There is a gay porno musical adaptation of William Shakespeare's "Romeo & Juliet"... How do you follow up on a sentence like that?
TGWTG's Community Blogs.
Okay. This post is going to come with a big confession. It might be difficult for me, but...but I'll get through it.
I fucking love Black Canary.
Phew. That was easier than I thought.
All right, all right. Moving past my silly double entendres, I do have a small confession to make. I happen to be a woman...who likes women. I won't say I'm a lesbian because...er...I don't not feel attraction to men. I just really, really prefer the ladies. If I'm going to be totally honest, I prefer not having a label for what I feel at all. Bisexual? Maaaaaybe. Gay? Eh, not that specific. There's even that subgroup called "pansexual" that would probably fit me the best, but I can't be arsed to sign up for the party.
The reason I bring this up in the first place has to do with a trend I've noticed in media, mainly film. Where are the bisexuals? No, seriously. Where the hell did they go? I'm a casual LOGO watcher, usually just to catch a few episodes of Little Britain and Queer as Folk (which are both hilarious in their own ways, even if the latter tries to be serious). I watch show after show after melodramatic movie and always see "I discovered I was gay because Jimmy looked at me funny in the locker room! OMFG!", or the lesbian equivalent "I've been having sex with my boyfriend/husband for the last six years, but this attractive female has made me realize he's a douche! Bye bye, cock!"
So my question is - are there films dealing with bisexuality?
I have a few examples that could possibly apply:
The first is somewhat controversial, in both the heterosexual and LGBT communities. It's called Chasing Amy. In other words, Kevin Smith's excuse to give Ben Affleck more work. Most lesbians I talk to are opposed to the movie. They say that the message of the film is that Ben Affleck's flaccid Daredevil has the ability to turn reasonable lesbians into twittering straight women. Now, Gigli aside, Ben Affleck is hardly the man I would expect to "turn" a lesbian. How I took the film was that it was about a woman who identified as a lesbian, but who was truly bisexual beneath that mask. The reason she labeled herself as a lesbian instead of bisexual had to do with society's view of bisexuals: mainly, the whole "they're just confused/can't make up their minds/want the best of both worlds" argument that comes from both sides of the fence. In her mind, it was easier to be a lesbian who may be looked down on by one set of people than to be bisexual and looked down on by both LGBT and heterosexual communities. I think that if this movie had been more about her instead of Ben Affleck, I would have liked it a lot more. Instead, the movie left a bad taste in my mouth that in no way resembled carpet (clears throat).
The second is Imagine Me & You. I may be on a lesbian trend here, but I really like this movie. It's far from perfect, don't get me wrong, but it's such a sweet, witty, and whimsical romantic comedy that it warmed my normally cynical heart. But the point I'm making about it is that the lead character, whose name is Rachel and who is played by the freaking adorable Piper Perabo, who falls for the beautiful and charming florist named Luce, played by Lena Headey (unf unf unf). The movie starts with Rachel marrying her long-time amour Hector, who happens to be a lovely man and, for once in lesbian movie history, is made to be very sympathetic. The reason I note this movie for being a good case of bisexuality in film is that Rachel never says "I'm gay now" or "I was fooling myself by being with this man." She clearly loves him, she clearly liked sleeping with him, but the fact is that her soul-mate happened to be a woman. Her sexuality wasn't the main key to the film. Instead, it was that she fell for someone when she wasn't supposed to, and had to struggle with what to do with her new feelings. While the word "bisexual" is never said, the concept is toyed with, and being bisexual or even just bicurious is put out as very reasonable.
And the last I'll make note of is the very over-hyped Brokeback Mountain. Don't get me wrong here, I like this movie. This movie made me sob like a little bitch. But I don't love this movie. It's...kind of boring. Okay, more than kind of. It's really fucking boring. As beautiful as the scenery porn was and as interesting as watching Heath Ledger (sniffle) and Jake Gyllanelaniehallliway wash themselves with a tin cup fifty times was, it could have used more action. And by action I mean sex. Preferably between the two guys the movie was fucking about! Anyway, the sensational dullness of this movie isn't my point. The point I was trying to make is that the two leads in this movie are bisexual. Yes, the alleged "gay cowboy" movie is actually about bisexual ranchers. Cue collective gasps of shock. They both enjoy having sex with men and women. It's just...natural. While the character Jack seems more interested in men and wants Ennis to settle down with him, he doesn't object to having Anne Hathaway's awesome titties in his face (who would?), and Ennis takes on a couple of female lovers while seemingly only have guy/guy funtimes with Jack. Again, the story was more about their forbidden love with each other and less about sexuality. Unfortunately, the marketing for the film and the giant hype it received for being "progressive" made it seem like nothing more than a gay sob story. In my mind, the real progressiveness of this movie was its nonchalance with portraying regular, hard-working, American men as bisexuals.
So the big question is: why do big studios have such an issue with portraying real bisexuality? Not just a passing line about someone maybe experimenting in college, or a gay character realizing they never really liked their opposite sex partner to begin with and only needed an attractive same sex character to make them see that. Sexuality took a long time to break into American cinema because of the long-holding censorship of the time, but it's finally making an appearance in a number of films. However, these films are still very black and white about sexuality, only showing sexuality as being able to go one of two ways. Will there be a time when bisexuality, pansexuality, or other sexual identities will be able to speak out in big studio films and other media? I certainly hope so, but, until then, I'll stick to my cheesy lesbian romances and keep my big mouth shut.
[[Note: Note: The title is in reference to the character Black Canary in Birds of Prey. Gail Simone (my current favorite comic writer) wanted Black Canary to say "I'm 75% heterosexual" in reference to Simone's belief the character was actually bi, but the execs changed the line to "Heterosexual to the bone." Boooo....
In our second review of the Donald Strachey film series, the gay PI goes undercover at a conversion therapy clinic to find out why an ex-gay poster boy committed suicide, and faces some personal demons.
We take a look at one of the literary community's first gay PIs in this made-for-TV novel adaptation. When a self-published investigative journalist is found dead over his public 'outing' of prominent political figures, Strachey must take the case despite his personal feelings, and find out who the mysterious 'third man out' is before somebody gets away with murder.
I've noticed an interesting trend in the writing of gay characters; and by interesting, I mean infuriating.
Gay characters have spent a long time clawing their way into the public eye. While gay characters have been around since the origin of fiction itself, it hasn't been until modern works that the gay community has really been given a voice. Unfortunately, with every good thing there must be some bad. In this case, I'm speaking of the trend to write gay characters as misogynist and misandrist in fiction....
That Long-Haired Creepy Guy makes a confession, then tackles the horror of television spin-offs that jump on board the bandwagon with cliched writing.
Welcome to The Lair. Plan on a VERY short stay.
CALLING OUT HATERS
Considering one of my last blogs was on how Michele Bachmann just didn’t give a shit about people who bully children who identify themselves as Lesbian Gay Bisexual or Transgender, it turns out she is one of three candidates that want to bully them and the community at large. Bachmann, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have signed a pledge in which if they were elected President (And posted on the National Organization for Marriage website… appropriate):
“One, support sending a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification.
Two, nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and to applying the original meaning of the Constitution, appoint an attorney general similarly committed, and thus reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution.
Three, defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act vigorously in court.
Four, establish a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed.
Five, advance legislation to return to the people of the District of Columbia their right to vote on marriage.”
You know for members of the party who want smaller government they sure want even more regulation on marriage rights. Something like this can and possibly will be abused, the big target being the LGBT community and how they are pushing for equal rights. Bachmann has even said how the issue of LGBT rights shouldn’t be considered for people’s concerns, yet when she does things like this and that other pledge she signed it’s hard to not to be concerned. Bachmann actually said she would both support state rights AND a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage, which does not make any sense. Ron Paul, for all that I disagree with him, has a right mindset that LGBT rights that it should be an issue to not have the government step in and try and do stuff like an amendment. Though Paul himself supports it as purely state issue which not until a recent comment someone pointed out how wrong it would be, especially when dealing with couples traveling interstate and having adopted children, would not be recognized in a non-Gay rights supported state. In spite of that Paul does keep politics and religion seperate. But for the candidates who signed the pledge it seems, there is no wall between politics and faith, that personal beliefs should fuel how this country should be run.