Posts
Showing posts with label homophobic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homophobic. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Whaddya Mean, Male Pornstars Like Girl-On-Girl Action?
I find it quite weird that I'm blogging yet again about Lindsay Lohan, but she's in the news and I find it significant, ergo, here goes.Apparently over the Christmas break, BBC broadcast a radio show with DJ Spoony and legendary porn star Ron Jeremy, offering up "The Most Annoying People Of 2008" with all sorts of commentary thrown in there. Now it's being accused of being homophobic and sexist.
The heinous words spoken?
From Spoony: "Let the munters and mingers get each other - that's cool because no-one really wants them. But when they're hot and fit and Hollywood superstars, they should be saved for guys."
From Ron: "These two girls are very good-looking. I would love to be in the middle of that: They will do each other, do me, do each other, do me, back and forth. All of a sudden, you do a pop and it is over. The polite thing to do is to pop on both of them. Men are wishing they could be with her and change her mind, thinking 'Yeah, she is a lesbian now because she never met me.'" (I'd also throw in there that Ron said in May of 2008 that he'd like to see Lindsay Lohan's sex tape, and there was no hullabaloo over that).
Granted, Spoony's British slang sounds all homophobicky at first, since I've no idea what a munter or a minger is. Urban Dictionary tells me they are essentially ugly women, not even a reference to unattractive lesbians a la the American "bulldyke" or some such. It's still incredibly offensive, but I have to ask- what do you expect?
Seriously- what the hell do you expect? I can't believe that people are "shocked" by these guys repeating what is blatantly pushed at us from nearly every media source: that lesbianism isn't a real orientation, that lesbian sex is not "real sex" (whatever that means), that women are essentially around for men's pleasure, and that lesbian and bisexual couples are incredibly open to inviting men into their beds and relationships. If all the porn that you see portrays lesbian and bisexual women in such a way, you're going to get a certain mindset. Then you can tell yourself "Nah, it's just porn, that's not real life.", but then the mainstream media tells you pretty much the same thing. These aren't two crass individuals out of touch with society (as, say, Don Imus was). This is a clear and perfect example of how in-touch with a national heterosexual mindset as could possibly be.
And as for Ron Jeremy's "graphic" statements, which for a porn star, show a remarkable restraint in the language!, I'm curious as to how it would go over if a lesbian commentator talked about how she wanted to be in a threesome with the girls and squirt all over both of them. Of course, it'd still be a big issue over indecency, but would gay rights activists be furious about it? Or would they celebrate it? How about if an all-girl radio show lamented the fact that, as we've heard so many times "all the good guys are gay" and "what a waste it is that he's gay" and "smart, handsome guys like that should be saved for us girls!". I might be wrong, but I'm betting there'd be little fanfare over such a statement.
I'm not saying it isn't a little crude. I'm not saying it's respectful and sweet (although, really, when you're calling out "The Most Annoying People Of 2008", the whole thing really isn't that respectful, right?). What I'm saying is that I have pretty much the exact same fantasy as Ron Jeremy, and if I got the chance to put that offer out there on the air waves, you better believe I'd do it in a heartbeat. Why does that make me a delightfully sexually liberated woman, but Ron Jeremy is a "sexist pig"?
Jiz Lee has been writing some very provocative stuff of late addressing that whole well-worn issue of "the male gaze", wherein straight guys fetishize lesbianism, and, according to a legion of old-school feminists, take away queer women's power and exploits them and yada yada yada. Jiz's take on it- that the gender of the people jerking off to you in fact can give you more power- is rather refreshing. I utterly agree, and, moreover, find it pretty damn cool that Ron Jeremy wants to roll in the hay with not just feminine Lindsay but also boyish or even butch Sam. It's a nice confirmation that genderfucky women are sexually attractive (not that we needed Ron Jeremy or any man to tell US that). And this isn't Ron Jeremy pulling strings and making fake G/G porn . . . it's commentary on two real-life women in a relationship. He can't rob them of their power by telling people he imagines three-ways with them.
I was quite interested when I clicked on the headlines, but in the end, this is pretty weak tea. Yes, it's offensive to say that fit and sexy women should be saved for the men. But my jaw's not on the ground at the supposed "blatant homophobia and sexism". I'm still slack-jawed at the idea that people can't see that this is all around them, that there is a pervasive attitude that creates comments like DJ Spoony's in its mildest cases and rape in its most horrific.
But of course this radio broadcast won't be framed like that- because how can you vilify an entire culture? Who would you call out? Gay rights activists will denounce it, lesbians will call Ron Jeremy a pig (but praise Pat Califia for fantasizing about gay men). And we will take our two scapegoats who said what a good deal of men would agree with, and hang them out to dry. Ugh.
I'll end with this: for me the most offensive aspect about the whole thing is the fact that Ron Jeremy would like to have a threesome with two people he agrees are some of "the most annoying people of 2008". Sex with someone whose personality you find completely repulsive is apparently not half as bad as graphically lusting after lesbians.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Boys and G0ys
It seems like every four or five months or so somebody surfaces from out of nowhere to remind me of the "g0y" movement. It's something I'd rather forget, to be quite honest.
At first glance, it seems like nothing new. People keep on coming up with labels for their own particular gender and sexual orientational crossroads- it starts as lesbian, breaks down to butches, and we add in the sexual components to get butch tops, butch bottoms, heck, even stone butches. And that's just one example. While it can be a doozy to keep track of all these terms, I generally like the creativity associated with them, the way they help to foster growing communities and battle stereotypes (helping to open up dialogues about diversity), and how they provide individuals with proud identities. Yeah . . . I'm not one of those people arguing "Why do we need labels? Who cares who you love?". I like labels and burgeoning identities.
So I really ought to be thrilled to see a new subset of the gay male, the g0y (yes, that's a zero in the middle, not an "oh", and no, I don't know how to pronounce it), who proclaims proudly that he is masculine, loves masculine men, and he doesn't have anal sex.
Only, there's more to it than that, you see.
A closer look at the g0y philosophy shows they have a lot of, shall we say, interesting ideas about gender and sex, and they come not from a place of personal preferences, but rather from a lot of theorizing and way more explanation than the above definition ought warrant. I mean, why would someone need several webpages defending and vehemently not apologizing for their personal identity in long, meandering passages?
G0y's do not only dislike anal sex for themselves- they dislike it for anyone. People who practice buttsex are labelled "phreaks" and deviants, and the reason for the practice's popularity is likened to the massive campaigns of the tobacco industry, and its affiliation with homosexuality compared to the Nazi takeover of the peaceful Indian symbol (note to the g0y's: actually, the symbol of the swastika is actually reversed, not as is). Strong words, stronger images. And all about a little anal play? Seriously? Nobody's punk'ing me?
But of course, the condemnation of anal sex is integral to maintaining a Christian front. Manipulate scripture as you will- I'm no theologist and could care less. I've heard various sources say that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had to do with a lack of hospitality, not gay sex. I've heard some say it was all about man-on-man action, but it don't really matter, because Jesus never said a thing about guys getting together. I've heard some very smart people (okay, well, that's my subjectivity showing through) say that the Bible is reflective of the time in which it was written, and the social mores of that era, hence it can't be taken literally (moreover, there are lots of other things we have changed- women speaking out in church, for example- that wasn't in as much contention as the whole gay issue). But g0y's twist to the Word is a literal one- it's the anal sex that'll getcha sent to hell. Man-on-man lovin' is good in the eyes of the Lord, but "laying with a man as one would a woman"- nuh-uh, mister.
Funny, isn't it? I guess it all depends on your goals. If you're a gay guy longing to be accepted by God, you can tell yourself that. If you're a straight couple longing for some anal sex, though, well, you can talk your way to that, too- like the hilarious parody site Sex In Christ goes to show.
The other tenet of g0ydom is the emphasis on masculinity. Oh no, your Paul Lynde's and Buddy Cole's aren't welcome here. God only knows how they handle watching Jack on "Will and Grace". Now, I've encountered a lot of femme phobia- gay men who are squicked by the mincing and prancing and generally fun part of getting to be gay (you know, if you're so inclined). Every time I hear a gay man complain about stereotypical gay portrayals in the media, I sympathize, but at the same time, I hear those echoes of anti-femme- for effeminate gay men do exist. Some equality in representation of macho men and queens would be nice, but you can't eliminate either completely, no matter how much you wish you weren't associated with them. Your discomfort, I've always maintained, might just be your own hangup. But not so, say the g0ys. If you aren't a virile manly man, you've been brainwashed by the gays- another "phreak" delighting in your gender deviancy.
So. Do g0ys have some good points? Of course they do- that's what draws people to it in the first place (well, besides using their homophobic stances to draw in gay men in denial with self-internalized hatred). They quite correctly acknolwedge that media portrayals of gay men (or, I suppose, for them, "men who love men") are stereotypical and often negative (or at least, have negative connotations in a world that devalues femininity). And they have a very right-on view towards Christian treatments of homosexuality (discrediting the ex-gay movement, for example). And yet, the whole thing sounds like a macho Christian guy's attempt to make his homosexuality palatable with his church and his macho buddies.
I wouldn't have a problem with g0ys if they were what they proposed to be- anal-disliking masculine guys who like guys. But they're much more than that- what amounts to a cult that believes itself morally superior by separating itself from and then belittling and demonizing homosexuality. The only thing that gives me some comfort is that I still have faith in the general intelligence of women. Don't let me down, lesbians. If I find out there's a new "leZbian" subculture of girls who don't eat pussy, there WILL be hell to pay, ya'll.
At first glance, it seems like nothing new. People keep on coming up with labels for their own particular gender and sexual orientational crossroads- it starts as lesbian, breaks down to butches, and we add in the sexual components to get butch tops, butch bottoms, heck, even stone butches. And that's just one example. While it can be a doozy to keep track of all these terms, I generally like the creativity associated with them, the way they help to foster growing communities and battle stereotypes (helping to open up dialogues about diversity), and how they provide individuals with proud identities. Yeah . . . I'm not one of those people arguing "Why do we need labels? Who cares who you love?". I like labels and burgeoning identities.
So I really ought to be thrilled to see a new subset of the gay male, the g0y (yes, that's a zero in the middle, not an "oh", and no, I don't know how to pronounce it), who proclaims proudly that he is masculine, loves masculine men, and he doesn't have anal sex.
Only, there's more to it than that, you see.
A closer look at the g0y philosophy shows they have a lot of, shall we say, interesting ideas about gender and sex, and they come not from a place of personal preferences, but rather from a lot of theorizing and way more explanation than the above definition ought warrant. I mean, why would someone need several webpages defending and vehemently not apologizing for their personal identity in long, meandering passages?
G0y's do not only dislike anal sex for themselves- they dislike it for anyone. People who practice buttsex are labelled "phreaks" and deviants, and the reason for the practice's popularity is likened to the massive campaigns of the tobacco industry, and its affiliation with homosexuality compared to the Nazi takeover of the peaceful Indian symbol (note to the g0y's: actually, the symbol of the swastika is actually reversed, not as is). Strong words, stronger images. And all about a little anal play? Seriously? Nobody's punk'ing me?
But of course, the condemnation of anal sex is integral to maintaining a Christian front. Manipulate scripture as you will- I'm no theologist and could care less. I've heard various sources say that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had to do with a lack of hospitality, not gay sex. I've heard some say it was all about man-on-man action, but it don't really matter, because Jesus never said a thing about guys getting together. I've heard some very smart people (okay, well, that's my subjectivity showing through) say that the Bible is reflective of the time in which it was written, and the social mores of that era, hence it can't be taken literally (moreover, there are lots of other things we have changed- women speaking out in church, for example- that wasn't in as much contention as the whole gay issue). But g0y's twist to the Word is a literal one- it's the anal sex that'll getcha sent to hell. Man-on-man lovin' is good in the eyes of the Lord, but "laying with a man as one would a woman"- nuh-uh, mister.
Funny, isn't it? I guess it all depends on your goals. If you're a gay guy longing to be accepted by God, you can tell yourself that. If you're a straight couple longing for some anal sex, though, well, you can talk your way to that, too- like the hilarious parody site Sex In Christ goes to show.
The other tenet of g0ydom is the emphasis on masculinity. Oh no, your Paul Lynde's and Buddy Cole's aren't welcome here. God only knows how they handle watching Jack on "Will and Grace". Now, I've encountered a lot of femme phobia- gay men who are squicked by the mincing and prancing and generally fun part of getting to be gay (you know, if you're so inclined). Every time I hear a gay man complain about stereotypical gay portrayals in the media, I sympathize, but at the same time, I hear those echoes of anti-femme- for effeminate gay men do exist. Some equality in representation of macho men and queens would be nice, but you can't eliminate either completely, no matter how much you wish you weren't associated with them. Your discomfort, I've always maintained, might just be your own hangup. But not so, say the g0ys. If you aren't a virile manly man, you've been brainwashed by the gays- another "phreak" delighting in your gender deviancy.
So. Do g0ys have some good points? Of course they do- that's what draws people to it in the first place (well, besides using their homophobic stances to draw in gay men in denial with self-internalized hatred). They quite correctly acknolwedge that media portrayals of gay men (or, I suppose, for them, "men who love men") are stereotypical and often negative (or at least, have negative connotations in a world that devalues femininity). And they have a very right-on view towards Christian treatments of homosexuality (discrediting the ex-gay movement, for example). And yet, the whole thing sounds like a macho Christian guy's attempt to make his homosexuality palatable with his church and his macho buddies.
I wouldn't have a problem with g0ys if they were what they proposed to be- anal-disliking masculine guys who like guys. But they're much more than that- what amounts to a cult that believes itself morally superior by separating itself from and then belittling and demonizing homosexuality. The only thing that gives me some comfort is that I still have faith in the general intelligence of women. Don't let me down, lesbians. If I find out there's a new "leZbian" subculture of girls who don't eat pussy, there WILL be hell to pay, ya'll.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
