In Defense of Barbie

There are many things in children’s “culture” that are problematized and demonized for being bad influences…of ruining children’s innocence and forcing them into adult roles. Arguably, one of the most demonized child toys though, in my opinion is that of Barbie – that beautiful plastic woman with proportions that are impossible to have – literally. This Barbie character in her whiteness, blondeness, and over the years, capacity for befriending multicultural friends, focuses too much on beauty, too much on consumerism, too much on those things that any good “social justice” martyr with feminist beliefs just must oppose. Barbie has been manipulated to believe she must be beautiful, she has tokenized her friends to make money, she has ruined little girls abilities to be more than Barbie herself can be. She has bought into buying pleasure, feeling good because of material purchases. Barbie is no different than the whore that she was in part birthed from…for she, as Shirley Steinberg has pointed out, continues to whore herself out to the corporations.

However, since I am not a “social justice” martyr (anymore) with rather queer feminist tendencies, I want to make an argument for Barbie in all her beauty – I write then, in defense of Barbie. I do this because Barbie is positioned in a place of shame, she is abject to many “liberal” minded people as well as many “conservative” minded people. She is their “Other” who they can blame for the self-esteem issues and eating disorders in our young people. Of course ignoring that anorexics never have large breasts so to those that argue that Barbie is anorexic, and promotes anorexia in girls, I ask what vision of anorexia are you working from.

But, I rather like being in the place of shame, of the abject, to illustrate that it is a livable place, a possible life, a place that can be read for things occluded by most shaming readings.

Barbie – she comes in many different costumes.
Barbie – she once thought “math was hard”.
Barbie – the one with that pink corvette.
Barbie – the one with all that anyone needs to be cool.
Barbie – the one with the man who has a mound of flesh.

But Barbie for me was more than this. Barbie was, like Whitney, my girl. I played with her as a little boy, of course always through my sister since I couldn’t just play with Barbie by myself (unless I did it sneakily) because that is not what little “boys” do. Barbie for me then was the possibility of leaving small town Iowa and being fabulous, of being able to explore and dress, and drive those things that I couldn’t explore, wear, or drive in the “normal” world I lived in. Barbie may have taught my sister that she needed big boobs and a teeny-tiny waist (of which my sister does not have), but Barbie taught me that one could be happy in the “confines” of the feminine, one could enjoy the masquerade that is femininity, and make billions doing it. She taught me the importance, the necessity of aesthetics. She may have whored herself out to the corporate “Man” but she did it laughing all the way to the bank AND in doing so could act in any way her possessor wanted her to – be that as a happy hetero, a lipstick lez, or a bitchin’ CEO. Barbie taught me more than Ken ever could that in this world we can create ourselves, we can change our outfits and try something new…we can be a teacher, a nurse, an airline stewardess, we can think math is hard and still look fabulous, still survive in this world where math is seen as more important than fashion – as if fashion doesn’t require math.

Yet, I recognize that this process of creating the self is more than just putting on an outfit, that such performativity is constrained by the reiterative practices that become naturalized – which is part of the problem with Barbie as a static concept because she only has so many possibilities to perform. So, yes, Barbie’s options are limited by the evil of Mattel and what Mattel allows Barbie to be sold as (i.e. a nurse but not a drug pusher)…but Mattel does not control the ways in which children, in this instance me, played with Barbie. Barbie, to draw from Foucault, is freeer than we feel. She can be anything and we don’t need Mattel to make her so – we can make her so ourselves. I can make Barbie a philosopher like my academic crush Judith, I can make Barbie an actress like Jodie…I can do these things, I can make Barbie anything if my imagination is allowed to explore and make Barbie something I think Barbie could be.

Without Barbie, I would have been stuck with Joe, the violent one – not the plumber and he can’t change his clothes for real men are not sissy clothes changers and well I am not a real man. With Barbie…I can use her nurse costume and still have Barbie perform the role of the drug pusher since as a nurse she has the access. I can. I can I tell you. And in doing this with Barbie, which is “easier” to do than to do in “reality” then I can see these ideas as possibilities, as fictions that can create a reality that I imagine, that I want to experience when I am no longer child, but “adult” given opportunities to explore that which has been “occluded” from my child-eyes.
Barbie, then, provided a place to imagine the aesthetics of life, of fashion, of putting outfits together, and the possibilities of living, in an environment that was constraining. Yes, for some this is just the emergence and continuance of capitalism and consumption…but we cannot but operate within this system of capitalism. We cannot get out of it, for to try to get out of it would probably be illegal for to not be in this system would require so many fundamental changes in how one lived and operated in a society that was capitalistic.

Of course it is easy to critique those who buy excessive clothes and engage in what is positioned as “frivolous” (as I myself have done), but we are all implicated – “you” just make yourself feel better by making “me” your other, by making “me” less than “you” because you are less “capitalistic” than I. But I don’t like capitalism, I just like fashion, it is a part of life that brings me pleasure, not because I need clothes to make me feel “cool” or “pretty” but because they help me perform, they help me be me in whatever way I want to be “me” when I put on whatever it is I put on – knowing that how such clothes are read is never up to me entirely.

What then is wrong with Barbie? Is the problem with Barbie not Barbie herself but with our own inability to accept that Barbie is a person-doll, a possibility that girls, boys, boy-girls, girl-boys, sissys, punks, faggots, dykes, and others can look to and imagine a life that they do not have access to? Does Barbie, give access to the feminine, so often degraded and argued against for its limitations, actually broaden the possibilities of the feminine – of granting access to the feminine especially for those not “female” bodied? At the end of the day, if a woman, a girl, a drag queen, a trans person, a gender queer, a boy with a fetish uses Barbie to make life pleasurable within the imagination, what right do we have to critique Barbie and tell her that she is bad, that we will not buy her for our children because she, from our own projections, scares us – scares us that our children may choose a life we didn’t choose, a life we disparaged against, a life we didn’t want to live, or a life we always wanted to live but never could. By limiting our children’s access to such a cultural icon, this icon of problematic femininity, do we disparage this form of the feminine and colonize our children to a life we believe they should have NOT the life they could make themselves, like an artist makes a piece of art? Is the critique of Barbie more often about not wanting to grant children access to that vision of femininity that has been seen as passive, as superficial, as easy to manipulate and use RATHER than showing that not granting access to those forms of femininity re-pathologize such femininity as lesser, as not worthy of “positive” evaluations, as not worthy of representation anymore?

So, I say buy me a Barbie, buy me that most feminine of all toys, that doll that performs and perhaps helped construct the feminine ideal and let me imagine the beauty of that doll, of the possibilities that this abjected, shamed doll can provide. Buy me Barbie, by me her little sister doll Bratz, buy me these dolls that are “sexualized,” “skanky,” “slutty,” and “inappropriate” for little girls, boys, bois, gurls and I will show you the possibilities that skanks, sluts, and anything shameful can create possible lives and expose the anxieties of adults around childhood and children in relation to sexuality and the “passive” feminine…or if I cannot I will at least have a new Barbie that you purchased in this capitalistic system for me…

Fatty, Fatso, Fatass: On Fatness

I enjoy fat kids. In the summer when at the park or beach when all the kids are out playing...I revel in the fat kids...the fat ones that have their shirts off and are in their jiggly splendor but not ashamed of their beautiful fat bodies. I often want to go up to them and jiggle their fatness and tell them no matter what...their fat bodies are beautiful...to always run with their shirts off...and never be ashamed.

Why do I revel in the fat kids? Partially perhaps because I once was a fat kid...but one who was not told that fat was beautiful...but rather told to cover it up. Yet, I grew up and while no longer a "fat" kid, a part of me will always be "fat". In being "fat", I often find myself concerned about the constant discussions about childhood obesity. My concern however is not that kids are obese (although that is a valid concern) but how in focusing on obesity - say in education - it is possible that fat kids are further stigmatized, for it is the fat kid that I would argue is often the legitimate target of abuse. It is no longer acceptable to make fun of the gay kids or the "special ed" kids...but we can still make fun of the fat kid. Now, this making fun may not be blatant name calling, although I imagine it happens often, but rather this making fun comes often in the form of education as we educate that to be healthy one should be "thin"...meaning if one looks down and sees that one is not thin...one is not healthy...one is unhealthy. This occurs beyond education as several airlines charge fatties for an extra seat if they are too large. Some herald this as a good move...yet isn't such a move rather regressive, a bit discriminatory...in that because of your appearance and "width" we can treat you different...call you "fat" by making you pay up to take up two seats? Yes, I have set next to a fat person and yes I have been annoyed...yet, I would prefer not to further stigmatize a person for their fatness...yes, they may be able to do something about it, but then again they might not. Yes, they may be an extra burden on health care...but so are a bunch of other people with different issues.

So, while I recognize that obesity is a problem from a "health" or "medical" perspective...I wonder how in privileging those discourses or frames of living if we simultaneously delegitimate those bodies that we seek to make "thin" or a "healthy" size? Perhaps then this is the tension between prevention and care...as on one side we seek to "prevent" future kids from becoming obese...but in doing so are unable to care for those who ARE obese...finding it, in a sense, ok to "beat up" the fat kid, to make them less than all in the name of health, all in the name of the Child so that the Child will see tomorrow, never realizing that tomorrow is always a day away - as Little Orphan Annie maintains.

Exploring Chrianna, Protective Moms, and the Innocent Child

I love pop culture. It is like an aphrodisiac to me. It brings me so much pleasure. It is simply titillating. I realize that perhaps one is not supposed to “love” popular culture since it is popular and it is much classier to be in love with something not “popular”, less trashy, more “high class” or “high culture”. But, I come from the lower end of the class/culture spectrum and I prefer to stay there most of the time.

But, that is neither here nor there. My interest in popular culture, in part, is that it is a much more effective educational tool than most of the crap we do in education – in my opinion. This is not to say that what we do-do in education is worthless, only that students aren’t much engaged in it, it doesn’t captivate them, it doesn’t amuse them, it doesn’t excite/anger them. I mention something from “high culture” to my students and they look at me like I am crazy. I provide an interesting academic article and it is ok, but I relate it to popular culture (i.e. reality shows) and the conversation is off in rather interesting, provocative, and educational ways.

Yet, popular culture gets such a bad rap. Parents often times hate popular culture, especially TV, the most. In watching Real Housewives of New York, I was reminded of this as Alex said she and her husband did not allow TVs in bedrooms – sad day for their kids. I was also reminded of this when watching CNN and the Mom-Brigade was all in a tizzy because Nickelodeon would not remove Chris Brown from the ballot for a Kids Choice Award. Nickelodeon officials said they would not because the show is about “Kids Choice” and therefore would not intervene stating something to the extent that “the kids put him on the ballot and they, the kids, will decide who actually wins the award”. Of course the Mom’s retorted saying that Nick is not controlled by kids and that “kids don’t have the ability to make all decisions on their own”. I understand the mom’s concerns so I don’t want to be seen as a mom-hater. I just think they can get ridiculous sometimes as we all can I suppose. I want to explore the mom argument further for its implications in education. [Please note, after writing this, I learned that Chris Brown has removed his name from the ballot which adds more to this in my opinion]

The mom’s argument is that Chris Brown has set a bad example for young boys, that rewarding him the award would be awarding his behavior. Of course such an argument 1) assumes the kids understand what happened or even cared and 2) negates everything he did to get the nomination. Are we not allowed to fuck up without totally fucking up our lives anymore? The moms seem to want only “good” representation and good “role” models, but what exactly is good representation or a “good” role model? Chris Brown was not nominated because he is a great boyfriend, he was nominated because he is a good performer and in my opinion a rather good model for certain things.

But, let’s talk about the mom argument because they invoke the power of “popular culture” to educate and educate “wrong”. They demonize that which I love in order to make their point. In such demonizing of course they would probably hold up “other” more “upstanding” individuals who most likely have just not gotten caught. They would perhaps point to PBS for its wholesome representations, representations that will not pervert their kids and should be embraced as such. Their arguments seems to rest heavily on the notion that their children are innocent, that children need to be protected when perhaps such a stance is not fair (to us or children).

Now, before I go any further to take on this discourse around the Chrianna fiasco, I want to note that I am not arguing that violence against a person, any person, is justified. I do not think Chris should have beat up Rhianna, so move past that – that’s not my argument. My argument will engage this controversy, but to make it more complicated, to perhaps show that we are all victims and victimizers?

My interest is in the way that the mom’s invoke the victim narrative of the “female” but see no problem with the multiple messages that they might be sending young girls. They appear to want to send the message that it is not ok to allow someone to beat you up or violate you in any manner (be that physical, verbal, emotional). But, in such a lesson they propel forth another lesson - teaching perhaps that girls are still the weaker sex…that they need to be protected by a “universal” sentiment that “you shouldn’t hit a girl”? While I agree with the explict lesson, it is the implicit lesson(s) that is(are) ignored that concerns me. What is the cost of positioning the “girl” as weak, as needing a “universal principle” to protect her? What is the cost for the “girl” and what is the cost for the “boy”? Does the boy learn to take such violence from a girl rather than hitting back? (I hit back when I was a boy and when told not to hit girls, said whatever, if she hits me I’m gonna hit her back cause she’s bigger than me)

Does such rhetoric teach girls to be defenseless? Does it teach boys to be chivalrous (sexism in disguise)? Does it fail to recognize the complexity of human relationships – that in moments of passion people do irrational things and in doing so need to seek reparations afterward? Does this lesson teach boys or girls to walk away from relationships after such emotion-laden experiences? Does it fail to show that love is not always easy, that love can be violent? Diddy (Sean Puffy Combs), recently on Ellen, expressed his concern over this affair noting that relationships are difficult and things happen in them…people get emotional, people make mistakes, people fuck up. The difference, as he discusses it, is that 1) these are public figures and 2) the rest of us keep it quiet, don’t talk about it in our own private lives. Why don’t we talk about it? Why don’t we admit that humans are not entirely rational, that humans get emotional, that humans lose control and in recognizing this move away from shaming someone for such an action and talking about ways to ward off such an incident from occurring again? This talking of course may not cure the “problem” but it may take the scandal out of it allowing more people to see that “shit happens” and while “shit happening” is not an excuse for what happens (reparations should be made, apologies should be give) it should also not be an excuse to make an example out of someone or not talk to someone anymore. In talking with Patti about this, she said that NPR just had a story on abuse where an “abuser” couldn’t get help to change – turned away for being the victimizer and as such victimized, branded much like we brand sex offenders and put them on registries (I won’t go there now).

Yet, the issue gets more interesting if we move away from the mom’s and to various other discussions about this issue. Rhianna and Chris have subsequently gotten back together. Many see this as absolutely ridic (that’s the cool way to say ridiculous). I think it is what it is. I think if they love one another and want to work through these issues, repair the trauma and damage, then I say go get ‘em. Yet, others have scorned Rhianna for making such a decision – some saying she is suffering from “battered wife syndrome”. First, why do we have to pathologize her decision to return to the man she loved, who made a mistake? Now, this is not to say again that his actions were “cool” or “justified” – they happened and if we all look deep within ourselves we can find things that we have done that were not very nice, perhaps violent to an Other (physically, verbally, emotionally). Second, and this might get me in trouble, is it possible that (some of) those who go back to “battering spouses” (male or female) do so because of the thrill, because they get some pleasure out of such situations. Or perhaps even that their love overwhelms their rational senses? Now, obviously this is a bit difficult to swallow, but what role does pleasure and desire play in decisions made about our relationships with an other? Some engage in such actions consciously (S/M) but perhaps others find such a relationship, either unconsciously or due to an unwillingness to express it consciously because of the scorn such a statement might cause, titillating, exhilarating, pleasurable?

Basically, if we engaged popular culture and the ways it positions subjects can we engage students with issues that are so often simplified? What would it mean to not pathologize men or women who keep going back to an abusive relationship? Or to look at such cases much more closely? To produce a different story about love? It is easy to look at such high profile cases and to in a sense displace the issues by doing so…but in such displacement do we lose the opportunity to implicate ourselves in these issues, to take a look in the mirror and see that we are all fucked up and that’s ok...that the issue perhaps, as Kincaid notes, is the story we are being told and we need to write new stories, new descriptions of issues?

Heterosexual Jealousy
In further thinking about this issue, I was re-reading a chapter by Judith Butler (2004) where she discusses heterosexual jealousy in light of the “inescapable ways that heterosexuality and homosexuality are defined through one another”. In her exploration she discusses the ways in which a man’s woman lover wants another man and in such a dynamic the “male” exposes the inability for passions to be mutually exclusive – that his (our) desires are simultaneously heterosexual and homosexual [in part I believe because as Lacan notes “desire is the desire of the Other”].

How you ask? In that by being enraged at his woman lover he may desire in part, to be in her (imagined) receptive position and in such a position see her not as taking on the feminine position, but actually exposing his imagination of her in “a position of passive male homosexuality”. He is enraged in part because he imagines himself in her position, a position disavowed in a homophobic symbolic, but cannot take on such a position…illustrating heterosexual and homosexual desires or passions where desires are never mutually exclusive.

So, why do I add this? I add it because I want to explore how her argument could illuminate different possibilities in reactions to “cheating”. Many reports note that the “jump-off” between Chris and Rhianna started from a text from another woman. In seeing this text, Rhianna became enraged and in response Chris became enraged – violently assaulting her. Unlike, but related to, Butler’s example, this one places the female as the one who originally becomes enraged but in such a rage provokes a rageful response. Heterosexual jealousy still rears its head, but in a slightly different dynamic. It is the male who, as is traditionally seen, is the one doing the cheating and exchanging/using women. While Butler then focuses on the male homosocial and homosexual bond and desire wherein male rage emerges in part out of the disavowal of the homosexual and the inability to be such…can we read the Chrianna incident as exposing the lesbian homosocial/sexual bond and desire also? Did Rhianna in her rage, imagine herself not in the passive feminine position (she was not getting from Chris by his being with another woman) but in the active masculine position (that Chris was imagined to be in) where she was not just pissed that her man was cheating but that she could not enter such a position, that she could not, in a homophobic symbolic, engage in such a relationship with another woman? Was Chris’s response then, in part, a homophobic one where he did not imagine Rhianna in an adulterous relationship with another man, but with another woman as she took on the active “masculine” position – eliminating the “male” dynamic in the relation and “hurting” his male “masculine” ego. Was his violence in part against the homosocial and homosexual passions and desires of the “lesbian” that were operating simultaneously in Rhianna’s response. This is not to say that either are "homosexual" merely to ponder the contradictory and multifaceted aspects that desire may have...Chrianna, because of their current "status" are merely place markers for thinking about this contradictory and multifaceted read.

Ruination by the Child: Adam and Eve Revisited

Figure 1: Titian Adam and Eve c. 1550. Madrid, Prado.


The images of Adam and Eve are often evoked in a variety of settings, although often it seems to emerge around the role of original sin in relation to the child. Utilizing this “biblical” reference…I want to think about the phrase that humans are “made in the image and likeness of God” where “God” becomes parent (either mother or father or both depending on your read of the Bible) and “man” becomes child. Yet, in this we see that God did not make “child” (in our image of the child as a “little person”) but made man and woman – made “adults” that then had little people (our image of the child) after their fall from grace…Adam and Eve were arguably of course “God’s” children but they were not little shitting, eating, crying children but grown people with rather childlike curiosities and behaviors. Being “made in the image and likeness of God” then creates an image of “God” that is “grown” (our image of the “adult”) and the notion of a small “child” rather queer, rather “unlike” God, an image occluded by the image created by “God” of the “child” that which is “grown”.

As I thought of this mythical pair and their relationship to the concept of the “child” and as the first adult-children, I went to find an image of them…one that represented the image that I had with me of a man and woman, grown, by a tree (see Figure 1). In the image I found and choose for my purposes here, one sees the peculiar presence of a child. The child, positioned above the heads of Adam and Eve is handing Eve the apple. The child has become the serpent, tempting Eve with that infamous apple that would lead to the downfall of “mankind” and its banishment from the Garden of Eden. As I looked at this image and pondered the queer place of the child I became rather perplexed. The child in this image provokes a variety of readings. One could read it as the serpent using the innocent child-image to tempt Eve, since a child would never lead its parents astray AND parent’s can’t but help be “dazzled” by the beautiful (innocent) face of the child. But, if one looks at the date of this painting (1550), we see that it dates around the time in which the child was more often seen as a corrupt, depraved being not yet seen as the innocent little cherub of later times. This is of course not as clear-cut and open to debate.

However, looking at the painting, the child is not the cause of the downfall, only the instigator since it is the “apple” and what it contains (knowledge? Self-concept?) that opens the eyes of Adam and Eve to their nakedness. The child though is positioned above Adam and Eve, holding a figural position that is superior to them. The child has perhaps already been corrupted by the wonderous taste of the apple, otherwise why would it want to offer it to Eve? Is the child, living in this state of corruption, envious of the adult-like innocence of Adam and Eve, therefore tempting them in order to have company in the state of corruption, to usher them into the Symbolic realm of “knowledge” – the wily child? If the child is ushering in the adults to the Symbolic, how does this ushering alter the role of the m(O)ther in psychoanalysis – my current fascination? Within Lacanian psychoanalysis, the m(O)ther mediates the child’s entry into the Symbolic as the m(O)ther’s language cuts the Real of the Child, shattering its image of a perfect ideal world. But, here in the mythical story of Adam and Eve, through the artistic representation of Titian, it is the Child that cuts the world of the adult and ushers the adult into the Symbolic – cutting the Real of Eve (her ideal Eden) with Eve then cutting the Real of Adam (his ideal Eden). So it is not the m(O)ther that cuts the Child, but the Child (as Other) that cuts the mother (providing that Eve is viewed symbolically/mythically as the first “mother” from which mankind emerges). It is the child that ushers in language while simultaneously being without language – incomprehensible to those around unless they “eat” the forbidden fruit and enter the realm of corruption. The child is the Real – representing something inaccessible to Adam and Eve since they were never “child,” never little. But, the child is also that which cuts their Real, by bringing them that which is in the apple – language, “sight”, knowledge.

I obviously do not know how legitimate or accurate such a read is in relation to Lacanian psychoanalysis (the three Orders of Lacan – the Real, Imaginary, and Symbolic – are still being worked out in my mind) but if we take this reading where the Child ushers in the cutting of the Real, perversely giving Eve the apple, the role of the Feminine takes on a different meaning as it is not Eve, the feminine, who instigates the downfall but the sexless child, the child with a serpents tail, who instigates the downfall.

Furthermore, does this image of innocence and corruption reveal both the Dionysian and Appolonian child…with the literal “child” eliciting the image of evil - instigating the corruption of the adult – revealing that the “adult” can never be innocent because of the “child” AND the literal adults, Adam and Eve, in their symbolic child-like state, eliciting the image of innocence and purity corrupted by the pain of the child.

[Random Aside: I find it rather curious how Adam is touching Eve (perhaps her breast) with his left hand, Eve is grabbing the apple with her left hand – an apple that is on the “left” side. The child, however, is handing the apple with its right hand – its left side is unseen – as the left side of the photo (if split in two) is the darker side. Yet, historically it has been the “left” side that is seen as evil, as any (left-handed) student of the Catholic educational system of yesteryear can attest and the right hand side seen as that of “good.”]

Doubt and the role of Child Abuse

I recently saw John Patrick Shanley's film Doubt which features Meryl Streep, Amy Adams and Phillip Seymour Hoffman. It was potentially one of the best films I have seen recently, not only for the superb acting of Streep, Hoffman, and the rest of the cast, but because of the stories it seeks to tell. If one has seen the previews, one sees a film that seems to explore the Catholic priest sex scandal with the school principal Sr. Aloysius - played by Streep - believing that the parish priest Fr. Flynn - played by Hoffman - is having an inappropriate relationship with one of the students - Donald Miller. Of course we never really see the student and if one sees the film one realizes that the film is much more complex...Donald is the first black student at this school, Sr. Aloysius has no evidence of her belief and is a rather unlikable character, Fr. Flynn is likable but borders on creepy, etc.

However, I only want to dwell on a particular scene in the film. A scene in which Sr. Aloysius walks Mrs. Miller - played by Viola Davis - to her work place. In this brief scene, Mrs. Miller wants the sister to leave it be, telling her that Donald only has to make it to June when he graduates and starts high school. Within this conversation where Sr. Aloysius tells Mrs. Miller that she believes there is an inappropriate relationship between her son and Fr. Flynn, Mrs. Miller notes that it is in Donald's nature, that Donald would have been killed if he had stayed in the public schools, and that his father beats him for this "nature". Now, in my interpretation this "nature" is Mrs. Miller noting that her son is gay...something rather taboo in 1964 (5 years before Stonewall, the oft spoken start of the "gay rights movement"). She notes this because in many ways she is happy that Donald has found someone that makes him comfortable, that comforts him with his "nature". Sr. Aloysius is obviously disturbed by this notion...asking Mrs. Miller what kind of mother she is for thinking such a relationship has any validity.

It is this scene that was fascinating to me. It is fascinating because Mrs. Miller appears to be troubling the traditional notion of age of consent. I would argue that she is illustrating that consent laws in many ways are problematic for "gay" children. The establishment of consent laws, creating age demarcations for who can fuck when and where and with whom, had an important impact on how gays on different sides of the adult/child binary interact(ed). Now, this argument is not meant to condone per se pedophilic relationships and I recognize that there are serious issues of child abuse in the world, but my argument is meant to call into question how such consent laws - meant to protect the child - inevitably abuse the (gay) child by closing off the possibilities of entering relationships and spaces with other “gay” adult-persons. One can just think about the lack of “gay” things in mainstream society to recognize that that the “gay” bar all of the sudden becomes a mecca of becoming intelligible to oneself – a holy place that one goes to become oneself and see others like it. Of course it is problematic to think about the notion of becoming oneself and the limitations that even the notion of the “gay” bar create in terms of possibilities for “gay” youth…but that’s not my point.

My point is that Mrs. Miller, painstakingly perhaps, recognizes that Donald has no one else to turn to, no one else to be in relationship with because there are no other "gay" persons around. If Fr. Flynn is a person that Donald trusts and is comfortable with, then she is happy that he has found someone that loves him...something his own father cannot do, unless one constitutes being beaten as "love". Now of course this is difficult to comprehend because discourse in contemporary US has pathologized relationships with large age variations...and further more when the "child" is involved. And of course we do not know what type of relationship exists between the two characters in question. If the relationship is sexual it is obviously complicated by issues of power and ability to consent...however these issues are issues that should be taken seriously and explored...granting Donald some form of sexual agency, if he is knowledgeable of the choices and what is at stake in any relationship, especially a sexual one. In thinking about this then we see that Fr. Flynn is placed in a rather precarious place because if he takes a "gay" child under his wings to form of bond with him, he is immediately suspected as having inappropriate relationships BUT if he does not develop such relationships, that child may never experience love or a relationship that validates the feelings that child has. NOW, of course some adults could take advantage of that...but not all adults will as some adults recognize the plight of children and the needs of children to have validation and love in a world filled with violence and abuse...especially towards those "gay" bodies.

All in all, I found this film rather thought provoking in thinking about an issue (specifically Sexual Abuse in the Catholic church) in new light. I don't know if many viewers will catch this little nuance in the film...but from my perspective is was incredibly provacative and insightful