Daily Archive

0

Radical Christians Pick Fight Over Cookies

Radical Homosexuals Pick Fight Over Cookies?

Dear Elaine,

Heather Browning just wanted cookies.  No big deal right?

She asked “Just Cookies” of Indianapolis to bake them for a special event.

But she was refused service.

You see, upon learning that Heather’s order was for gay pride “rainbow” frosted cookies destined to be party favors at the Radical Homosexual “National Coming Out Day” event planned the next week at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis just Cookies decided that they could not, in good conscience take the order.

You see, the owners of Just Cookies, David Stockton and his wife Lily support traditional family values and they stand by their moral beliefs.

Mr. Stockton told Heather he wasn’t willing to set a bad example for his daughters by supporting this event.

So instead of looking for a different vendor, Heather Browning is instead seeking to shut them down by having the city revoke their lease for discrimination.

In reality, David and Lily Stockton simply didn’t want to participate in the indoctrination of our youth into homosexual ideology.

There are likely plenty of shops willing to bake her homosexual cookies, and some may even donate them.

But as always, the Homosexual Lobby is viewing this as an opportunity to force their beliefs on others.

The mayor’s deputy chief of staff, Robert Vane came out with a statement professing, “The mayor was certainly dismayed and wants to make it clear that a person’s values, morality and personal beliefs are absolutely not relevant to making a purchase at the City Market.”

But isn’t that the entire point?  The owners of Just Cookies are the ones being discriminated against for their “values, morality and personal beliefs.”

Requiring businesses and individuals to perform work they personally believe is immoral flies in the face of our Constitutional rights.

But in the New America envisioned by the Radical Homosexuals, churches, private organizations, and restaurants will be required to participate in activities they believe to be wrong, or face the Radical Homosexuals retribution.

We need to stop the Radical Homosexuals from forcing their lifestyle on unwilling recipients.

Please consider supporting Just Cookies and order traditional value cookies from them at (317) 634-4456.

And call the mayor of Indianapolis, Greg Ballard at (317) 327-3601 and tell him to stop trying to force homosexual cookies upon private businesses.

For the Family,

Eugene Delgaudio
President
Public Advocate of the U.S.

Popularity: 10% [?]

0

Mae West’s Bawdy Spirit Spans the Gay 90′s

Mae West’s Bawdy Spirit Spans the Gay 90′s

By MOLLY HASKELL

ae West, the blond, diamond-studded, wisecracking, sashaying vamp from Brooklyn who lit up the stage in the 1920′s and the screen in the 30′s with a special brand of gender-bending sexuality, still defies categories and refuses to be conscripted into any one ideological army. The salty double-entendres, delivered with the drawling voice and rolling hips, have been recycled by a thousand female impersonators, but she was already there. As early as 1934 she was being called (by a writer in Vanity Fair) “the greatest female impersonator of all time.”

A WAY WITH WORDS
As writer of her own material, Mae West was as celebrated for her lines as her curves. “Come up and see me sometime” and “Beulah, peel me a grape” even made Bartlett’s “Familiar Quotations.” But as she herself said, “It isn’t what I do, but how I do it. It isn’t what I say, but how I say it, and how I look when I do it and say it.” In fact, her delivery could turn such otherwise innocuous lines as “I wouldn’t lift my veil for that guy” and “I wouldn’t let him touch me with a 10-foot pole” into censorable material. Here are some others.

“A man has more character in his face at 40 than at 20 — he has suffered longer.”

“When a woman goes wrong, men go right after her.”

“I like a man who’s good, but not too good. For the good die young, and I hate a dead one.”

“Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?”

“When I’m good I’m very good, but when I’m bad, I’m better.”

“Men like women with a past — because they hope history will repeat itself.”

“It’s not the men in my life that count — it’s the life in my men.”

“It’s better to be looked over than to be overlooked.”

“I was in a tight spot, but I managed to wriggle out of it.”

“Marriage is a great institution — but I’m not ready for an institution.”

“Give a man a free hand, and he’ll try to put it all over you.”

“Between two evils I always pick the one I haven’t tried before.”

Hatcheck girl: “Goodness, what lovely diamonds.” Mae West: “Goodness had nothing to do with it, dearie.”

“I wrote the story myself. It’s all about a girl who lost her reputation and never missed it.”

Her heart, soul, figure and wardrobe belong to the Gay (18)90′s, the decade in which she was born and which serves as the backdrop for many of her films; but in her roving eye and assertive sexuality she looks forward to the androgynous role-playing of a later era. Born 100 years ago this week, on Aug. 17, 1893, she might be said to span two decades and two Zeitgeists a century apart: the Gay 90′s (hers) and the gay 90′s (ours). In honor of the centennial of her birth (she died in 1980), MCA/Universal is releasing nine of her best-known films on cassette, seven for the first time.

The late Parker Tyler, that pioneering and peerlessly witty chronicler of cinema’s sexual — and homosexual — subtexts, claimed her as the Mother Superior of Drag Queens. Yet there is something straight, sweet and womanly — even innocent — about West that escapes camp. Feminists have found her both liberating and awkward: Her frank obsession with men as both lust objects and figures of identification have made her dubious as a “sister,” but she’s talking only to us when she says life is a man’s game and “I just happen to be smart enough to play it their way.” Moreover, as the writer and producer of her Broadway shows, and the screenwriter of her films, she was a powerhouse who in 1934 knocked off the highest salary of any Hollywood star. And in blurring the lines between the biological and the culturally constructed woman, she stretches the ways in which we think about and define femininity and what it means to be a woman. As a self-parodying sex symbol, she’s not a real siren, a turn-on, but she can brag about liking sex in a way that a more conventionally desirable woman couldn’t. As such, she offers a fantasy, an imaginative projection of what a more sexually active and less romantically enslaved woman might be.

A transgressive, protean figure who both exposes and resolves the power struggle between male and female, she became a flashpoint for the moralists and guardians of public decency and is most famous now for having provoked the outrage that led to the enforcement of the Production Code, the censorship rules that governed Hollywood movie making until the 60′s. Was it the words in her 1933 films “She Done Him Wrong” and “I’m No Angel,” or was it the fact that a woman was saying them, a woman who made bad seem good and refused to honor the dichotomy between virgin and whore.

“When I’m good I’m good . . . but when I’m bad, I’m better.”

“It’s not the men in your life . . . it’s the life in your men.”

Suitor: “If only I could trust you.”

West: “You can . . . hundreds have.”

She’s a master of the triple dots. The wisecracks have a life of their own, as does the West persona. Unlike other stars, whom we think of in the context of specific films, her image, complete with body language and voice, lifts buoyantly out of celluloid into space like the inflatable life preserver that was named after her in World War II. She’s a pneumatic floozy presiding over an army of panting camp followers, a Catherine the Great from Brooklyn, a Salome who adds on the layers instead of shedding them, a Cleopatra whose infinite variety is debatable.

For years she tried to promote a film about Catherine the Great, in which she would offer a warmer and more sensual alternative to what she described as Dietrich’s “hollow-cheeked doll.” Although West finally succeeded in launching an unfunny Broadway play on the subject of the czarina, for most of her career she was in fact playing a bawdy, carnivalesque version of Catherine, surrounded by an “honor guard” of admirers. See her, as the lion-tamer in “I’m No Angel,” entering atop an elephant, wearing a white spangled jumpsuit. Looking at her now, we can’t but applaud this middle-aged woman (she was 40 when she made her first film), undisguisedly rotund, flaunting an unliposuctioned, unsiliconed body and demanding her sexual privileges!

With unshakable confidence, she seems to have hungered for the spotlight from infancy, and when she got a chance to make her song-and-dance debut at the age of 7, she took it and never stopped showing off. She was the child of immigrants — a Bavarian mother (a “corset and fashion model,” she tells us in her 1959 autobiography, “Goodness Had Nothing to Do With It”) and a pugilist Irish-English father who gave up boxing to become, successively, a livery stable owner and private detective. From him she may have inherited an extra dollop of testosterone; at any rate, she found herself in the legal ring more than once. The first show she wrote, “Sex” (which couldn’t be advertised in any New York newspaper because of the title), ran 375 performances before its author was arrested by the police, after pressure from the Society for the Suppression of Vice, and thrown into a cell (albeit a private, “‘celebrity” cell) on Welfare Island for eight days.

Corsets and boxing gloves; vaudeville and female impersonators; plump chorus girls and black dancers and singers. She drew on them all and brought her invented self to its apotheosis as Diamond Lil in the show of the same name, which was a Broadway hit, then a movie (her second) called “She Done Him Wrong.”

As the beauteous Lil, whose nude portrait presides over the Gay 90′s saloon in the Bowery that is the film’s setting, she makes the longest-delayed and most carefully anticipated entrance since Tartuffe, with every man in the bar testifying to her irresistibility before she arrives. Only Joan Crawford got away with such outrageously fawning, ego-feeding star buildups. In fact, entrances were what Mae West did best, and there are at least four in every film, each one, in a different and more lavish costume, outdazzling the one before. The fiction that a middle-aged woman is driving men wild is all in the intonation . . . and the imagination. When she enters, it’s less as a real woman than a sexual landscape unfurling before our eyes, her hills and valleys set off by jewels and furs, feathers and diamonds; a large bow below the waist, concentric circles above, marking critical parts of her anatomy the way trees and shrubbery delineate the contours of the earth.

Her singing is nothing much, a cut-rate Sophie Tucker, but her real music is in her movement, part swagger, part slither, part come hither. In “I’m No Angel,” she virtually lists across the room into the arms of a dancing man and would-be lover. As a so-called sex goddess, West makes it clear she isn’t the marrying kind, doesn’t need a protector, and that gives her freedom. She sizes up her prey like a military general — or a prizefighter — and says, as she does to Cary Grant in “She Done Him Wrong,” “You can be had.”

Grant, her delicious leading man in two films (his first lead roles), is here the head of a mission (we think) looking to save souls. In this role reversal of the Don Juan story, she’s the roue and he’s the tasty virgin who challenges her jaded appetites. In “I’m No Angel,” he plays a patrician lawyer to her carnival performer — “Tira, the million dollar beauty” — who’s angling to better herself, but not if it means compromising her heart. Preserving her Brooklyn accent (“It is kinda wearin’ on the noives,” she admits of her lion act), she is true to her outer-borough roots; but she is confident enough to become one of the swells when she gets Grant as a trophy husband.

Not only does West cross gender lines, but in the unusual collaboration with blacks that marks her career, she crosses racial ones as well. In the 1920′s she saw the shimmy in an all-”Negro” dive in Chicago and introduced it into her live show. Some of her rhythms and inflections probably came out of the black side of show business.

In “Belle of the 90′s” (1934), West stands on a balcony watching a black revival meeting, singing a blues song in counterpoint to their spiritual. In “I’m No Angel,” the film in which she utters the famous “Beulah, peel me a grape” line, there are three black maids who function as a Greek chorus, clucking and whooping with her about the ways of men, preparing her for her next sexual campaign. Her unique locution, lazy and mocking, matches theirs until we feel a bond of the powerless expressed in subversive speech patterns, the shuffling tempo and tone being a form of resistance to and rebellion against the ruling class — in this case men. Even in the end, as she embraces Grant, the cream of the jest has to be shared: “How’m I doin’, Beulah?”

As a heroine, she has more in common with the powerful women of black culture — matriarchal, anti-romantic — than the classically vulnerable white heroines who hold out for the best possible husband.

“I always did like a man with masculine supremacy,” she says to a suitor in “Belle of the 90′s” (pronouncing it ‘supreemacy’), but the trouble is, the supremacy is all hers, and it finally grows wearying. Leo McCarey directed this particular movie, and it is her most fluid, creating sympathy for other characters, showing her in a softer light; but that softness comes to seem incongruous. As the hoary plot unfolds, we are made doubly aware of the degree to which she insists on being smarter, tougher, handsomer than anyone around. Most of her movies, Victorian melodramas with mustachioed villains, are never far from tedium when she’s not onstage, and they grow more tedious and desperate as the 1930′s progress.

Like many of the more sophisticated performers of the decade — Garbo and Dietrich, Katharine Hepburn, even Astaire and Rogers — she eventually fell victim to changing tastes and the American public’s increased resistance to the highfalutin ironies of stars who came to be tagged as box-office poison.

The 30′s was a decade of romantic pairs, and after Grant (and Randolph Scott in “Go West, Young Man” in 1936), West never teamed up with anyone on her level. Her outing with W. C. Fields in “My Little Chickadee” in 1940 was a comic idea that went awry: The sardonic loser he plays is funnier and more sympathetic than her eternal winner, now grown monotonous. Jean Harlow, platinum blond, smart-talking and lovably sluttish, and thus the 30′s star who most resembled her, teamed up with the likes of Gable and Powell and proved herself against such stunning rivals as Mary Astor and Myrna Loy, while West, never one to share the stage with another female beauty, surrounded herself with increasingly numerous bevies of musclemen. With no rivals and no visual competition, male or female, with no plausibility on a realistic level, her films were too fragile as narrative conceits for the plainer appetites of the domestic audience.

In the 70′s, in what became a truly grotesque parody of a parody, she made “Myra Breckenridge” and “Sextette” at a time when she was much too old and her gay constituency had become more explicit and obtrusive. These unfortunate valedictory films, combined with her waning power in the 30′s, may explain why she’s more a figure of speech — in both senses of the word — than a beloved movie memory.

Molly Haskell is the author of “From Reverence to Rape: The Treatment of Women in the Movies.”

Popularity: 11% [?]

0

Laws Equate Sex to Love

What do banning sex toys, being fired for an off-hours affair, or losing custody of a child because of sexual orientation have in common?

They’re all the result of legal rulings, thanks in part to narrow interpretations of a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that eliminated criminal prohibitions against sodomy according to Laura Rosenbury, JD, professor of law, at Washington University in St. Louis.

In the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas, the high court ruled 6-3 that Texas’ criminal ban on sodomy between consenting adults was unconstitutional. The decision, which overturned similar laws in other states, was expected to broaden, not restrict, sexual rights.

The petitioners in Lawrence, two men who had been arrested for engaging in sodomy in a private home, were not in a committed, romantic relationship with each other. (It was a jealous partner who called police.) But since the ruling was handed down, scores of lower court cases have held that the case applies only to sexual activity involving emotional intimacy.

These subsequent rulings stem from Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s wording of the decision, according to Rosenbury, who co-authored “Sex In and Out of Intimacy,” published in July in the Emory Law Journal.

“Justice Kennedy actually overlooked the actual facts of the case and instead reasoned that consensual sexual activity should be constitutionally protected because it’s an important part of relationships,” Rosenbury says. “And the lower courts have used that language, not the facts of the case, to protect sex only when it’s in this relationship context.”

LONG HISTORY OF CORRALLING SEX, RELATIONSHIPS

States have long protected sexual activity only when it serves the states’ own interests, typically marriage and procreation. While Lawrence has reined in that effort in some cases, the ruling has reinforced the link between sex and relationships in others by suggesting the protection of sexual activity should occur only in long-lasting, intimate associations.

“States used to be much more coercive, punishing sex outside of marriage, and have gradually become less coercive but they still maintain this idea that sex is only valuable in relationships,” Rosenbury says. “We’re trying to highlight how such practices remain to this day, and to provide arguments for really letting go of the channeling of sex into marriage or other relationships that have the potential of long-term intimacy.”

States’ constant linking of sex and intimacy diminishes not only sex outside of relationships but also intimate relationships that are not sexual. Rosenbury’s article asks: Why shouldn’t states allow people to divide the rights and obligations currently attached to marriage among a variety of others: spouses, friends, siblings and sexual partners.

The sex-intimacy connection also reinforces gender stereotypes, assuming that that men achieve intimacy primarily through sex and that women desire intimacy over sex, according to Rosenbury.

“There have long been sexual double standards, and protecting sex only when it is in the service of intimacy does nothing to change those standards,” Rosenbury says. “Although Lawrence acknowledged that emotional intimacy need not involve women, it did nothing to disrupt the idea that sexual pleasure is a male domain.”

Rosenbury, whose research and teaching focuses on sex, family, work and other everyday issues, is committed to examining ways that the law influences seemingly private relationships and conduct. “Sex In and Out of Intimacy” is her most recent examination of that phenomenon.

Popularity: 18% [?]

0

Book Explores Two-Spirit Literature

Western culture’s grappling with homosexuality and alternate genders isn’t strictly limited to the United States, but is also prevalent in many Native American and native Alaskan groups — or native nations. That issue is the focus of work by one Kansas State University researcher.

Lisa Tatonetti, associate professor of English and American ethnic studies, received a fellowship to “Native Cultures of Western Alaska and the Pacific Northwest Coast,” a National Endowment for the Humanities’ summer institute. She used the opportunity to meet with various native groups to learn about their policies and cultures, including those on alternative sexualities and genders.

Her findings will contribute to her upcoming book, “Queering American Indian Literature: The Rise of Contemporary Two-Spirit Texts and Criticism.” It will be the first literary exploration into recorded Two-Spirit literature, mapping its inception in the early 1970s to its rise in present day and its criticism.

“Two-Spirit is a term coined in the ’90s that refers to people of native cultures who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender/transsexual or queer,” said Tatonetti, who is a foremost scholar in this field. “There’s been this explosion of Two-Spirit literature since the ’70s.”

A native nation refers to a collective body of Native American people who are citizens in an indigenous nation existing within the U.S. or Canada, Tatonetti said. In Alaska alone, more than 300 native cultures exist.

“Traditionally in native cultures, many native nations have alternate genders and different sexuality spaces,” she said.

But when Spanish and French missionaries and settlers first encountered these beliefs and practices in native cultures, they deemed them barbaric, often resulting in the practitioners’ deaths because they did not adhere to beliefs of Judeo-Christian origin. Consequently, this forced the Two-Spirit movement underground, Tatonetti said.

Although the summer institute wasn’t focused on Two-Spirit work, Tatonetti said it allowed her insight into the Yup’ik, Tlingit, Tsimshian, Haida and Kwakwaka’wakw nations, whose cultures differ greatly from those of native nations in the lower 48 states.

For her research she met with internationally known scholars and native artists every day for month.

“When I learned about a particular culture, I asked if their nation had these Two-Spirit traditions. It was amazing because everywhere I went these traditions existed,” Tatonetti said.

Even though a part of many cultures’ histories, she found that acceptance of Two-Spirit practices varied, and contemporary Two-Spirit people often faced the same tribulations as those with alternative sexuality and gender roles in the U.S.

“There are Two-Spirit societies all over the northwest area I visited and also throughout the U.S.,” Tatonetti said. “It’s funny, because while nations like the Navajo and Cherokee have multiple gender traditions, they also have passed their own defense of marriage acts.

“It’s been a back-and-forth in many nations for a long time. I think this literature is blossoming right now because of shifts in the larger conversations in academia and queer studies, and because of the changes in understanding happening in the U.S.,” Tatonetti said. “Historically these native nations are ahead of where American culture currently is in terms of their understanding of the complexity of gender and sex roles, but today they face similar debates and challenges.”

Tatonetti recently co-edited and contributed to “Sovereign Erotics: A Collection of Contemporary Two-Spirit Literature,” which is slated for release with the University of Arizona Press in spring 2011. Her work on Two-Spirit literature has appeared in various journals, edited collections and contemporary magazines.

Tatonetti began studying Two-Spirit literature soon after earning her doctorate from Ohio State University in 2001.

Popularity: 24% [?]

0

Web Access Improves Chances at Relationships

Adults who have Internet access at home are much more likely to be in romantic relationships than adults without Internet access, according to research to be presented at the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association.

“Although prior research on the social impacts of Internet use has been rather ambiguous about the social cost of time spent online, our research suggests that Internet access has an important role to play in helping Americans find mates,” said Michael J. Rosenfeld, an associate professor of sociology at Stanford University and the lead author of the study, “Meeting Online: The Rise of the Internet as a Social Intermediary.”

According to the study, 82.2 percent of participants who had Internet access at home also had a spouse or romantic partner, compared to a 62.8-percent partnership rate for adults who did not have Internet access. The paper uses data from Wave I of the How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST) survey, a nationally representative survey of 4,002 adults, of whom 3,009 had a spouse or romantic partner.

In addition to finding that people are more likely to be in romantic relationships if they have Internet access in their homes, Rosenfeld and study co-author Reuben J. Thomas, an assistant professor of sociology at the City University of New York, found that the Internet is the one social arena that is unambiguously gaining importance over time as a place where couples meet.

“With the meteoric rise of the Internet as a way couples have met in the past few years, and the concomitant recent decline in the central role of friends, it is possible that in the next several years the Internet could eclipse friends as the most influential way Americans meet their romantic partners, displacing friends out of the top position for the first time since the early 1940s,” Rosenfeld said.

The study also found that the Internet is especially important for finding potential partners in groups where the supply is small or difficult to identify such as in the gay, lesbian, and middle-aged heterosexual communities.

Among couples who met within two years of the HCMST Wave I survey in the winter of 2009, 61 percent of same-sex couples and 21.5 percent of heterosexual couples met online.

“Couples who meet online are much more likely to be same-sex couples, and somewhat more likely to be from different religious backgrounds,” Rosenfeld said. “The Internet is not simply a new and more efficient way to keep in touch with our existing networks; rather the Internet is a new kind of social intermediary that may reshape the kinds of partners and relationships we have.”

The paper, “Meeting Online: The Rise of the Internet as a Social Intermediary,” will be presented on Monday, Aug. 16, at 8:30 a.m. EST in the Atlanta Marriott Marquis at the American Sociological Association’s 105th Annual Meeting.

About the American Sociological Association
The American Sociological Association (www.asanet.org), founded in 1905, is a non-profit membership association dedicated to serving sociologists in their work, advancing sociology as a science and profession, and promoting the contributions to and use of sociology by society.

Popularity: 15% [?]