“Already given discourses might elide the specificities of those with firm locations within already given categories but not to the same degree that they elide the specificities of those of us who are dislocated from such categories. Those of us who live in border zones constituted by the overlapping margins of categories do so not in order to engage in high-spirited celebration or revelry. We do so because our embodiments and our subjectivities are abjected from social ontology: we cannot fit ourselves into extant categories without denying, eliding, erasing, or otherwise abjecting personally significant aspects of ourselves. The price of committing such violence against ourselves is too great, though our only other option is also very costly. When we choose to live with and in our dislocatedness, fractured from social ontology, we choose to forgo intelligibility: lost in language and in social life, we become virtually unintelligible, even to ourselves.”—C. Jacob Hale, “Consuming the Living, Dis(Re)Membering the Dead in the Butch/FTM Borderlands,” via FORGE (via genderqueer)
“The Puritans aspired to build instead a pure theocratic homeland in America. As the research of historian Jonathan Ned Katz shows, they meant it: Many people were executed for sodomy. Yet he also uncovered cases that suggest this isn’t the whole story. From the start, there were Americans who dissented from the Puritanism–often in the most blatant way—and it is these dissenters who interest Bronski most. In 1624, a large group of people led by a man named Thomas Morton decided to found a town based on very different principles, in an area that is now Quincy, near Boston. They called the town Merrymount—popular slang at the time for illicit forms of sex—and built an 80-foot phallic symbol in the town center. They freed any indentured servants who joined them, befriended the local Native American tribe, and began to intermarry with them, suggesting many of their members were heterosexuals sick of Puritan strictures and open to other ways.”—
Full article here at Slate. Read until you get to Merrymount, the coolest colonial town you never visited in middle school. The history seems very, very cool indeed, and casts a nice light on the narrative that queers are new and alien to Amurrica.
Of course, the reviewer says the message (“Yet in a strange and disagreeable turn, Bronski concludes that in the final act of this story, gays have en masse abandoned their mission by demanding the most domestic and Puritan goal of all: monogamous marriage.”) is a bit of a shock, and that’s worth keeping in mind. I’m a big fan of gay/queer marriage, but obviously think the fight for rights should go further for everyone… And of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to be married to whoever you want. I say this before I get a dozen reblogs condemning me for not including every single conceivable type of relationship/type of love/important right/what-have-you. We here at FuQS love you all, support you all, and will never give up the queer fight. Perhaps we can read this to mean that queerness goes beyond marriage, and we need to keep that in mind. In the future, we’re going to make everything queer as shit.
“When the show went to No. 1 in December 1988, ABC sent a chocolate “1” to congratulate me. Guess they figured that would keep the fat lady happy—or maybe they thought I hadn’t heard (along with the world) that male stars with No. 1 shows were given Bentleys and Porsches. So me and George Clooney [who played Roseanne Conner’s boss for the first season] took my chocolate prize outside, where I snapped a picture of him hitting it with a baseball bat. I sent that to ABC.”—
“If we understand “slut” to mean “someone (usually a woman) who dresses sexy, acts sexual, and/or has a lot of sex,” there’s absolutely no harm done. “Slut” only became an insult because our culture is completely screwed up about sex, so instead of dealing with it head-on, we assigned it such a tremendous emotional load that instead of saying “Slut is bad because X,” we could just say “SLUT!” and have people feel bad from that alone, no logical rationale required. Having sex without freely given consent, sex that involves dishonesty or manipulation, sex that spreads diseases or causes unwanted pregnancies—these are bad things. But none of them is inherent to being a “slut.” A slut who does their slutting safely, honestly, and consensually is enjoying and sharing pleasure and joy.”—The Pervocracy: Answering Slutwalk FAQs. (via sexisnottheenemy)
“If there’s one thing that we see rarely — if at all — in porn, it’s laughter. What strikes me about most pornography is that it’s always so deadly serious. A nervous giggle is permissible in a few instances (such as those ghastly “casting couch” videos that are evidently ubiquitous, in which “innocent newcomers” are interviewed and then fucked for the first time on camera.) But laughter during sex, a shared joyful recognition that getting naked and sweaty and contorted is frequently hilarious? Nope. For too many, porn reinforces the obligation to perform, which creates anxiety, which creates in turn a deathly humorlessness.”—
(I laugh hysterically almost every time I have sex. I did it during my first kiss, which made my boyfriend break up with me. I never understood why so many people aren’t in on the joke. I’m not laughing AT you, I’m laughing at how absurd tongues and grunting and lust and pushing and tangling and fingers and sweat and bodies are. Sex. Is. Hilarious. And should be fun, and most free to be yourself with someone then, not getting performance anxiety. Oh well, in a perfect world.. /soapbox)
“In moments like these, I feel in my gut just how political the maternal is. It is the politics of raising a feminist son who not only analyzes big, outer world issues, but who also daily looks through the world via a feminist lens in order to critique everything from cartoons to the actions of his schoolmates and teachers. It is the practice of raising a daughter, who, at age seven, decided to petition Nintendo to rename “Gameboy” into “Gamekid.” “To convince you that I am not the only one who feels this way,” she wrote, “I have gathered 142 signatures below.”—Motherhood and Feminism, by Natalie Wilson.