Supernatural, let me count the ways I love you

Or, the ways I started to love you, or the ways that I realised I loved you from the beginning.

The music.  Oh the music.  I can't remember ever watching a TV show where the music was so integral to the story.  Guardians of the Galaxy did the same, with Quill's mixtapes (I wanted to call him Kevin there... why.. brain...just why...).  Dean's taste for classic rock permeates every episode, until approximately season 6/7.  It sets the tone, it establishes the brothers' background, it tells you about their tastes, it provides a constant in their chaotic lives.

I found Dean's playlist on Spotify (it's probably this one), and started listening to it and then stuck the songs onto a playlist for myself and now I have a Supernatural theme wherever I go.  As an added bonus, the child now likes Kansas' Carry On Wayward Son.  Don't know it?  It's played at the start of every season finale and it takes all my self control not to whack it up to 11 and throw my arms about.  Here are the lyrics:

Carry on my wayward son
For there'll be peace when you are done
Lay your weary head to rest
Don't you cry no more

Once I rose above the noise and confusion
Just to get a glimpse beyond the illusion
I was soaring ever higher, but I flew too high
Though my eyes could see I still was a blind man
Though my mind could think I still was a mad man
I hear the voices when I'm dreamin', I can hear them say

Carry on my wayward son
For there'll be peace when you are done
Lay your weary head to rest
Don't you cry no more

Masquerading as a man with a reason
My charade is the event of the season
And if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know
On a stormy sea of moving emotion
Tossed about I'm like a ship on the ocean
I set a course for winds of fortune, but I hear the voices say

Carry on my wayward son
For there'll be peace when you are done
Lay your weary head to rest
Don't you cry no more

Carry on, you will always remember
Carry on, nothing equals the splendor
Now your life's no longer empty
Surely heaven waits for you

Carry on my wayward son
For there'll be peace when you are done
Lay your weary head to rest
Don't you cry no more

I have ALL THE FEELS.  Honestly, the song makes me emotional and it wouldn't have done if it were not now indelibly connected with the Winchester brothers.

Dean's appetites. For food and sex.  I think that Dean is a pretty uncomplicated man.  He hunts, he's loyal to his family, he'd do anything for his family, he drinks, he eats, he has sex, he watches Westerns and Scooby Doo and horror films and he's not filled with existential angst.  Mostly.

He loves his food. He takes such great pleasure in his food.  It's an ongoing thing, not a couple of throw away scenes or pieces or dialogue.  I don't recall ever seeing this on a telly show before.  Buffy's Giles had a hankering for jaffa cakes and tea, but usually the specifics of the food isn't such a big thing on telly shows.

Same for the sex.  Dean likes sex, he's often out hooking up with a woman, he'll flirt with everyone, he's usually successful when he's hitting on women, but we also see the times when he's not.  I'm used to prudish America telly, where enjoying sex is reserved for villains, and casual sex is frowned upon.  Again, my mind casts back to Buffy, which had a horrible attitude to sex.  Thinking of Smallville, it was all very vanilla and lovey, until Lois came along and it was clear she liked sex too.  That struck me as unusual when I was watching it, and then she obviously ended up with Clark, presumably having lots of hardcore sex and introducing Clark to kinks.

Dean Winchester doesn't really do long term.  There's a few longish term relationships, but mostly he's just shagging around.  Importantly, these one night stands AREN'T criticised by the show, it's not used to show that he's gone evil, or is possessed, or is on a morally downward spiral.  He just likes sex.  And porn.  He doesn't disrespect the women he shags or watches either.  He just enjoys sex.  I love that.

Sam and Dean's unspoken conversations.

They have all the facial expressions and all the reactions.  They don't need dialogue to get feelings or opinions across, it's all there on their faces, plain as day.  I don't know if the show was planned like that or if it developed from the two main's chemistry, but it works.  They are brothers, growing up they just had each other, their Dad and Bobby.  These physical conversations reinforce that and it;s a really good use of screentime.

The actors' camaraderie.  They just seem like they genuinely like each other.  I like that.

It's a show about brothers.  Family too, but mostly brothers.  I don't usually like such male oriented shows but this works.  I have a lot of thoughts about how the women in the shows are treated too, but that is a whole other blogpost.  It will include joy and rage. 

There is a frigging twitter called Jared as Cats.  How can you not love a show that inspires such delightfully mad fandom?

That's it for tonight. More tomorrow. Probably.

The gym, the gay best friend, and performative sexuality

So. I'm still going to the gym.  I'm enjoying it again and I'm going regularly.  Tonight I went to a new class, Sh'bam.  It is described on the Les Mills website thusly:

Featuring simple but seriously hot dance moves, SH'BAM™ is the perfect way to shape up and let out your inner star - even if you're dance challenged.
Set to a soundtrack of chart-topping popular hits, dance music that is heard in the hottest nightclubs around the world, familiar classics remixed and modernized Latin beats, SH'BAM™ is the ultimate fun and sociable way to exercise. Each 45-minute SH'BAM™ class is vibrant, unique and varied - and like all the LES MILLS™ programs, a new SH'BAM™ release is produced every three months with new music and choreography.

I thought it might be fun.  It was on at a time that suited so I went.  Now it probably isn't for me, although it was a decent workout, but there were a couple of things that really stood out for me during the class, that aren't what people would associate with a gym class.

The instructor we had is either gay or straight and camp.  For this discussion it doesn't matter whether he is gay or straight, what is relevant is how people read him.  Now, I've had a few male gay friends over the years.  I've read women's magazines, I've seen the films and the TV shows and I've seen how people react to men who read as gay or camp.  There's this concept of the 'gay best friend'.  In popular media the gay best friend is usually a supporting character, who helps the straight woman out with her romance problems, is flamboyant, a great dancer and dresses well. Often they are seen as non-threatening and just like a woman, but better because they are a man.

Then I see straight women in real life around gay men.  And the gay man is perceived in a certain way, they are perceived to be the same as the fictional characters on the telly or in the books.  And it strikes me that the women are treating the gay man as a commodity.  As an idea, not as an individual.  They all want a gay best friend, and they want them to act in a certain way.  They don't care about the individual.  They want the concept.  And sometimes it seems like they are fawning over the gay man, and vying with each other for his attention.  And I wonder why is a gay man afforded more (temporary, assumed) status than a straight man, or a straight woman, or a gay woman?  Or a bisexual woman or man.  What is it about the gender relationships and power balances that drives some women to want a gay best friend as opposed to a friend?

The whole thing is insulting it commodifies gay men and reduces them to their sexuality and an idea, a package.

And I see the women in the gym acting in this way with this instructor.  And it frustrates and saddens me.  Now this is not to say that the instructor is displeased with these women.  It's not to say that they aren't genuinely friends.  But it still saddens me because I think the relationship is riddled with subtle homophobia.

As for the performative sexuality part.  Well, the class was opened with the sentence, 'what happens in sh'bam, stays in sh'bam'.  I wasn't aware that I was signing up to a secret soriety, but that sentence seems to put forward an idea that the class is an exclusive club.  Then throughout the class there were women posing and strutting and checking themselves out in the mirror.  Now, the class is meant to be fun, and silly, and it is based on 'the hottest dance moves', but what I didn't anticipate was something which was encouraging us to shake our arse, our boobs and act like we were the sexiest things on the planet.

And that's what I mean by performative sexuality - I don't want to do that in the gym.  I'm there to work out and to get fitter.  I'm OK doing all that in a club (especially if I'm drunk), but at the gym I don't want it.  I'm not comfortable in an atmosphere that encourages you to perform sexuality, unless it's in a club, and even then sometimes I just want to cut loose and not give a fuck about being hot.  I don't want to have sex and sexuality creep into every area of my life.  I'm not a prude for saying that, I just think that there is a time and a place, and it is not in a gym.

A few months ago I was waiting to go into a CX Worx class.  It's to strengthen your core and improve your abs.  It's good, but it is bloody hard work.  Anyway, before this class there was this 40 something dude and his mate also waiting.  And 3 women in our 20s/30s.  The 40 something dude started the conversation by commenting about the Les Mills name - he doesn't know how to pronounce it. But he was leering, and insinuating that pronouncing it 'Lez' (not 'Lay') would be funny, and why would anyone have a name pronounced 'Lez'.  Which is incredibly childish.  He seemed to want us to join in with him.  We didn't.

One of the women explained how the class worked, what it did and why it is good.  Then he started saying that all of us lovely women didn't need to to work out, and he doesn't think any of the women here need to exercise hard.

I'm sure he thought he was complimenting us, but what he was actually doing was commenting and judging our bodies.  I don't want my body judged at a gym.  I don't want it judged by a  stranger.  I don't want it's attractiveness measured up.  The only possible way I want my body measured at a gym is to discuss how to get bigger muscles.  The other women were either giving nervous titters by this point or just doing half smiles.  I was probably glaring.

The thing is, he asked about the class, but really wanted to talk about our bodies.  he wasn't interested in what the women were saying, just in his own views.  Prick.  I was very pleased to see that he didn't cope very well with the class.

And that's my gym update.

Hah! A wonderful example of culture bias

This post looks at one of the oldest (yet found) female figurines that has recently been dug up in Stuttgart.  More specifically, it looks at how the archeologists et al have deemed it an early example of porn.

The writer then goes on to pull apart this assertion and show how the men commenting on this don't seem to be able to a) get past their own views on what constitutes pornography and b) coem up with any other reasons as to why figurines of women may have been created.

Gender blind and religion blind then.

Go read it.

Cry for Justice #2: not sexist at all, actually

Wow, WFA already has 4 posts about this issue up. May as well add to the debate then.
View the page in question here.

I don't see how Hal having a 3some with Zinda and Helena is sexist. They're adults, it's pretty well established that Hal hits on women a lot and I don't think it's too out of character for Helena or Zinda to have a one night stand. *Maybe* that's because I don't think one night stands are bad or morally wrong, unlike most everyone else I know. Having sex, not a bad thing ok? Anyway, from what I've read of both Zinda and Helena, they both seem like they like sex and booze. Having Helena have another one night stand does not make her a slut. While we're on it, The use of the word slut? Really derogatory and disrespectful.

I have a lot of issues with some comments in the CBR page that I linked to above. So lets go through them.

After storming out on a JLA meeting, Ollie thinks that Hal needs to confess a threeway? How does that make any sense?
How about because they're friends, they're used to ribbing each other and they've been waiting on the rooftop for a while so their anger has probably abated?

This throwaway line of dialogue adds nothing to the story, except making Hal seem like he uses alcohol to get laid.
Yes, he probably does. What's your point?

It also paints Blackhawk and Huntress in a very negative light; they never had serious romantic relations with anyone during a lengthy run of a team comic, but a bottle of grappa gets them naked together?
You'll only think that's portraying them in a negative light if you think casual sex is bad. Consenting adults + sex generally equals fun. And yes I do think you can consent whilst drunk. I don't like the commenter's insinuation that the women have to be duped, tricked or made drunk. For all they know it could have been Zinda or Helena's idea. But oh look, that would give the women some sort of agency over their sex lives wouldn't it? I get the impression the commenter doesn't think they would ever willingly have casual sex. I disagree.
Vehemently.

They go from being professional teammates and friends to some fantasy groupies.
Erm, no. Having a one night stand with Hal and each other does not stop them being professional teammates. People sleep with folks they work with all the time, it doesn't stop them doing their job. I also don't see how sleeping with Hal makes them groupies - that term intimates that the night was all about Hal. I betcha both Zinda and Helena enjoyed the shag too. And a 3some doesn't mean they got down with each other either. Even if they did, so what?

With one line you did a good job at tearing down years of progressive writing by Simone.
By giving the characters a sex life? Get stuffed.

I think if Huntress was congratulating Black Canary on a threeway with Green Lantern and Green Arrow, fanboys would be up in arms.
They probably would be. But that doesn't mean that it's a bad thing that Hal had a 3some with Z and H. And of course Ollie congratulated him on it, he had a fun night! I congratulate my friends too if they have a fun night, that doesn't mean the other participants are being disrespected.

Gail Simone's comments:
I hate to see Huntress get branded as a slut again.
Who's branding her a slut? No one in the story is. If the readers then decide she's a slut, that's their issues.

Once again, this is all about the man
Only because it's a conversation between 2 men, talking about their experiences.

I really feel like most writers of mainstream comics get the sex thing all wrong over and over. It’s all wink wink nudge nudge and women as trophies and thumbs up
I really didn't feel that it read as women as trophies.

But it does feel weird that people can read bop and still come away with the impression that THAT Huntress and THAT Lady Blackhawk would get drunk and be someone’s sad Penthouse fantasy.
Now that's fair enough. That's an is out of character type comment. Well, Gail Simone wrote BoP, she'll know the characters, I haven't read all of BoP and I don't know the characters. But, in my knowledge of them, I can definitely see them both getting drunk and laid. I'd be surprised if Zinda and Helena actually shagged each other, given that Zinda's from the 40s and Helena hasn't revealed any lady loving tendencies, so far as I know. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't shag Hal.

So yeah, I liked this issue a lot, far better than #1. It's a bit of a shame that Kara's costume isn't longer in the torso area, but then again they changed her cape several times in Superman: WONK too. The rest of the issue was great.

I'm really surprised no one has commented yet on the text bit at the end of the issue - the bit about the Atom, and Jean Loring. If anything was gonna get called out for sexism that would be it, I'd have thought. Man, the writer, (Is it Robinson?) really hates Jean Loring doesn't he?

Man, looking back on those stories now, she [Loring] is a major pill. Yeah that's one thing me and Ray have in common. I was even married to a girl like that for a couple of weeks. (Boy was I relieved to learn that marriages in Bolivia aren't legal in the US.)
Dismissive. Rude. Playing for laughs. No idea if the marriage story is true or not, if it is, it's a rather ugly thing to say in your public place of work. If not, it seems an odd thing to put in.

After having to put up with what I was sure was a marriage of headaches for Ray (except in the bedroom, where I'm sure it was Jean who had the headaches)
So not only is she not a nice friendly compliant wife, she also won't put out? Oh noes, poor Ray, how will he cope. Hey guess what. Sex - not a right. Not happy with how much you're getting? Have a wank.

And then Jean returns to his life an even bigger nutjob than we realized, and kills poor Sue Dibny.
That's just a sentence filled with bile. We know that Loring wasn't all there, she had quite clearly gone to the dark side, but why all the hate?

I think it's pretty clear that the writer of the text piece doesn't like Jean Loring. I'm not suggesting that the writer hates all women. I do think the above pieces of text uses sexist and demeaning language.

Sexuality, a celebration of

I'll try and keep this as up to date as possible but it may be that my 'Blogs I Follow list' contains more links.

If you're not happy with the description attached to your blog please leave me a comment and I'll change it.

If you want a description and you haven't got one, that's because I'm not sure how to sum up your blog. Give me a suggestion and I'll add it!

Bitchy Jones's Diary- Dominatrix
Butch Girlcat - Knee deep in gender trouble
The Femme Fairy Godmother -

Christmas time and catching up.

Topics discussed:
Christmas busy-ness, shoe throwing in Iraq, homophobia from the Pope, blog awards.

There has been so much I’ve wanted to post over the last few weeks, but due to Christmas and an extremely manic period at work I haven’t felt the inclination to write or post anything, and I haven’t had the time.

In personal news, work has now calmed down, at least for a short period, but I fully expect it to remain stressful until the end of January, at a minimum. I feel like I have to learn how to manage my superiors, which I feel uncomfortable doing, because I think they should know better. But it looks like I’ll have to get over that.

I spent a weekend visiting the family and friends 2 weeks before Christmas. 5 destinations in 5 days, all around Kent – between 1 and 4 hours travelling each day. I guess that may not seem a lot to my American readers, but it’s a long time to spend on a train or in a car for me! It was fun seeing friends and family so overall worth it.

In public news, I’ve had my ear and eyes bent by various incidents over the last month. Number 1, the shoe throwing episode in Iraq. Now I know on a mature level that stooping to violence is a bad thing. But on a personally aggrieved level I am supportive of the shoe thrower. I become more supportive when I heard Bush’s response of the facts being that the shoe was a size 10 (or whatever) when the newsreader then pointed out that throwing shoes in Iraq is a big deal – it’s a culturally recognised form of disapproval and dissidence. And for Bush to respond as he did shows a complete lack of understanding of Iraqi society and norms. In context, i.e. that America invaded Iraq under Bush’s say so, it appears that he just doesn’t care one jot about the country. Even in the middle of a speech stating what America’s future in Iraq will be.
I was also pissed off by the TV’s account of this. I really wish I could remember what channel I was watching, it would have been BBC1, 2 or channel 4. Anyway, they finished the article by talking about how under Saddam Hussein no one would have been able to throw a shoe. Well, yes, that might be true, but the implication of the article was that the Iraqis should now be grateful for their new found freedom (supplied by Westerners) and we should focus only on this capability, rather than what they are angry about. I could argue that this conveniently sidesteps the shoe throwers complaints and allows the Westerners to feel smug about liberating a dictatorial country. (Maybe I already have?) I wish I knew which channel it was so I could find a link to the article, so that you can all know I’m not making it up. Or at least, so that you could view it and decide for yourselves.

I heard bits about the hoo-ha from the Pope recently, where he says that homosexuality will be as much of a disaster as the destruction of the rainforests. Yes well, whatever (face). The first news article (on BBC Radio 4 no less), said gay rights groups were angry because of the Pope’s declaration on gender roles. Well, that’s awfully funny, thought I, because homosexuality/bisexuality has fuck all to do with gender. I know that gender issues cross over with gay/bi issues, but they do not define it.

Sexuality is to do with who you crush on. No more no less. Gender is to do with femininity, masculinity, identification with male and female roles and all those in between. I recognise that historically (and in the present) many gay men and women (fuck knows about the bi contingent) have blurred and mixed up the gender roles, but that is not an inevitable part or being outside the heterosexual mainstream. The two issues are separate, but can conflate.
After having listened to two more news broadcasts and reading stuff online I gather that it may have been the news broadcaster confusing the two areas, rather than the gay rights groups.

Lastly, Chris at ComicsAllTooReal gave me an award a few weeks ago! :D I would like to formally say thank you to Chris, I was very touched by it and pleased to hear that you value my ramblings. J
Now, this award is sort of a meme, and I’m meant to nominate my favourite 7 blogs as well and publicise them here, so that we can expand the reading pool and awareness of the blogosphere.

Eeeek! Who do I choose? Who indeed. As you can see from my link list and also the blogs I follow section I read a lot of stuff on the web. The internet forms of a large part of my weekday evening social life and I thoroughly enjoy the social interactions formulated within. Where else can I gleefully exclaim (with appreciative peers) about my comics and the recent events contained within etc?

But what criteria would I choose to nominate just 7 blogs? Initially I thought I’d focus on the ones providing social commentary. So I came up with Willow at Seeking Avalon, for her scathing dissections of race in popular culture, comics, movies, and well anything really. Also check out her post on why feminism isn’t for her. I also thought of maybe Ami Angelwings super cute rants of doom. Ami talks about lots of personal and public issues, often around - racism, transphobia, sexism and homophobia. I know some people don’t like her writing style, lots of internet speak, but if that bothers you I would urge you to get past that and focus on what she’s saying as she’s very bright and eloquent and honest. I value honesty. Oh and Digital Femme. Amongst other things she covers comics and racism. She's a very good writer.

Maybe I should be focusing on blogs that are updated regularly? The above two aren’t updated uber regularly. So lets look at others. Do I want comic based bogs? Or fun blogs? Or innovative ones? Or specialist ones?
For comic based blogs I recommend Green Lantern’s Butts Forever (75% due to the name and the devotion to the cause of locating a good GL ass), Hoosier Journal of Inanity (because it’s a fun light hearted read), Comics Fairplay (because of the Is this Gratutitous? feature, which admittedly hasn’t run in a long time but was very much welcomed and generated interesting debate when Heidi did run it), Supergirl Comic Box Commentary (because it’s a nice clean layout, what posts I have seen look good, and it’s a Supergirl blog. There cannot be too many of these. Ever). Lastly I’d like to mention When Fangirls Attack – not a typical commentary style blog, but a link blog. I’m not sure if this counts, as the contributor’s own views aren’t included, but it’s a wonderful and reasonably detailed resource to all posts concerning women and comics on the web.

I’ve recently found this DC Elseworlds fan videos blog . The costumes are pretty cool and I love the fact that people dedicate all this time and effort into producing this stuff.* Yes, it’s cheesy and clichéd in places, but the acting, direction and effects are no worse than say, oh I don’t know Smallville. It’s essentially cosplay on a larger scale and I feel that should always be encouraged.

For feminism, I recommend The F Word blog (for being the probable number one catch all daily resource for issues affecting women in Britain, and for stimulating good arguments in the discussions), and also Feminist SF – the blog! (does what it says on the tin).

For innovation I think ComicsAllTooReal Chris’ own blog deserves a mention, because it’s quite clearly a project utilising blog technology to get it’s voice and aims out there. I haven’t seen anything like it elsewhere.

For specialist stuff one of my friend’s has a progress blog about his model soldiers and imperial armies. I don’t understand most of it, but I appreciate his enthusiasm, and I think some of my readers may also appreciate it. Plus Drax plays a mean game of Scrabble. And Carcassonne. Kicking my ass every time.

For fanfiction Like Scratches in the Sand writes some beautiful one sentence fanfics.

So that’s 14 of gthe very best. I knew I couldn’t pick just seven. (Sorry Chris I broke the rules!) If you want more recommendations look at my linked blogs and the blogs I follow, on my profile page. I think they’re all worth taking a peek at, otherwise I wouldn’t have linked them.
Hell, if you want more recommendations, read other bloggers linked sites, follow the comments bakc to bloggers own sites, mooch around. In my experience active commenters equal (fairly) regular bloggers.


*If you like the idea of that you should also check out Gotham Public Works. Fucking wonderful.

More homophobia from the church

Quelle surprise.
The vatican wants to use psychological testing to weed out gay priests. From the news story on the internet (emphasis mine):
"Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, prefect of the Catholic Education Congregation, said that a celibate candidate with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" should be barred "not because he commits a sin, but because homosexuality is a deviation, an irregularity, a wound" that would prevent him from fulfilling his duties.
The guidelines, approved by Pope Benedict XVI, are designed to prevent the sort of sex scandals involving paedophile priests"

GAY DOES NOT EQUAL PAEDOPHILE. HETEROSEXUALS AND BISEXUALS CAN BE PAEDOPHILES TOO.

Deep seated homosexual tendencies? Are there shallow tendencies? I guess this comes from the same line of thinking that insists that gayness can be cured.
For cured, read repressed, quashed, tricked and led into a lifetime of unhappiness and dishonesty.
Also, homosexuality isn't a deviation, an irregularity or a wound. It's normal, it's not a sin, it's not morally wrong, it's just a way of being.
Where do the bisexuals come into this? Yet again, we're ignored. We can pass as straight if we want, so I guess that's OK huh? Or is it that bisexuals don't have 'deep seated' homosexual tendencies? Guess I'm back to being invisible, again.

To be fair to the newspaper, the online article does state that:
"The decree appears to ignore the consensus among sex abuse experts that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals."
This is a damn site more than I expected from the Daily Torygraph and is in stark contrast to the physical newspaper version of the story which reads as follows:

"Trainee priests suspected of being homosexual should be weeded out by psychologists and banned from joining the catholic church, the vatican has said.
Homosexuality was a "deviation" that must be rooted out in would-be-clergy early on in order to prevent "tragedies", it decreed in the new guidelines.
The guidelines are designed to prevent the sort of sex scandals involving paedophile priests that have rocked the catholic church in recent years."

I refuse to give vatican, catholic or church capital letters. They don't deserve the distinction. The problems with the dead tree version of this story:

• The use of psychologists implies that homosexuality is a mental illness. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
• The description of homosexuality as a deviation.
• The implication that only gay people cause tragedies or are paedophiles
  
• The lack of a rebuttal to the above implication, as included in the online version. By not including the rebuttal it infers (implies?) that the church's views are correct, and that gay people are indeed the only ones who rape children. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Abuse is not about sex, it's not about hitting on someone you crush on, it's about power. It's the same whether the victim is adult or child, male or female.

I can see why deviation is in quotation marks, as the assertion that being gay is a deviation is incorrect, but why is tragedies in quotation marks?

Why isn't the church concentrating on weeding out paedophiles? Or unstable aggressive morally corrupt individuals who are potential attackers? Why aren't they seeking to help the victims more? Or even listen to the victims?

Fuckers. Ignorant, homophobic, hate filled morally bankrupt fuckers.

Buffy and (a distinct lack of) sex

OK I'm not quite sure how this is going to turn out, it's been meandering around my head for quite a while now but I'm not sure how much sense I'm going to be able to make. The title of this post isn't a very good description of what I think I'm going to write about so please bear with me here. I still can't quite believe I'm putting out opinions on the internets, I keep waiting for people to tell me I've gotta get off cos I'm talking crap. *ahem* Enough of my fragile self esteem. Back to the case in point.

Buffy. Buffy and her cohorts attitudes to sex. Now I adore the show, always have done since I first saw the film, made back in, what, 1992? I think the show has a lot going for it in terms of feminism and it's portrayal of women and it becomes my comfort viewing when I'm low or just plain bored. I adore the fights, the monsters, the plots, Giles Britishness and need for jaffa cakes, Drusilla's wacky madness and accent, the wonderful Anya, the strength of Tara, the gay total fanboyishness of Andrew, Willow's naivete, Faith's kickassness, Spike's hotness and Buffy's reliability to do the right thing, make the hard choices and be a hero. Have I missed anyone out? I loath Angel, I think Riley's an utter drip and Dawn's was one of the most annoying and overly melodramatic characters I have ever seen. Xander is currently annoying me as in season 3 he's still being a teenage sleaze. Cordelia is still rather one dimensional although I know this changes mostly when she moves to LA in Angel. And the slayerettes. Awesome. The last episode was breathtaking for me.

So far as I can remember Buffy was the first action show with a female lead. This counts for a lot. It first aired in the UK in what, 1996? If I think back to my regular cult viewing then and I'm coming up with Red Dwarf and the X-Files. There must have been other sci-fi/fantasy stuff around then, but as I can't remember show titles they obviously didn't make a big impression on me. Red Dwarf was all male and the X-Files, whilst having a female lead as important as the male lead, wasn't action orientated. I like me some action films. I like explosions and I like fire and I like ninja kicks to the head and I like big narratives about good vs evil. Aliens had a female lead. I think Sigourney Weaver/Ripley was one of my first female crushes. I totally fell in love with her upon seeing Aliens 3 - shaved head, tough, action lead. I can't think of any other action films from then (that I saw) that had women as more than a supporting character - as more than a love interest. Even if they were scientists they were relegated to being a love interest and giving the male lead a reason to keep fighting. Bleurgh.

Then in 1996 Buffy came along. Vampires? Check. Women in the lead? Check. A hot cast? Check. (I was 16 and a bag of hormones). Great - this was new and exciting. Actually looking back on it now I'd say that Giles was framed as being as big a lead role as Buffy was. If you watch the opening credits for the first 3 (2? 4?) seasons the last shot of the Scooby gang leaving the library (or wherever) has Giles leading the group. Later on as Buffy grows more into her role and matures she leads the gang.

But anyway, it was all pretty cool. And yes I love it, even the bad episodes. However I still think there's a need to pull it apart and examine what's wrong with it. I've previously written (here) about the Innocence storyline and the somewhat warped morality tale it offers. I want now to talk about other ways that the show deals with sex. In my mind, it takes a rather a conservative approach.

Bearing in mind that I'm currently on season 3 and Faith turned up a few episodes ago. The first time we see Faith is in Faith, Hope and Trick. She is dancing in the Bronze with a vampire (we discover later) and Cordelia comments:
"Check out Slut-O-Rama and her Disco Dave"*
Nice Cordy, real nice.
I hate sexual swear words. They generally are used only for women and they imply two things, one, that our worth as human beings is measured by the activity between our legs, and two, that it is a bad thing for women to have sex, or think about sex, or look like we're going to have sex, or god forbid, to enjoy sex.

Earlier on in the episode Buffy, Cordelia, Xander, Willow and Oz are sitting outside school grounds having a picnic. A possible new boyfriend for Buffy is spotted, this is the dialogue that follows:
Xander: Oh, you wanna date. I saw that half-smile, you little slut. (chuckles)
Buffy punches him on the arm, and none too lightly.
Xander: (smiles and chuckles) Ow. (winces and holds his arm)

Yep Xander it's not nice to call someone a slut. Or imply that by smiling at a bloke it means she's easy. Because being easy is baaaad. Whatever. Come to think of it, easy implies a certain passivity from the woman, another outdated stereotype. Outdated because it puts all agency into the hands of men and denies women their sexuality.

Anyway, diversion aside, there are loads of example of this type of language used throughout the show:
During Homecoming when Cordelia and Buffy are fighting about the Prom Queen title:
Cordelia: (to Buffy) You crazy freak!
Buffy: Vapid whore!
Xander: ...like that!
He pulls Cordelia away from Buffy.
Cordelia: (incensed) What did you call me?!

During Halloween:
Buffy: It's come as you aren't night. The perfect chance for a girl to get sexy and wild with no repercussions.

OK. So we get subtle hints throughout the show's history that women liking sex is a bad thing. Faith turns up, is first spotted dancing with a vampire in the Bronze, I think we can assume she knows he's a vampire, and then goes outside to stake him, much to the surprise of Buffy. She later relates tales of naked mud wrestling with alligators (crocodiles?). This is about as far removed from Buffy as we are ever likely to get. I very much doubt Buffy sleeps in the nude and she wouldn't be so unashamed or confident in herself to talk about naked wrasslin' to people she's just met. I think Buffy and Faith are put forward as the virgin/whore dichotomy (is that the right word?).

Faith openly states, many many times, that she uses guys for sex. She has no problem with this and she continues to act as such until season 7 where she hooks up with the new principle. Buffy sleeps with 4 people throughout the TV show, 3 of which she's in a long term relationship with. (Yes, I count Spike as long term relationship). The 4th guy she sleeps with is someone she meets at Uni who then treats her like dirt the next day. Faith by contrast sleeps with who she wants, when she wants and doesn't suffer any repercussions.

Buffy is set up as the hero, the highly moral one with ultimate responsibility for the world. Faith is always a second stringer to Buffy, but she's also seen as the impure, dirty one. Neither Buffy nor any of Buffy's friends or other acquaintances sleep around**. Odd really, considering that they're teenagers and most teenagers I knew where at least having short flings when I was young. Even Spike doesn't sleep around, he's faithful first to Drusilla then to Buffy. Yet the only irredeemably evil character, who murders a human even though she has a soul and should know better is also the only portrayed as a slut-o-rama. I think that's grossly unfair.

Maybe this wasn't an intentional link made by the writers. Maybe I'm being paranoid and it's all in my head. Quite probably I'm not exploring or explaining this very well. I've been here for quite a long time now. I still don't like it.

I think there are other odd attitudes to sex and sexual relations too. Take Go Fish. One of the sports guys tries to assault Buffy in his car. She slams his head into the steering wheel and looks utterly affronted. Too damn right! She knows he's wrong and she won't stand for it. Later on, in the nurse's office the conversation is as follows:

Buffy: I wasn't the attacker, Principal Snyder. I was the attacked.
Snyder: That's not how it looked from where I was standing.
Cameron: I don't know what happened. I mean, first she leads me on, then she goes schizo on me.
Buffy: (steps over to him) Lead you on? When did I lead you on?
Cameron: Oh, come on. (to Snyder) I mean, look at the way she dresses.

When Buffy steps over to him she looks incredibly indignant, angry and like she's about to fry him with her laser eyes (if she had laser eyes). She looks strong and totally sure of her position. After Cameron's last comment she looks down at herself and appears wilted. She's doubting herself, she thinks it's her fault. And she continues to doubt herself and this isn't dealt with at any point later in the episode. Nowhere is it made clear that you cannot lead someone on by wearing clothes, by simply having a female body. You can't even argue that he gets him comeuppance because the swim team as fish creatures aren't destroyed, or evil or trapped. They swim out to sea to be free.

Buffy's moment of self doubt only takes a couple of seconds but it's so important. Especially because Buffy is emotionally fragile anyway and this only contributes to her inner feelings of turmoil, finely honed and hardened through another 4 seasons.
It's really frustrating and could Cameron's accusation could have been dealt with very differently. Buffy only had to glare at him, it would fit in better with the picture we had of her earlier where she broke his nose.

Are there other interpretations to this sequence? Am I too sensitive? I'm not calling this scene misogynistic or sexist because I think it adds to Buffy's character and is used to build her inner turmoil, but, there are other ways this could have been done that didn't involve sexual violence. It's not fair on Buffy, it's not fair on us as viewers and it muddies the waters of an otherwise sure of herself kick ass action heroine you want to become.

I'm perfectly happy to have people tell me I'm talking rubbish, just so long as it's done politely and your reasoning is explained. I like having my views challenged.

*Note: All script transcripts taken from http://www.buffy-vs-angel.com/guide.shtml. Some may be slightly wrong.
**Note number 2: I know Buffy finally gets a one night stand in the comics (season 8). Good for her. But that's too little, too late.

Hands, porn, lesbians, libraries, voodoo and lip reading

So, I finished reading Young Justice. As people may have noticed I think it's rather good. But there's always a but, right? Take Empress - cool costume, cool power, cool character background etc etc. I feel that making the sole black chick's power a voodoo one is, how shall we say it, racial stereotyping? And then on top of that she gets naked to cast a spell? Jesus. I call that racist. Probably not racist through maliciousness, more racist through lack of imagination and thought, but still racist.

My other problem with the run is the deaf girl Arrowette makes friends with on the way to the games. I'm fully supportive of including more (any?) deaf people in comics and literature but i think it should be handled well. It should not be inferred that deaf people are experts on lip reading. Only about 30% of all words are formed on the lips, the rest are formed with the tongue and throat. So, it's impossible to lip read 100% of all speech. It really would be nice to see communication issues reflected accurately.

Given Peter David's inclusion of a couple of deaf characters in Supergirl and Young Justice
I wonder if he suddenly came in contact with deaf people at some point, maybe a member of his family or a friend went deaf suddenly? It reminds me of Judd Winick bringing in HIV positive characters. Which again I fully support. Comics can provide a good forum to educate people about illnesses/disability/social issues so bring it on. Just do it right. Please? Do your research first.

(And on another note, I really hate Cassandra Cain's ability to read body movement like a language - it doesn't make sense! People growing up without speech and without hearing don't communicate as she did. It's a stupid plot device.)

On to Buffy issue 12. So she slept with Satsu. Big deal. This doesn't make her gay, or even bi. This simply means she slept with a chick. Some of the blogs I've read that have looked appear to be getting hung up on whether this makes Buffy gay or bi. I say, does it matter? It's just sex. And I don't think you can draw parallels between Buffy's previous unconventional relationships and sleeping with a girl. So Angel and Spike were dead vampires. They're still hot male dead vampires. That's quite different from women. I'm quite offended that some people think women and dead male vampires have something in common.
I should add that fro Buffy to be gay or bi she'd have to actually crush on women. I doubt she has a proper hard on for Satsu, I think she needed comfort and closeness and orgasms. You don't have to fancy someone to sleep with them.
And the rest of the comic? Awesome. This series is getting better and better each issue. But Willow flying really pisses me off for some reason. I'm picky and don't think anyone in the Buffyverse should be able to fly. It just doesn't seem to fit.

And I also just read the whole Genshiken series. I liked. One of the more notable parts of it was the abundance of porn for women they' showed. And showed it as part of everyday life for the characters, it wasn't anything to be ashamed of. It was read the same way the men read their porn, it was discussed openly, and recommended to friends and it was normalised.

By extensions this normalises female sexuality and realises women do have sex drives and desires and fantasies. Compare that to Western attitudes towards porn and women and I see that Genshiken deals with this in an incredibly mature and praiseworthy way. It's a relief to see women reading and buying porn without shame, without being subject to ridicule or name calling. Bring it on.

Superman 674
Their new house. Want want want! Check out that library space. *drools*

Serenity 1
Hurrah for the explosions and the guns! Boo in a big way for the cover. That's an Adam Hughes cover? What, did he draw it blindfolded? Look at the hands! And Mal's neck, and Zoe's very very forced grin - she looks like somethings pinning her cheeks back.