

Yet, in her talk she notes that "If you are not honorable enough to fight without prejudice, go home." The main concern of this statement is with prejudice. If you cannot fight without prejudice than you should not fight at all, you should go home. This concern is rather curious to me, in light of Gaga's oft dislike of fighting and love of, well, love. Gaga's position is strange because it does not address the issue of fighting. It argues for honorable and non-prejudical fighting. Fighting is ok, as long as it is "honorable" and without "prejudice". Gaga does not challenge the need to fight, nor does she critique the too numerous to state problems with the US Military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations that are far from without prejudice and some might argue, far from honorable. This is of course not to say that soldiers are not honorable, but the rhetoric used by the military via the media are problematic, limiting, and drenched in racism/xenophobia/sexism/homophobia.

It seems then that Gaga maintains an allegiance to the military in order to allow gay and lesbian soldiers to openly serve. She does not, unfortunately, argue against the military's use of sexual shame in its own campaigns against the foreign other. She addresses the homophobia that impacts individual soldiers while leaving in place the homophobia that structures the military mentality. What do I mean by this? One only has to look at Abu Gharib photos to see the ways in which the military has used sex, sexuality, and sexual shaming for its own benefit. So, while Gaga may be comfortable arguing for the inclusion of Gay and Lesbian soldier in the military, I have a problem following. I am not a good liberal. And I cannot support granting access to an institution that is fraught with problems. I see a major ethical problem arguing for people's rights to fight in battles that have in recent times been waged.

Of course this is probably an unpopular stance to take. It can be read as being disrepectful to soldiers and their families which it is not intended to be. My hope is, my argument is, that rather than merely granting access to gay and lesbian soldiers, a broader movement is necessary that challenges the necessity and operations of the military itself...because inevitably the issue with DADT as represented by Gaga is not with the miliary (and its homophobia/sexism/xenophobia), but with individual soldiers. The "military" remains untouched, uncritiqued while individual lives are shamed - be they the ousted gay/lesbian soldier under DADT or the homophobic soldier ousted due to Gaga's new (hypothetical) law.

Burlesque

Thanksgiving has been my favorite holiday for years. It is the best of holidays, in my opinion, because all you have to do is cook, eat, and clean...no presents to buy or worry about taking back, no tree to decorate or lights to put up. Just food...food and more food and the knowledge that the day after one can go out in the craziness that is "Black Friday" and shop 'til you drop. But this Thanksgiving just got better because it is on Thanksgiving Day that what might be the "gayest" film of the year, perhaps decade, is released. Starring Cher, Christina Aquilera, Alan Cumming, and Stanley Tucci it couldn't get much gayer, unless Bette Midler, Celine, Gaga, or Liza make cameos. And conversations about the film have already that it is going to be gay...so gay, it might turn people gay as expressed by Gawker and Defamer notes that this might be the advent of the "new gay Christmas".

And so it is with gaiety that I myself am anxiously awaiting the arrival of such a wonderful present. Before then though, I want to think about Burlesque rather quickly and perhaps rather crudely. Burlesque, by definition, is a type of theatrical entertainment - humorous - that is parodic and highly exaggerated. It does not seek to be "real" but to parody the dignified and respectable, providing one might think a social commentary. It's etymology is itself from, depending on one's dictionary the Italian burlesco "to jest" or the Spanish burla "to joke." Burlesque then is a joke, a jest, it mocks solemn subjects.

Of course, I have not seen the film yet...but from the commentary I have read, it seems that Burlesque is already doing it's job. Some have commented that it looks so bad, it will be great. Others that it might be the "campiest" film this year. From the brief preview, the film is already performing "burlesque". It is a pastiche of characters with the legend that is Cher, a gay icon with a rising star X-tina, a new gay icon struggling at first to only become pals. And it performs Burlesque at the meta-level while performing Burlesque on the literal filmic screen. We see Burlesque and our very comments about how that Burlesque is being represented expose that perhaps the joke is on us or hopefully with us. Burlesque does not seek to be taken seriously (although it is a serious form of theatrical performance that takes talent and practice) but in doing so provokes and provides commentary and aesthetic enjoyment.

Drag University and the Figure of the Drag Queen

Judith Butler in her landmark book Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity utilizes the concept of drag to illustrate, what she proposes, gender performativity. In her analysis she argues that "in imitating gender, drag implicitly reveals the imitative structure of gender itself - as well as its contingency" (175). Drag, she argues, reveals how there is not an "original" gender, but that that the parody of drag is "the parody of the very notion of the original" (175). Drag in its excessive, parodic performance illuminates the complexity of gender, anatomical sex and gender performance whereby the gender does not align with the sex but with a particular performance creating an allusion or illusion of something that is idealized, but unattainable by any one.

Butler's use of drag was quickly taken up, but in problematic ways as Butler herself discusses in her later book Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex. Here Butler re-articulates or clarifies her arguments, bringing to light that she is not arguing that gender is voluntaristic - that we wake up in the morning and simply don whatever gender it is we would like. Rather, gender is complicated by the discourses available and the possibilities within such discursive structures. Drag, simply put, is only a helpful illustration. It illuminates the ways in which gender is performed and relies on particular performances structured within particular symbolic systems but gender is not the same as "drag," in that drag queens and kings can don persona in ways different from the everyday. Drag is a performance, but gender performativity rests on the reiteration of norms, of performances that upon constant reiteration and repetition become seen as the norms.

Of course Butler's engagement with drag and gender are far more nuanced and complicated than I have written...but I begin by thinking about Butler because of the re-emergence it seems of the figure of the drag queen within popular culture - notably the return of RuPaul in Logo's 1st and 2nd seasons of RuPaul's Drag Race and the 1st season of Drag U. Both of these shows are fascinating for a variety of reasons and arguably bring drag to a broader audience in intelligent and thoughtful ways (as in, drag is re-presented as an art, a performance art, with a history AND not simply a spectacle...but of course it is not drag without the spectacle for sure).

My interest in this however, is the strange dynamics with gender that emerge in the new Drag U where biological woman come on the show and are taught how to be fierce like a queen by the former contestants of RuPaul's Drag Race Seasons 1 and 2. The women and their drag queen professor(s) help them overcome certain barriers and upon doing so draguate with one of the women winning top honors.

Yet, who are the women that come on the show? The women that come on the show thus far seem to fail at being women - they are tom boys, they are single, they are blue collar. They are not the idealized woman that is beautiful, fashionable, and taken (or at least having sex). They are failed women. But, as advertised, they are everyday women making it seem that perhaps the everyday woman is a failed woman. And, she needs help from the drag queen who in her parody of gender simultaneously seems to illuminate the failure of gender while reinscribing what it means to be a "real" or "successful" woman. I should note that call the "everyday woman" a failure is not meant to be an insult to the everyday woman...I know in the current time no one like to be a failure, but I think the notion of the fail perhaps provides critical space to think about gender. I also utilize the notion of failure because this is a university and the women are graded in order to see who draguates with the highest DPA.

The everyday women come to the University presided over by RuPaul to learn how to be powerful women and they are taught how to do so by as Ru refers to them as "Lady-Boys". Queens and the everyday women join together to learn about themselves and the power of the feminine. Yet, both the professor and the student are at the outset, failures. The women are "everyday," they are not exceptional like a queen must be. But the queens are parodic and failure to meet the ideals by which they base their performance off. They will never be "biological women" even as they perform the "woman" better than any "biological woman" on the show. Yet, in this, the individuals illuminate the power of the feminine and at times the "everyday women" seem to take back ownership of their lives. Of course interestingly, we never see the queens break down and discuss their own traumatic pasts that have propelled them to drag and to teaching...but that is of course, not the premise of the show.

What I found interesting watching the show at this point in the season, very early indeed, is the looks on the women's faces when they received a "poor grade" and lose the competition to have "top honors". What happens when one begins a failed woman in need of a drag-make-over, only to fail at that very endeavor? Or is it not failure, but a jump up in one's grade of being "female"? What happens when one "passes" perhaps, but not at the top of one's class? Does this produce a hierarchy of "womanhood" whereby a woman's performance of her gender is graded...and the everyday woman is simply a failure?

The dynamics of the show further complicate this issue as there are drag queens, RuPaul in her male form, and guest judges who are biological males and females. The grading then of the performance of these women is done then by a diverse group of bodies. Experts in drag (e.g. Lady Bunny and RuPaul) and experts in other realms of performance come together to grade the performances of these ladies who are not creating a new "gender" for themselves, but performing something new "one night only." One must ask then if this one time performance is capable of changing the women, of transforming them, or if come the day after, the women fall back into the repetition of their own gender pre-university training? Does RuPaul's Drag U actually illuminate the misreadings of drag a la Butler's theory of gender performativity whereby it becomes an issue where the "performance" of drag is believed to represent the possibility of disrupting gender norms...when it is actually a voluntary performance that fails at addressing the ways gender is discursively created? Does this show "drag u" back into beliefs that we can simply change our genders over night OR does it "drag u" into an uncharted path that allows these women to be "new" and "improved" as opposed to the failed women they were before the show?

Sex Tours and Spanking

Chicago is home to supposedly the only sex tour in the United States. And since I think sex is quite interesting for a variety of reasons - personal, political, philosophical, and ethical - and am new to Chicago, it seemed appropriate to go on such a tour. I was quite excited by the prospect of such a tour. I anxiously awaited its arrival and could not believe when the day finally arrived. I, of course, was a bit concerned that it would be cheesy and sanitized, but I let go of my concerns and toured the history of sex in Chicago.

I was not that impressed by the tour. I was, in fact, more disappointed in the tour than I was impressed...but this, I did not fully realize until after the tour ended and I discussed it with others. Yet, the tour was not a complete waste. I learned where the Leather Archive and Museum is located and was able to talk with Mistress Xena, a professional dominatrix, and see her BDSM dungeon. As a side note, in the dungeon, a volunteer was requested to illustrate how a particular piece of equipment worked. Since I cannot handle the awkward tension when such a request is made, I raised my hand and was to my surprise spanked by a professional dominatrix...which may potentially be the highlight of my time in Chicago.

Back to the tour though. I was disappointed in the tour because it seemed to rely on the glitz and glamor of being a "sex tour" without having much substance beyond this. The tour guides clearly knew what they were talking about (e.g. the history of prostitution in Chicago) and were practicing members in different sexual subcultures. They practiced what they preached. However, there is a balance that in my opinion needs to be struck in such instances so that the tour does not become personal story time about one's own sexual practices...after all I did not pay the money I paid to simply hear about someone else's sexcapades nor feel like it is a competition to see who is the "kinkiest" person...after all, fetishes abound and one could argue it's all a fetish. We all choose particular things to focus on - some are just seen as more "normal" than others - but all sexual desires, from "kinky" to "vanilla," are fetishistic.

Yet, this is a minor concern and a preference. My larger concern is what felt to me to be mild misogyny on the part of one of the tour guides. To some, it may seem odd on a tour that requires open-mindedness that misogyny might rear its head, but with the complexity of sexuality and its history such is perhaps not that strange. Here is where I saw misogyny rear its head. On the tour, we played a game called "Spot the Ho" where we were supposed to point out prostitutes. It seemed problematic to me that the guide would ask us to "Spot the Ho" - a game that singles out a population that is already ridiculed and "spotted out" - on a tour where we are supposed to be open-minded about sexual possibilities.

However of course, since it seemed rude to point and yell "there's a prostitute" we were to instead yell "CVS" which stood for "Common Variety Skank." The ingenuity of CVS is not lost...I do have a sense of humor. And I am not sure how the tour guide was using such terminology - so my accusation of the guide being a misogynist is perhaps a bit "early". Yet, since sex - especially prostitution and particular sexual subcultures - is so complicated, it seemed to me rather problematic to not at least footnote the ways in which the tour guide is using such terms (i.e. I am using the term "Ho" in reverence). Such a move, seems to me to then at least allow for a pause and for the participants to think about why reverence should be given to "ho's" or "skanks." To note that, we are spotting hos not to ridicule them and win a free ghost tour, but to make them visible, to see them as persons, persons who deserve respect and legal protections carries a drastically different purpose and feeling. It does not fall into the pointing prostitutes already experience, but into a category where such pointing might fleetingly be seen as a point that says "I see you, I recognize you, I respect you." Of course, how others seeing the pointing complicates this and gets us into bigger issues about perception, intention, and meaning...but I will not go there.

Now of course this may seem minimal and a bit idealistic...I am a philosopher though and I like to think about the symbolic meanings and possibilities. But what furthered my concern was the guide discussing how he knew more high-end call girls - individuals who clearly would not be victim to the came of "Spot the Ho." He did not, at least how he discussed it, know or talk to a lot of street walkers. I wonder then, would he play this game if he knew he might be pointing and inevitably laughing (because that is what we did when we first learned about the game) at friends or acquaintances?

Was the sex tour then merely a story telling about the guide's sex life? Was it what it's description said it would be? I think it was a combination of both...it bordered on being more glitz than substance. Yet, sometimes glitz is good so I don't want to downplay it. But the tour seemingly failed at providing depth and thoughtful engagement with a complicated subject matter. It at times seemingly maintained the problematic gaze at the "freakish sexual other" that it sought to challenge by calling for open-mindedness. But, of course such things happen. We are not immune to falling into such norms...the task though is to recognize it and through critique open up possible ways of touring sex without making it a tourist trap.